Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Health debate -
Wednesday, 17 Jan 2018

General Scheme of the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill 2017: Discussion

This morning's meeting has been convened to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny on the general scheme of the assisted human reproduction Bill. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Ms Geraldine Luddy, Dr. Tony Holohan and Mr. Paul Ivory of the Department of Health, and Mr. Liam Woods, Dr. Colm Henry, Dr. Jerome Coffey and Dr. Peter McKenna of the HSE, who will assist us with our scrutiny of the Bill.

I draw to the witnesses' attention the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also advise the witnesses that any opening statements they have submitted to the committee may be published on the committee's website after the meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now ask Dr. Tony Holohan to make his opening statement.

Dr. Tony Holohan

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to address them on this draft legislation. As the Chairman said, I am joined from the Department of Health by Ms Geraldine Luddy, head of the bioethics unit, and Mr. Paul Ivory, assistant principal at the bioethics unit, as well as some colleagues from the HSE: to my left is Mr. Liam Woods, national director for acute operations; Dr. Colm Henry, consultant geriatrician at the Mercy University Hospital, Cork, and national clinical adviser and group lead on acute hospitals; Dr. Jerome Coffey, consultant radiation oncologist at the St. Luke's Radiation Oncology Network and national director of the national cancer control programme; and Dr. Peter McKenna, former master of the Rotunda Hospital and clinical director of the national women and infants health programme. I hope to provide the Chairman and these hearings with some background to the Government decision to approve the general scheme of the assisted human reproduction Bill 2017 and to outline briefly the main provisions of the scheme.

It is estimated, as I am sure the committee knows, that one in six couples worldwide experiences infertility at some point in their lives. The rate of infertility and subfertility is increasing due to a range of both social and lifestyle factors - for example, due to delayed decisions surrounding parenthood to support the pursuit of careers and to ensure financial security - as well as higher rates of obesity and sexually transmitted infections, particularly chlamydia, which can impact a person's reproductive health and fertility. From the Irish point of view, based on information we have from the Health Products Regulatory Authority, the number of cycles for assisted human reproduction, AHR, procedures conducted in fertility clinics in Ireland is increasing. For example, the provision of treatment has risen from 7,589 cycles in 2009 to almost 9,000 in 2016.

We understand the impact that the issues of infertility and subfertility can have at an individual level. The ability to conceive a child naturally is a normal human expectation, and a diagnosis of infertility can be a source of severe emotional and psychological distress, discomfort and financial hardship. These decisions and the impact they can have at a personal level have been brought to the fore in our engagements with various stakeholders on behalf of people with infertility and in the context of developing the general scheme as well as through a number of representations made to us in the Department, in particular to the Minister on behalf of citizens affected by infertility.

As the committee will be aware, work is ongoing in the Department on proposals for a potential public funding model for AHR treatments, which I will discuss in more detail shortly. The development of the general scheme and the work relating to a possible public funding model for assisted human reproduction, AHR, has generated debate. While we endeavour to progress these important policy and regulatory issues we are conscious of the direct impact this work will have on individuals. For example, people listening to these discussions who are currently undergoing AHR treatment, or who may be considering such treatment, may adjust or defer their plans in anticipation of impending policy changes arising from this work. As such, we understand that we have a responsibility to provide a realistic and reasonable appraisal of what the Department is endeavouring to do in this space and the timelines involved.

The development of reproductive technologies means that children can be created outside of what may be seen as the normal male-female sexual relationship. Sperm and eggs can now be manipulated and embryos created in laboratories. While reproductive medicine is one of the most innovative and rapidly developing areas of medicine it also raises challenges from ethical and legal perspectives. Advances in AHR technologies have increased the number of treatment options available to those affected by infertility and subfertility, for example in vitro fertilisation; the donation of gametes, either sperm or eggs, from third party donors; and surrogacy to name just a few. The categories of people wishing to access such treatments have also expanded to include heterosexual couples, same-sex couples, single people and people wishing to avoid serious hereditary diseases. Therefore, from a medical and social perspective, infertility and subfertility represent important issues that require a considered health service response and regulation.

