Rob Merrick: A moral dilemma

Mar 26 2008 by Rob Merrick, Liverpool Daily Post

WHEN Robin Cook’s conscience would not allow him to vote for the invasion of Iraq, he was forced to resign from the Cabinet and end his political career on the backbenches.

There was no question of Tony Blair giving his front-bench colleagues a free vote on the war. They either accepted the principle of “collective responsibility” – or they quit.

Now Labour MPs will get a free vote on key aspects of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill – making it easier for lesbian couples to have fertility treatment, so-called “saviour siblings” and, most contentiously, animal-human hybrid embryos.

Yet which of these issues creates the greater moral dilemma? A war which has caused perhaps 1m civilian deaths, or using the outer, empty shell of animal eggs to try to save countless lives?

Make no mistake, that is what the most “moral” aspect of this Bill boils down to – whatever the outrageous campaign of disinformation by some church leaders in recent days.

The leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland condemned “experiments of Frankenstein proportions”, as if there was some dastardly Department of Health plot to create new life forms.

But, back on planet Earth, scientists will use these hybrid embryos – in place of scarce human eggs – to try to find cures for crippling diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Motor Neurone, cancer and heart disease.

More than 99% of the animal’s genetic make-up is removed from the egg before human DNA is inserted.

And the hybrid exists in a laboratory for just 14 days, to harvest stem cells for research, before being destroyed.

Going back to my earlier question – whether Iraq or embryo research poses greater moral questions – there can be only one answer, surely? It must be going to war.

Now, I am not suggesting that Catholic Labour MPs who cannot support these measures should be literally dragged kicking and screaming into the “Yes” lobby. Of course they shouldn’t.

But any MP is already free to vote with their conscience, if they wish. It would simply mean, for a government minister, stepping down and sitting on the backbenches – just as Robin Cook did.

In caving in yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke of the vital importance of a Bill supported by all scientific bodies, plus Cancer Research and the British Heart Foundation. Yet, despite that, he puts it in peril.

Worse for Mr Brown, he spent a full six weeks pondering the problem before announcing his climbdown, during which Labour peers in the Lords were whipped into line.

Expect the Tories to hail the U-turn as further evidence of his dithering and weakness. On this occasion, it is hard to argue.