Not So Brave New World

This article first appeared in FNF's McKenzie newsletter #40 in April 1999

---

 

A squat grey building of only thirty-four storeys. Over the main entrance the words CENTRAL LONDON HATCHERY AND CONDITIONING CENTRE

The opening lines of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, first published in 1932, send a shiver down the spine of many people. These few words manage to convey what is for some the ultimate nightmare: the overbearing apparatus of the state, exerting control over the populace by scientific interference in the means of reproduction and, in the process, destroying the concept of family life and attachment.

It could never happen, of course - we would never allow our political masters to get away with it. But, as we enter the next millennium, there are disturbing signs that some, at least, of Huxley's fears will be realised.

'And this', said the Director opening the door, 'is the Fertilising Room'

Technology cannot be uninvented. We now live in an age where sperm donation and in vitro fertilisation are methods available to people who cannot otherwise have children, and which more and more couples are making use of. Few would deny them the opportunity, for there is no greater joy in human existence than that of parenting a child.

Regulating the system is the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which says at section 13(5): 'A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father), and of any other child affected by the birth'.

So that's all right then. But in practice things can be very different. An unmarried man who consents to being considered as the father has only six months after the birth to agree Parental Responsibility, and some consultants do not think it necessary to inform them of this crucial fact. The doctors involved may also continue to give the mother treatment after the couple separate if the consent is not withdrawn. And, under s.28(4), 'no other person is to be treated as the father of the child'. The donor's identity is protected - he is paid his £15 and forgotten.

In one recent case a father of two who applied for contact and PR was told by the Official Solicitor that 'These two children are in law fatherless', a chilling statement which was upheld by the judge.

This disregard for the need of a father was also apparent in the case of Diane Blood, who persuaded a doctor to extract sperm from her dying husband so she could have a child (she had to go to Belgium for treatment as he had not given written consent). And America has just seen the first use of a dead man's sperm (the 'father' died in 1995) while in another case a woman is seeking an egg donor so that she can have a child using sperm taken from her dying son. 'We're kind of in new ground here', said Dr Russell Foulk, who helped to remove the seed.

Advances in medical science have ethical consequences. Professor Ian Craft of the London Fertility Centre has said 'We could get a 75-year-old woman pregnant' (though his own limit is 55) and the demand for gametes for use in fertility clinics is growing every day. There is also a brisk trade on the Internet which is entirely unregulated - there is a lot of money to be made from desperate would-be parents.

In the Bottling Room all was harmonious bustle and ordered activity

Of course, there are cases which fall quite legally outside the HFEA system, as a generation of 'pickle jar' kids will soon find out, though in these cases the genetic father may - if it is possible to identify him - be held responsible for child support. This is one area, however, where modern science has played no real part. All that is required is a turkey baster and one (or more) samples of sperm which have been kept at low temperature.

A child conceived in this way will join the 2,000 'official' UK donor cases each year. Many of these are now demanding the right to trace their fathers - if they know of their origins. 'Sometimes the story is so well integrated that the truth is not relevant any more' says Francoise Shenfield, a doctor who provides fertility treatment in London.

There are many other implications for both parent and child, as the following U.S. cases illustrate.

During their marriage, Mildred Schmit and Don McGill had fertility treatment, and in vitro embryos were created, frozen and stored. They divorced, yet Mildred later had an embryo implanted and gave birth. She then denied Don contact with the child, claiming that he was merely a 'sperm donor' and therefore had no parental rights. The case is due in the Appeals Court in Texas.

Then there is the Turczyn family of Pennsylvania. Mrs Turczyn had fertility treatment and some eggs were frozen and stored. The couple separated, but the wife had the eggs fertilised with donor sperm and implanted. The couple then got together again (she was expecting quadruplets) and Mr Turczyn allowed his name to go on the birth certificate. But then they separated again, and he has asked a court to relieve him of all his parental responsibilities. The lower court was against him as the children were born 'during the marriage', but he is appealing the decision.

The Kasses of New York, mean-while, had five frozen embryos in storage when their marriage failed, but also had a contract saying they could only be implanted with the permission of both parents. Mr Kass refused to allow any implantation and the courts have supported him.

