Sinnott’s stance on embryo ruling rejected

WHEN it comes to interference in the intimate details of people’s lives, religious zealots are in the premier league.

Fortunately, in addressing some of the issues surrounding the question of human embryos, the Supreme Court made another ruling that affirmed the supremacy of the state in a non-theocratic republic.

Kathy Sinnott (Letters, December 21) dubs this “a betrayal of the Irish people”. As a born and bred Irish citizen, I reject Ms Sinnott’s aggregation of my rights to her prejudices. I empathise with Andrew Doyle’s attitude and experience regarding his and his partner’s experiences with IVF at Bourn Hall, Cambridge (Letters, December 23).

Molecular biology offers huge possibilities for therapeutic interventions in medicine and I prefer that legislation (if ever enacted) in this whole area is general rather than overly specific.

The most practical template is the report of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction 2005.

Meanwhile, in the absence of such legislation, Irish fertility clinics appear to follow the ethical codes set down by the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority in Britain.

Dr Bill Tormey

Glasnevin Ave

Dublin 11