As we know, we currently have no specific legislation in Ireland governing AHR. There is limited existing regulation relating to the use of gametes and embryos. In 2006 the Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA, was designated as the competent authority for SI 158 of 2006, the quality and safety of human tissues and cells regulations, which govern the quality and safety standards in the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, including gametes and embryos. These regulations empower the HPRA to authorise and monitor tissue establishments, which include some of the existing fertility clinics.

Of further relevance, the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, the CFR Act, reforms and updates family law to address the needs of children living in diverse family types. Parts 2 and 3 of that Act are the responsibility of the Minister for Health. These parts of the CFR Act, when commenced, will regulate aspects of AHR involving donation of gametes and embryos and are specifically concerned with the parentage rules for children born through donor-assisted human reproduction procedures, obligations applying to facilities providing such procedures and the establishment of a national donor-conceived person register. We in the Department of Health are preparing draft regulations to facilitate the commencement of Parts 2 and 3 of the CFR Act 2015, and are working to resolve some final technical issues in order to ensure that the processes associated with these Parts of the Act can be commenced.

While the number of people accessing AHR treatments and services in Ireland is increasing, the provision of these services remains largely unregulated, as I have said. This means that individuals are availing of often complex and sometimes risky procedures in a legal vacuum. Legislation is therefore required in order to assist people to have children safely, to clarify the legal position of children born from these practices, and to ensure research and new reproductive technologies are carried out within a prescribed ethical framework.

While the vast majority of AHR treatments and services currently available in Ireland are provided through private AHR clinics, there is a limited specialist AHR service available through the HSE, which provides funding for fertility preservation for cancer patients whose treatment is likely to impact on their future fertility. The Department intends to work with representatives from the HSE to ensure that there is a coherent approach to the development of the AHR legislation, which is consistent with the existing publicly available cryopreservation service. In order to support the commencement of this legislation once it is enacted, the Department will work during the course of 2018 in parallel with the HSE to develop a model of care for infertility to ensure the provision of safe, effective and accessible services through the public health system as part of the full range of services available in obstetrics and gynaecology. To provide for that we intend to establish an implementation committee to ensure that the drafting of the legislation, the preparation of the above service arrangements and the development of any specific eligibility arrangements that we might approve can all proceed in line with each other to allow for the timely commencement of the legislation.

The scheme we are discussing this morning represents the first time a comprehensive package of measures has been drafted for AHR that includes aspects of research. The introduction of legislation in this area is a priority for the Minister and affirms the commitment contained in A Programme for a Partnership Government relating to the regulation of AHR and surrogacy.

Moving on to the detail of the scheme, we adopted three principles to guide our work in this area, namely, the welfare of any children born through assisted human reproduction technologies, which is the most important, safeguarding the health of women undergoing those procedures and the promotion of best clinical practice. Children born through AHR may be vulnerable as they obviously lack any control over the circumstances of their birth. For this reason, and in recognition of Article 42A of the Constitution, as well as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the welfare and best interests of children born through AHR was a key consideration. Equally, the well-being of women involved in these procedures also requires special attention, as women are the main recipients of AHR interventions due to their biological role in pregnancy and childbirth. Finally, the promotion of best clinical practice should be standard in any recommendation put forward by the Government and, in the case of AHR, it has also been seen that adhering to this principle can positively impact the safety and well-being of women, for example, in the context of multiple pregnancies.

Officials in the Department are engaging with the Office of the Attorney General in respect of the process of drafting this legislation. Given the comprehensive scope of the legislation and the ethical, legal and social issues that arise with AHR practices, I anticipate that, as we go along, there will be areas of the scheme that will require further consideration and refinement, as is usual in the drafting of legislation.

The general scheme is comprised of nine parts. Part 1 deals with standard provisions relating to the legislation such as interpretation and commencement matters. Part 2 outlines the general principles that apply in the context of all AHR treatments and procedures, including requirements regarding informed consent and counselling, conditions regarding embryo transfer, and considerations involving the welfare of the child. Part 3 outlines the conditions and restrictions relating to the donation of gametes and embryos for use in AHR treatment by other people, for use in research or both. It also outlines specific requirements relating to people wishing to access AHR treatment involving donated material. This part includes specific requirements relating to informed consent and counselling, age restrictions for donors, the prohibition of the donation of embryos other than supernumerary embryos, limits on the use of donated material, the prohibition of commercial gamete and embryo donation and the permitted storage periods that should apply for any gametes and embryos in storage.

