This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/health/6175501.stm

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
IVF father figure clause is to go IVF father figure clause is to go
(about 1 hour later)
The government is to abolish the requirement for fertility clinics to consider the need for a father when deciding whether to offer treatment.The government is to abolish the requirement for fertility clinics to consider the need for a father when deciding whether to offer treatment.
It means clinics will no longer be able to deny treatment to lesbians and single mothers out of hand. This means clinics will no longer be able to deny treatment to lesbians and single mothers out of hand.
A white paper outlining plans for a major overhaul of the law on assisted human reproduction and embryo research is being published. The new white paper also says both partners in same-sex couples using IVF to conceive will now be legally recognised as parents.
It follows a public consultation exercise on the current law. It makes 25 proposals to overhaul outdated laws on assisted reproduction.
It follows a public consultation exercise on the current 16-year-old law, which includes rules on what type of embryo research can be carried out.
The current law, which has served us well, is in need of revision Caroline Flint, health minister Send us your commentsThe current law, which has served us well, is in need of revision Caroline Flint, health minister Send us your comments
Ministers felt the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 needed to be updated as science has moved on significantly in the last 16 years. Ministers felt the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 needed to be updated as science has moved on significantly.
Launching the white paper, Health Minister Caroline Flint said: "The current law, which has served us well, is in need of revision. Launching the white paper, health minister Caroline Flint said: "The current law, which has served us well, is in need of revision.
"Technology has changed, and so have attitudes.""Technology has changed, and so have attitudes."
Couples are also to be banned from choosing the sex of their baby for non-medical reasons. The changes
The proposed change has been criticised in some quarters. Couples are also to be banned from choosing the sex of their baby for non-medical reasons, such as "family balancing".
Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "This paper takes on board, almost carte blanche, the libertarian recommendations of the science and technology select committee, with political correctness the highest priority and welfare of children the lowest. DIY home methods of sperm sorting into "male" and "female" would also break the law.
"We can only hope that Parliament will wisely reject the absurd proposal to do away with the child's need for a father." But they will be able to have embryos screened for serious genetic disorders, or to select one that is a suitable tissue match for a sick sibling.
Anna Smajdor, researcher in medical ethics at Imperial College London, said: "This document clarifies many areas which were previously hazy or uncertain. Clinics will still be required to consider the welfare of a child who may be born as a result of treatment, despite protests that couples conceiving naturally do not face similar checks.
"While the removal of the specific reference to a need for a father is on balance a good thing, it still remains utterly bizarre that fertility clinicians should be responsible for making judgements about the suitability of people to be parents. Scientists will be able to push forward research in some areas, such as altering the genetic structure of cells that make embryos, but have been banned from using any of such embryo to make a baby.
"If these judgements are to be made, the criteria need to be specific, and the people responsible for making the judgements should not be those who stand to profit from the treatment." Similarly, scientists are prohibited from making chimeras - human-animal hybrids - but not necessarily forever.
The law will contain a clause allowing for the possibility that this type of work should be permitted in the future.
Some of the proposed changes have been criticised in some quarters.
Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, criticised the removal of the need for a father reference saying: "It's a dreadful statement to make about the role of men. Fatherhood is much more than the donation of sperm.
"We can only hope that parliament will wisely reject the absurd proposal to do away with the child's need for a father."
Anna Smajdor, researcher in medical ethics at Imperial College London, said: "While the removal of the specific reference to a need for a father is on balance a good thing, it still remains utterly bizarre that fertility clinicians should be responsible for making judgements about the suitability of people to be parents."
Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris also welcomed the removal of the need for a father clause.
He said: "It was unjustifiable, discriminatory and vindictive. It was also unsustainable in human rights and equality terms.
"The evidence suggests children do very well brought up by lesbian couples and solo parents, so good riddance."