Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15920] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 We have heard the arguments from Stephen Franks who certainly would like to have no regulations and who states that there is almost no risk with these procedures. We have heard from a member at the other end of the spectrum Sue Kedgley from the Greens who would love to have far greater regulations and who also suggests there is an enormous degree of risk with most of these procedures. In the middle is Judy Turner who wants the suspending of embryos to last for a microsecond within 14 days. They are all pretty impossible tasks and they all demonstrate the need for flexibility within the mechanism we come up with to achieve a practical solution in dealing with this vast spectrum of human assisted reproductive technology. Once again I stress the fact that there is such a vast spectrum of it that it is impossible— 
Stephen Franks 
: Stay out of it then. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
:—to be able to generalise or make rigid rules either way. I hear Stephen Franks say we should stay out of it but we just have to go to one specific area. 
 For instance let us look at clause 13 “Commercial supply of human embryos or human gametes prohibited”. Undoubtedly in New Zealand there is a strong feeling that altruistic surrogacy and the altruistic supply of human embryos and gametes provide a hugely positive opportunity for those couples in need. But we know from the United States of America where commercial surrogacy and commercial dealing in human tissues occurs that some of the most awful distortions of human nature and results are imposed on the babies due to legal entanglements and fighting. We certainly would not want that sort of dealing to happen in New Zealand at this stage of events or at least until we sort it out a little bit. 
Stephen Franks 
: Tell us about it! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I am sure that it would personally suit Mr Franks very well. It would keep him in business at high cost to the misery of potentially hundreds of thousands of people for a long long time to come. There are much more important things to work out. Practically it would be quite inappropriate in my view to have such dealing in a country where we do have altruistic donors who are willing on an altruistic basis to make it possible for people to take advantage of the technologies available. I think it was Sue Kedgley who said that there are no regulations but here is a specific regulation that basically bans the commercial use of embryos ovaries and surrogacy and undoubtedly that is right and proper. 
When we look at clause 10 we see that human in vitro embryos and human in vitro gametes are not to be stored for more than 10 years. As my colleague Dr Lynda Scott pointed out that is a hugely important provision. If indeed a young girl of 15 was diagnosed with cancer then this may be her only opportunity to store her own gametes. She would be only 25 after 10 years—much below the average age of conception these days in New Zealand—but due to the flexibility of this bill the ethics committee could allow her to have those gametes stored further. On the other hand it is very important to have this under constant monitoring because that same girl could have died. Who then owns the gametes embryos or whatever they are? Once again we get into these enormous potential legal tangles. These are not simple matters but it is important to work out some basic areas where we decide by consensus that there is sheer practicality for having these provisions and I believe in clause 10 that is exactly what has happened. 
Clause 11 talks about restrictions on sex selection of human embryos. Once again this is an area where there is a possible defence.