Fertilisation creates unique individual, embryo case told
A unique individual is created at the moment a human embryo is fertilised, the High Court was told today.
In an unprecedented legal case the court has been asked to decide if frozen embryos constitute the “unborn” and as such have the right to life under the constitution.
The landmark hearing centres on a Dublin couple who separated shortly after having a child through IVF treatment four years ago.
Three surplus embryos were frozen during the treatment and the woman now wants to implant them in her womb. The court ruled on Tuesday that she could not do so against the will of her estranged husband.
Now Justice Brian McGovern has to decide on the constitutional rights of the embryos.
Professor Martin Clynes, a cell and molecular biologist at Dublin City University, told the court fertilisation was a “cataclysmic” event after which the complete genetic programme for a unique human being has been established, he said.
“That’s a fact, that’s how biology works,” he said.
He said everybody once existed as a simple cell, and didn’t exist until that. The embryo’s capacity, individuality and gender is determined at that stage.
“The individual now exists, it did not previously exist.”
Professor Clynes said it was through modern medical science that the embryos came into existence. Society had a duty towards them, he claimed.
“They are brought into existence through our technology. The state didn’t have to allow [IVF treatment] to happen.”
He berated the Government for not having in place legislation to deal with the issue before this case came to the High Court.
But John Rogers SC, appearing for the estranged husband, disputed Professor Clynes’ arguments.
“The fatal flaw in all of what you are saying is you’re attributing individuality when in fact nothing of that order occurs because the crucial link between the embryo and the womb is missing,” he said.
He accused the cell biologist of expressing his ethical views rather than scientific evidence.
The professor disagreed and reiterated his stance that every embryo had the potential to express itself as a full adult human being.
Earlier, former chairman of the Medical Council’s ethics committee, Dr James Clinch, also argued that life began at fertilisation.
The retired obstetrician and gynaecologist, was called by the plaintiff to give evidence at the beginning of the constitutional part of the case.
He was a member of the Medical Council for a decade from 1989 to 1999, and chairman of its ethics committee for the latter five years.
He told the court there were several stages where life was thought to have begun but it was a question that had vexed people for centuries.
“If you had to choose, at present in 2006, it would have to be fertilisation. In the years to come we may well decide, biologically or scientifically, it’s some other time.
“But at present, it appears to be fertilisation if only by the negative thought process that without it first none of the other stages can occur,” he said.
Under questioning Dr Clinch remarked he wasn’t sure what life was anymore. “If Mr (Samuel) Beckett was in the court room he would persuade us we didn’t exist at all,” he said.
Mr Rogers retorted that he would proceed with the case on the basis that everyone in the court did exist.
The case continues.