Part 4 of the scheme deals with posthumous assisted reproduction, PAR, which involves the use of frozen gametes or embryos from a deceased person to achieve a pregnancy. These provisions enable a surviving female partner to continue a parental project after the death of her partner, provided specific conditions are fulfilled. For example, the relevant parties must have received counselling and given their informed consent and a period of time, in this case one year, for grieving has to have elapsed since the death of that relevant partner. The scheme states that the deceased person would be recognised as a parent of any child born following PAR provided that child is born within 36 months of that person's death.

Part 5 provides for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, PGD; sex selection for medical purposes; and human leucocyte antigen, HLA, matching in the context of AHR treatment, provided certain eligibility or qualifying criteria are fulfilled. For example, both PGD and sex selection would only be permitted where there is a significant risk of a child being born with a serious genetic disease. The AHR regulatory authority established by this legislation will be responsible for maintaining a list of genetic diseases for which PGD and sex selection would be permitted. In respect of HLA matching, the regulatory authority will also maintain a further list of eligible diseases but specific approval from the regulatory authority will be required on a case-by-case basis and will be subject to the consideration of any particular criteria in respect of those cases.

Part 6 outlines the specific conditions under which surrogacy will be permitted in Ireland. The term surrogacy relates to a situation whereby one woman, that is, the surrogate, agrees to become pregnant, carry and deliver a child on behalf of another individual or couple, that is, the intending parent or parents. This includes a requirement for all surrogacy agreements to be pre-authorised by the regulatory authority. This pre-authorisation process will help to safeguard the welfare of the parties involved in the surrogacy agreement, in particular that of any child who may potentially be born as a result of that agreement, as well as that of the surrogate involved. The scheme sets out a court-based mechanism through which the parentage of a child born through surrogacy may be transferred from the surrogate - and her husband, if applicable - to the intending parent or parents.

Commercial surrogacy raises a number of concerns relating to the welfare and commodification of the children involved as well as potential risks of coercion and exploitation of financially vulnerable women to act as surrogates. In light of this, the general scheme explicitly prohibits commercial surrogacy being conducted in Ireland.

Part 7 stipulates the conditions under which research involving embryos, embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells may be permitted, subject to obtaining a licence from the regulatory authority. This part prohibits the creation of embryos specifically for research purposes and also prohibits certain practices that may be associated with embryo and stem cell research, for example, reproductive cloning.

Part 8 provides for the establishment of the AHR regulatory authority and outlines its functions in terms of the oversight and regulation of compliance with the legislation. This includes the issuing of licences to AHR treatment providers and researchers. As previously mentioned, the AHR regulatory authority will be essential to the successful implementation of the legislation given the complexity of the issues involved in regulating this area and the rapidly evolving nature of AHR and research technologies. A key function of the regulatory authority will be the collection of statistical information from AHR providers, beyond that which is currently available, on all AHR activities and their outcomes, such as the number of children born from such procedures. The collection of this detailed information would enable the regulatory authority to monitor and assess the safety and effectiveness of AHR practices and would also help to inform future policy-making in this area.

Part 9 outlines the various offences that apply in respect of contravening specific heads within the scheme and stipulates the level of penalty that could apply in each instance.

I reiterate that the provisions outlined within the scheme and, in particular, the establishment of a dedicated AHR regulatory authority will ensure that AHR practices and research in related areas will be conducted in a more consistent and standardised way and with the necessary oversight. As I outlined earlier, the commencement of the legislation is one element of the development of a model of care for infertility, which will ultimately aim to embed the provision of safe, effective and accessible AHR treatments and services into the broader range of obstetric and gynaecological services available through the public health service.

I thank the committee for undertaking this review of the general scheme. We are available to answer any questions members may wish to pose.