Making ninety-six human beings grow where only one grew before

How long before the first human is cloned? Not long at all if the American scientist Richard Seed is to be believed - and he is keen to do it himself. Hard to beat in the 'mad scientist' stakes, however, is the Italian who claims to have turned sterile men into fathers by maturing their sperm inside the testes of rodents. Severino Antinori says the technique has already resulted in four babies, while a scientist at Tottori University in Japan also claims to have grown human sperm in mice and rats.

'Bokanovsky's Process is one of the major instruments of social stability'

Remember that photograph of a pregnant man, used by the Family Planning Association back in the 1970s? State of the art humorous advertising at the time, it now looks like becoming a reality. Britain's foremost fertility expert Lord Winston recently announced that doctors are now able to implant an embryo in a man's abdomen, make an artificial womb, and subsequently deliver the child by caesarean section.

'Male pregnancy would certainly be possible and would be the same as when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy' he claims, 'although to sustain it, you'd have to give the man lots of female hormones'.

Winston agrees that this would be dangerous and might also result in the man growing breasts, but thinks it will appeal to certain men. 'There might be some demand among consenting homosexuals' he said.

Another UK doctor, Simon Fishel, revealed that he had already been approached by three heterosexual couples who wanted the man to carry the child because of the woman's physical problems. 'This kind of treatment is ethically acceptable and one would do it if it could be done without risk' he said. Approval would be required from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, whose chief executive Suzanne McCarthy told reporters: 'If an application were made we would give it serious consideration'.

Tim Hedgley, of the fertility group Issue, said 'You certainly could not stop a man from doing this in legal terms on the grounds of sex because that would be discrimination'.

As usual the Americans have got there first, with one doctor planning just such an operation and seeking investors to open a male pregnancy clinic. It is expected that the first customers will be trans-sexuals who were born male.

'We also predestine and condition'

Commenting on predictions for the next 50 years, historian David Starkey spoke up for the rest of humanity. 'In the brave new world of eugenics' he said, 'everybody slots into their pattern. Nobody has anything as vulgar as sex. Instead, babies are simply bred. The world simply becomes business.'

It is an unfortunate fact that the ethical implications of scientific progress tend to lag behind the technology (the surrogacy boom was a good example). Well meaning doctors and scientists will protest that they are merely trying to enrich people's lives by giving them the children they always wanted. But with increased choice comes a more discerning attitude not previously available to prospective parents, who used to think of a child as a 'blessing'. The recent shortage of sperm donors in Scotland (caused by an announce-ment that the £15 fee would be phased out) led to complaints from couples that they had to accept sperm from dark-haired men. Only flaxen haired children would do...

'But in Epsilons', said Mr Foster...'we don't need human intelligence'

When Huxley was writing his seminal (!) work he was not doing so in isolation. The idea of eugenics had become extremely popular in certain circles. Political leaders, in particular, were attracted to the prospect of controlling the masses by selective breeding. One such leader, determined to create a 'master race' of blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryans, succeeded in killing off large numbers of his own countrymen in an attempt to 'purify' the national bloodstock....

All very frightening, but not of much concern to the modern man or woman who merely wants a child. And why should it be? After all, they are just ordinary folk like you and me, they have love to give, they have compassion, they have needs, they have a right to a child just like anyone else, don't they?

And that is where the problem lies. Nobody has a right to a child. It is no good being sentimental about it. Many people are disappointed in their lack of children, and others are just as vexed by the children they do have. Life is like that.

One case which hit the headlines recently involved two women who longed to have children and who both attended a Manhattan clinic, paying $1,500 each for fertility treatment. Eggs were removed from each woman, fertilised with sperm from their spouses, and re-implanted. Donna was lucky and conceived. Deborah was less fortunate.

Donna is white and Deborah is black. Early this year Donna gave birth to twins - one black and one white. She had been implanted with some of Deborah's eggs by mistake.

Cue the sound of a lawyer rubbing his hands. Both women are suing the clinic. Deborah brought a case against Donna for the return of 'her' baby, though it never got to court - Donna agreed to hand the black child over, a decision which must have been the hardest of her life.

Food for thought. In the Brave New World of the 21st century there will be more problems of this nature - problems our children will have to address. The question is: will they think of us as savages?

Richard Gregory
April 1999

All extracts from the first chapter of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley