The Battle for Reproductive Choice

BPAS and the Wellcome Trust are sponsoring a series of debates at the London Battle of Ideas festival on Saturday 31 October.

The Battle for Reproductive Choice

Modern biomedical technology allows us unprecedented levels of control over reproduction. Pre-implantation genetic screening holds out the promise of healthy babies; contraception and abortion allow women to juggle career and family, while infertility treatment offers hope to couples let down by nature. Some though, worry that we should not be playing God or that there are already too many people in the world, and call for regulation. Can people be trusted to make the ‘right choices’? Should it be left to them and their clinicians, or is there a role for official bodies to help them make their choices?

This series of three debates will be held at the Royal College of Art, London, on Saturday 31 October. See here for more information and to book tickets.

Frankenstein’s Daughters: from science fiction to science fact?
10.30am until 12.00pm

Developments in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and screening (PGD and PGS) allow couples to avoid having children with life-threatening conditions, but they also imply the possibility that some specific forms of disability will be ‘screened out’, raising the prospect of a generation of ‘designer babies’. Many religious groups rail against scientists ‘playing God’. While some disability campaigners fear that the use of PGD and PGS will devalue people born with disabilities, disabled people could potentially use ARTs to select a child that shares their physical impairment: in one high-profile case a deaf couple challenged the assumption that an embryo likely to be deaf should be rejected. Current UK law means ‘normal’ embryos must always be preferred, but is this appropriate given that the state does not prevent two deaf people from becoming parents together ordinarily?

Where does science fact meet science fiction and how can we distinguish between the two outside of the lab? How far should the decisions of HFEA committees regulate individuals’ decision-making and clinicians’ practice? Should the media take a more measured approach to reporting on science and reproduction - or do journalists have a duty to inform us of the worst possible outcomes as well as the most probable? Does pre-implantation genetic screening imply an attack on disabled people? Can biomedical breakthroughs shape what it is to be human?

Speakers:

- Mark Henderson, science editor, The Times (London)
- Ken MacLeod, science fiction writer; writer in residence, ESRC Genomics Policy and Research Forum; author, The Night Sessions
- Sandy Starr, communications officer, Progress Educational Trust
- Dr Alan Thornhill, scientific director, The London Bridge Fertility, Gynaecology and Genetics Centre

Whose Right to Choose? Choice, ethics and regulation in 21st-century reproduction
1.30pm until 3.00pm

In the 20th century, women’s control over their fertility was revolutionised by the contraceptive pill and the growing availability of legal and safe abortion. In the 21st century, reproductive choice is no longer exclusively about preventing or terminating a pregnancy, but also about overcoming natural barriers to conceiving, and choosing to have children using Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs). While contraception and abortion are accepted as a part of modern life, and everybody knows somebody who has experienced fertility treatment, the clash between choice and regulation are still fraught. Policymakers and commentators fret about there being too many abortions, while the media report on fertility treatment allowing women to have babies in their 60s and 70s, octuplets being born in California, and mothers giving birth to their own grandchildren.

Abortion remains a procedure that cannot be accessed ‘on demand’ – a woman must claim that having a child will damage her mental health, and two doctors must authorise the procedure. Fertility treatment is subject to myriad regulations by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Recent guidance about Single Embryo Transfer, which limits the ability of clinics to implant more than one embryo at a time, so as to reduce the likelihood of complications, has been opposed by some women and doctors, who see this as a restriction on their ability to make personal and clinical judgements.

Should we trust people to make the right reproductive choices – or do we need to protect them against the excesses of what is possible? Are there ‘too many abortions’ – or too many people seeking fertility treatment for the wrong reasons? How far should the decisions of official bodies regulate individuals’ decision-making and clinicians’ practice?

Speakers:

- Professor Peter Braude, head of department, Women’s Health, King’s College London; director, Centre for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, Guy’s and St Thomas Hospital
- Ann Furedi, chief executive, BPAS
- Professor Sally Sheldon, professor of law, Kent Law School, University of Kent; co-author, Fragmenting Fatherhood: a socio-legal study

Three’s a Crowd? The battle over population and reproduction
3.30pm until 5.00pm

A high-profile campaign by the Optimum Population Trust, supported by such luminaries as government advisor Jonathon Porritt and broadcaster David Attenborough, seeks to encourage couples worldwide to limit their families to two children. The ‘Stop At Two’ campaign is premised on the idea that unrestrained population growth will damage the environment. But some argue that fears about the environmental effects of population growth represent a new form of Malthusianism, the old idea that population growth will push society up against natural limits.

Critics of the ‘Stop At Two’ campaign point out that Malthusianism was discredited by historical developments, and suggest the same will be true of today’s fears. They argue that we can tackle environmental problems without limiting the world population, and that ‘reproductive choice’ should mean people make decisions about having children based on their own desires and circumstances. Some worry that Western NGOs campaigning for contraception and sex education in the developing world under the banner of women’s rights are in fact promoting a Malthusian agenda, pointing to the repressive history of state population control programmes. But sympathisers with the ‘Stop At Two’ campaign stress this is about individuals making choices; and what is wrong with encouraging them to take the environment into account?

Where does ‘family planning’ stop being about individuals and couples making their own reproductive decisions and become a moral imperative that people should make the ‘right choices’? Are fears about population growth a new form of an old panic, or is the expanding carbon footprint a problem we need to address by limiting population growth? What circumstances and concerns do people take into account when they plan their families today?

Speakers:

- Dr Austen Ivereigh, Catholic commentator; lead organiser, West London Citizens; former press and policy advisor to the Archbishop of Westminster
- Dr Ellie Lee, lecturer in social policy, University of Kent; co-ordinator of Pro-Choice Forum
- Adrian Stott, principal, Enable Solutions; trustee, Optimum Population Trust
- Mark Walport, director, Wellcome Trust; formerly professor of medicine, Imperial College London

See here for more information and to book tickets.