We now open the debate to observations from members. Deputy O'Reilly is first.

I welcome the witnesses and apologise for the fact that I will be obliged to leave to attend another appointment when I have asked my questions. I have provided more detailed questions to which the witnesses might be able to reply in writing. They are fairly general and any replies would be for my own information.

I have a concern that the prohibition on sex selection other than where there might be a significant risk to the child being born one sex or the other may be hijacked by people seeking to inject a bit of misinformation into the system. There are people who are opposed to assisted human reproduction. I will not name them but I am sure the witnesses have an idea of whom I am speaking. It needs to be made crystal clear - and it is not possible to say it enough - that the purpose of this will not be to engage in some form of gender-based selection and, indeed, that it will not happen save in very discrete and distinct circumstances. I ask the witnesses to elaborate on that if possible.

Head 36 relates to surrogacy. I note the potential for forced surrogacy. In that scenario, we have all heard stories in the media and I have some experience of hearing first hand about vulnerable migrant women who may have been forced into surrogacy. Certainly, that has been suggested. Where this happens and it becomes apparent halfway through the pregnancy, there is very little that can be done. The pregnancy will proceed. However, it is a very severe violation of a woman's human rights. Indeed, it does the poor child no service either. Can the Department outline what legal provisions can be made and should be to dissuade people from doing that and also to impose punitive sanctions? What scope is there for including those to ensure that this will not happen?

I raise the these points because there are people who are opposed to the legislation who will settle on any small aspect of it to criticise the whole. I have had people approach me and I know there are individuals watching who are desperate for the legislation to go through. We all want to see it go through and we want to see it happen quickly and properly. If we are to answer the detractors in advance, we need to be able to deal with issues like forced surrogacy and sex selection. I have submitted further questions and I can wait for the answers in written form.

I have a question on the ethical issues surrounding embryo creation, storage and destruction. Can the witnesses comment on how that will be dealt with in the Bill? Before asking the Department to respond, we will go to the second contributor, who is Senator Colm Burke.

I thank the Department's representatives for their presentation and for the work they have done in this area. I welcome them to the meeting. It is just information that I am looking for really in the context of the point that, with regard to treatment, there were approximately 9,000 cycles in 2016. That was within Ireland. There are also huge numbers of people who travel abroad for treatment. Do we have any idea of the figure in that regard? Has any research been done on that? No matter what regulation we bring in, people will still have the option of travelling abroad. It is a big issue now due to the costs people are incurring here.

The next issue I want to highlight relates to the cost of medication. Has an analysis been carried out on the cost of medication here relative to the cost in other EU jurisdictions? My understanding is that it is extremely expensive and that the cost here is far above that which obtains in other countries. In introducing the scheme, do we not need to watch carefully to ensure we are not suddenly backed into a corner by pharmaceutical companies which see it as another opportunity to be on the winning side? It is one of the concerns we need to watch. As such, I wonder if an analysis has been carried out in that regard.

Dr. Tony Holohan

We are very happy to revert to Deputy O'Reilly in writing to provide absolute clarity on her written questions. I take her point on sex selection. The legislation is very clear that sex selection can only relate to those diseases that are, in effect, inherited diseases relating to the sex genes. It is not at all for the purpose of choosing whether to have a boy or a girl.

Is Dr. Holohan satisfied that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure that cannot and will not happen? I ask this only for the purpose of getting a defence in before people come out to criticise.

Dr. Tony Holohan

The legislation provides for a range of measures, including penalties, standards and the licensing mechanism, which will operate and be overseen by the regulatory authority. The authority will have significant powers of inspection and access to information to ensure all practices conform to the requirements of the legislation.

That is excellent.

Dr. Tony Holohan

The Deputy also sought reassurance in respect of surrogacy, a matter that Ms Luddy will address.

Ms Geraldine Luddy

We have specifically prohibited commercial surrogacy in the general scheme of the Bill. There are also significant provisions with regard to consent and counselling in the context of surrogacy agreements.

All surrogacy arrangements will have to be pre-authorised by the regulatory authority that is to be set up under the scheme. We have also said that both the surrogate, as well as her husband if she is married, and the intending parents should take legal advice. Surrogacy means a woman is going to carry a child for another person and that she does so freely. For medical issues there is the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act and forcing treatment on a woman is covered by significant penalties in other legislation. There are checks and balances and the authority will have to authorise the agreement before it can continue. There are steps at each stage and we have done as much as we can do.

Dr. Tony Holohan

The Chairman asked about the embryo. The legislation is clear that the only embryos eligible for donation will be supernumerary ones which have been created through a process of AHR. The legislation is very clear on the criteria that must be satisfied, either for the purposes of donation or their use in research. The length of time for which they can be stored is limited to 14 days and clear criteria apply to their disposal.

In the context of the number of embryos created, what are the ethical considerations relating to those embryos which are not implanted?

Ms Geraldine Luddy

The consent of those who created the embryos is required in determining what to do with those that are not implanted. Some will be used again in another cycle of assisted human reproduction while others may be used for research and others destroyed. If people wish their embryos to be stored they can be stored for a period of time. Embryos cannot be created purely for research and research can only be undertaken on embryos that have already been created for AHR treatment and are supernumerary. There would have to be a submission to the regulatory authority, on a case-by-case basis, for any such research which itself would have to be cleared by the institution or the clinic's ethical committee.

The agreement of the donors is paramount.

Ms Geraldine Luddy

Absolutely. Without their consent it cannot happen.

Dr. Tony Holohan

Senator Colm Burke asked about data from abroad. We do not have good information or hard data on any pattern of people travelling outside the State for AHR services. Some of the advocacy organisations may have a better understanding of that practice. When we brought the policy proposals to Government in 2015 we did some work on this and some of the data we have suggest the population rate at which AHR takes place in this country is below the average in the rest of Europe, though I would be cautious about interpreting these data in too detailed a way because the rate is not substantially lower.

On the cost issues, we are doing work which we are going to bring back to Government relating to funding and eligibility criteria and I would be happy to elaborate on that. The high-tech scheme already provides assistance to people with the cost of some of the drugs currently in use.

Mr. Liam Woods

The Senator makes a valid point and not just for these medications. The high-tech scheme reimburses some of the medications and we will look at this, along with the Department, as part of the work we are doing in implementing the legislation.

The next two contributors are Deputies Bernard Durkan and Margaret Murphy O'Mahony.

We all recognise the degree to which childless couples look forward to us progressing this proposal by way of legislation. The advances in medical science are also eagerly awaited and we have all had representations from constituents on the matter. We have to be positive and constructive and recognise that there are also some pitfalls which we need to avoid so that we can reassure the general public, particularly those who become parents in this context, that everything is in order and regulated for.

How will the regulatory authority be constructed? I assume legal, medical and scientific interest will have to be represented. Consent relating to storage and disposal is fine if one can get consent but it may well be that the people concerned are no longer with us. I would like some clarification on this matter as I am aware of a number cases, internationally, which have been very hard fought in this area.

I assume birth certificates will eventually be as normal, with no reference to the methodology, and I assume they will just show the parents. Might they also show details of a surrogacy? I do not want to go into the question on sex selection as it has already been discussed, other than to emphasise the importance of ensuring there is absolute clarity as to what the purpose of the exercise is. We recognise that, in certain cases, a gene might be carried in one line but not in another and this might be of huge importance to a potential parent in avoiding an inherited difficulty that they might have cause to regret for the rest of their lives. We need to ensure, however, from an ethical viewpoint that everything is done as it should be done.

There are provisions for relevant parties to have received counselling and to have given their informed consent, and there is a requirement for a one-year grieving period to have elapsed since the partner's death. Can the witnesses elaborate on that and give the committee an indication of the thinking behind these provisions? We have an idea of what they are but it is important to explain the detail so that participants and the general public may be reassured.

There were a number of cases, though not in this country, where relationships had broken up and legal cases were taken in which consent was sought after the break-up. Can the witnesses clarify how we anticipate dealing with such situations? These things do happen and, under Murphy's law, if it can happen it will happen.

That is not a reference to my colleague. Suffice it to say it would be very important to have reassurance in this area. With all due deference to my legal colleague, who has just left, when there are legal possibilities, they could well become legal realities and major difficulties in what we are trying to do. We have referred to storage issues and further counselling. Will the witnesses give some further clarification on age restrictions on donors, which is important? It will be a matter for query. The age restriction could be a major issue in some cases. I have many other questions but we might get some answers to those for a start.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for coming before us. I was very heartened by the start of Dr. Holohan's presentation, when he acknowledged the dire hurt and pain that couples go through to come to this decision to seek help. I would like to see something with regard to well-being or people's mental health forming part of this, particularly if things do not work out for couples. They will have gone through a lot to get to this stage and if things do not work at the final stage, it can be very harrowing for couples. Could something concrete on this be put in at this stage?

What is the timeframe for this scheme? People may be postponing treatment waiting for this to happen and when we consider the pain they have gone through, such waiting can sometimes be very hard. Couples may be getting older and if they have reached the decision to do this, they probably want to do it now. Is it possible to have backdating or retrospective compensation? I would hate it if people put off seeking treatment because of this not being currently available.

Dr. Tony Holohan

Deputy Durkan spoke about the regulatory authority and the scheme sets out in detail a range of provisions around the powers, the board, the working methods and so on for the regulatory authority functions in quite a bit of detail. There would be committee structures to deal with some of the kinds of representation and expert input of the kind being asked about. Ms Luddy will talk us through some of the provisions relating to consent, which is a key process. Informed consent operates through all the relevant sections of the Act and nothing can happen without the informed consent of all the parties involved in any stage of the process, whether it is in terms of donation, research, etc.

With respect to birth certificates, the scheme provides for a court-based process through which an application can be made either by a parent or both intending parents or the surrogate. Ultimately, there are powers for a court to issue a parental order, including notice to the registrar of births, marriages and deaths, and there would be provision for changes to be made with respect to birth certs. Amended birth certs can be issued in line with that change in parental orders.

Is that applicable in all cases or only in cases where a difficulty has arisen?

Dr. Tony Holohan

In any case where legal surrogacy takes place in this country, it would be open to any party - either the intending parents or the surrogate - to initiate that process of seeking a court-issued parental order that would have that potential.

With respect to sex selection, I refer to the answer I gave to Deputy O'Reilly earlier that it is imperative we should be clear that this is not sex selection. It might appear to some as an ability for people to make a choice as to whether they have a male or female child but it is very much about limiting the risk of transmission of very significant genetic diseases related to sex chromosomes. Ms Luddy can deal with the matter of posthumous assisted reproduction. There was also mention of age considerations and restrictions that apply throughout to the process of donation and assisted human reproduction. Different age restrictions apply that relate to the evidence we have with respect to biology and likelihood of success etc. Any differences between the sexes or within one sex in different parts of the legislation all relate to evidence with respect to biology. We can speak to any of the details that members wish.

There was a case a legal case a couple of years ago that got much attention. The male partner did not allow the use of the products after the relationship broke down. He won the case, as far as I can recall.

Ms Geraldine Luddy

Was that in the UK?

I think so. My details are vague but I spoke with a number of people with an interest in what was happening at the time. Are we mindful of these possibilities and what can we do to try to protect ourselves?

Ms Geraldine Luddy

Yes, we are very mindful of that. When we devised the scheme, we looked at court cases both here and abroad in order to consider how we would seek consent. It is informed consent, so people must have information in order to give consent. There will be counselling as well beforehand. Whether it is a couple involved or a single woman, there will be full counselling at every stage. Counselling will give options on what happens after the embryos are created, including what would happen if a relationship breaks up or if there is a donated gamete. If the embryo is created by donated sperm, the donor would also have to give consent. We have covered it very clearly, including all the options as to what would happen in the event of a break-up or somebody dying. That is covered in as much as we can.

We are also conscious that we have a new data protection directive coming, which must be in law by May this year. There are specific provisions there relating to informed consent and we have taken those into account in the drafting of the scheme. We will also be drafting the Bill provisions with the Office of the Attorney General and we will make sure that consent provisions are as tight as they can be.

I have a final clarification. I had an interest a couple of years ago where the surrogate did not wish to hand over the baby. The witnesses are conscious of the need to provide for such a case.

Ms Geraldine Luddy

Yes. In cases of surrogacy, the scheme does not change the law about who is the mother on the birth of the baby. In this country, the birth mother is the mother. That is not changed in surrogacy cases in the scheme. The surrogate must transfer her right. If she does not do so, she remains the mother.

That has not been resolved.

Dr. Tony Holohan

It is not our intention to do that.

The option is there.

Dr. Tony Holohan

The scheme clearly provides that at the point of birth, the Latin principle is mater semper certa est, or motherhood is always certain. The birth mother is the mother until such time as she goes through or consents to the parental order process through the courts as I described earlier.

Were Deputy Murphy O'Mahony's questions answered?

Dr. Tony Holohan

On well-being, the scheme provides for a clear assessment process at the beginning in terms of suitability and also provides for the requirement for informed consent, and for counselling for individuals who would participate in this.

Dr. Tony Holohan

Yes, absolutely. This would provide for consideration of what the Deputy was raising about well-being and all of those important issues.

In terms of the timeframe, I hinted earlier that we intend, when we have further work completed on this, to go back to Cabinet in the next two to three months for permission to bring greater certainty to the question of timeframe. We will be in a better position to set a time. Our intention would be, because it will take time if we go along the road that we are going with the legislation and to provide for the commencement of that legislation, for the public services to build up but also to have a mechanism that, at the point of commencement of that legislation, does not have people who would otherwise be eligible for the service waiting for those public health services to be developed. Given that it will take time with the best of intentions to develop the capacity in the public system to get it to the point that we would like it to be, we would want to see the commencement of those services. I would not put a date on it right now. That is one of the matters that we will talking to the Minister and Cabinet about, and on which we intend the Minister will bring proposals before the end of this quarter.

Ms Geraldine Luddy

I want to come back to Deputy Durkan on surrogacy and parentage. The consent process is all the way along with the surrogate and the intending parents, and the regulatory authority will have a pre-authorised agreement, but the actual transfer of the parentage will happen in a court. It is a very robust system that we have put in place. The transfer of parentage will only happen before a judge in a court. It is to protect both the intending parents and the surrogate. It is quite a robust system that we have put in place.

I have some questions. Will the legislation cover single parents? Will it cover same-sex couples? Will there be any restriction on that? Will there be restrictions on the age of the mother? Will there be health restrictions on either physical or mental suitability for assisted human reproduction?

Dr. Tony Holohan

It will include all of those provisions that the Chairman has asked about. To deal with the last bit, the suitability assessment will be part of it in accordance with best clinical practice. One of the principles that we talked about will apply, that persons are appropriately selected and have a health profile.

On age, there are specific age parameters in the legislation for both males and females in respect of various aspects, whether it is for donation or whether it is for access to the services. Did Ms Luddy want to add to that?

Ms Geraldine Luddy

Donors will have to be 18 to donate gametes. There will be allowance made, obviously, if somebody has a health problem, such as a cancer problem, and needs to preserve his gametes. There will be exceptions made for that.

For a woman, we have an upper age limit of 47. We do not have a specific age limit for a man, and that is purely because of biology, evidence and everything else. Obviously, as the CMO has said, it is down to a clinical assessment and the reasonable opinion of the medical practitioner who is dealing with the couple or individuals as to what is the most appropriate treatment.

Dr. Tony Holohan

On the question of different family types, such as single parents and same-sex couples, they will all be provided for in the legislation. There is no discrimination, in terms of the nature of a family type, around the access to the services.

On the health of the couple or the health of the mother, what criteria will be used in judging whether the mother is suitable to have assisted human reproduction?

Dr. Tony Holohan

The legislation is not specific about what those should be, but it is specific about the need for an assessment to take place on the general suitability. One of the functions and roles of the regulatory authority will be to develop standards which may include the setting out, if it is deemed necessary, of more specific criteria to bring clarity to that.

I have a question on the surrogacy issue. Different countries have different regulations. There is not any proposal at this stage, from a European point of view, to have a common set of rules across Europe. Are there any discussions at European level on that issue?

It refers back to my earlier question about people travelling abroad. The number of people travelling abroad is far higher than figures indicate. In bringing in new legislation such as this, it is an issue that we need to look at.

Ms Geraldine Luddy

It is not the same as surrogacy but when we look at adoption, we have the Hague Convention where something is being done at an international level for countries. We do not have that on either assisted human reproduction or surrogacy. We can only legislate for what takes place in this State.

It is being examined at a European level. The Commission has formed a group. The WHO is also looking at it because it is a difficulty, particularly for commercial surrogacy. We all will have heard of countries, such as India, where there are many issues with women who are put forward as surrogates. On the other hand we are aware that there are problems around it, because we have a system where couples go abroad, come back to Ireland after having a surrogacy arrangement abroad and need to get passports and register citizenship for the children. We hope there will be some more European level jurisdiction legislation on it but at present there is not.

I do not want to delay the committee. I apologise but I had other commitments. Has the Department received any correspondence from the Irish Cancer Society with regard to the issues before the committee this morning? In head 22(8) of the general scheme of the Bill, it states that gametes can be stored for ten years after which one must seek an extension for further storage time from the regulatory authority. The society states this would affect childhood cancer patients who might have to store them when they are in their mid-teens and might not access them until their mid or late 30s. That is the issue. Has that been brought to the officials' attention?

Dr. Tony Holohan

That specific matter has not been but it is not something we have any difficulty in looking at. I do not want to interfere with the operation of the committee and the Chairman's role but, as I mentioned at the outset, we have with us some clinical colleagues who have national leadership roles in both cancer services and women's and infants' health. We have concentrated on the technical answers to the questions that the committee is asking about the scheme, but our colleagues might well have important observations to make on some of the matters that we have been talking about, including Deputy Kelleher's question.

Dr. Jerome Coffey

In response to the question, I do not recall any correspondence on that particular issue but it is fairly clear that we will be working those issues of the implementation group in the coming months.

Would it be appropriate for me to forward this to Dr. Coffey so that he and his colleagues may assess it?

Dr. Jerome Coffey

I would be delighted to receive that, yes.

These concerns have been raised by the Irish Cancer Society about the storage of the gametes for up to ten years only. That satisfies me. Again, apologies for being late.

I understand.

Dr. Jerome Coffey

On the adult side, specifically, from speaking to colleagues in medical oncology, there is very positive feedback on how the existing service, mentioned earlier in the proceedings, has operated over recent years. Obviously, this is a welcome and broader development. I merely wish to note that.

Some countries apparently allow anonymous sperm donors. What is the likely situation in this regard? Has that been clarified, and is the Department providing for it in its proposals?

Ms Geraldine Luddy

That is already dealt with in the Children and Family Relationships Act. We have prohibited the use of anonymous donation in that Act. There is a transition period of, I think, about three years in the Act. This is really important for the rights of the child and for her to have the opportunity in the future to identify her genetic parents.

That precludes payment for donors, obviously.

Ms Geraldine Luddy

Yes.

Dr. Tony Holohan

In our proposals, yes.

Would the members of the committee like to put any other questions to our witnesses?

There will be an ongoing list of questions on this issue, and we need to be prepared for that. It is important we raise them at this stage to reassure the public and those who might be directly affected by the proposals.

As a committee, we anticipate that we will have further hearings on this issue. We will bring in further witnesses and may call on the witnesses before us today to come in again and clarify other questions which may be raised during those meetings.

Dr. Tony Holohan

We would be very happy to do that.

I thank Ms Geraldine Luddy, Dr. Tony Holohan, Mr. Liam Woods, Dr. Colm Henry, Dr. Jerome Coffey and Dr. Peter McKenna for appearing before the committee. As this concludes the business of this morning's meeting, I wish to adjourn the meeting until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 24 January when we will look at the impact of Brexit on Irish health care. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee adjourned at 10.22 a.m. until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 24 January 2018.
Top
Share