Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The question I want to raise is as relevant to section 14 as to other sections - that is, the interconnectivity between the section and the definition of "egg" in the legislation. The draft Bill examined by this committee had a definition of "human reproductive material" which included an ovum or part of an ovum. This had relevance in circumstances in which an ovum was provided but there was a background difficulty with regard to certain genetic diseases that could be inherited, such as mitochondrial deficiencies. If a husband and wife are using their own reproductive material to conceive a child but the wife has a family history of mitochondrial deficiencies, there can be an intervention under what is now the new frontier of genetic reproductive medicine, which allows for modification of the wife's ova with no impact on the looks or personality or the overall genetic makeup of the child that is ultimately born. A 0.1% change to the original material in the ovum using material from a donated ovum would prevent the type of difficulty that arises from what could non-technically be described as mitochondrial disease, where the body is not able to properly digest food to create energy that is necessary. This can have a dramatic impact on the health and welfare of children and adults in areas both mild and serious, including cardiac and respiratory issues. This issue was addressed recently when the Westminster Parliament dealt with a deficiency in its own legislation that created a barrier to dealing with this in the context of assisted reproduction.

This is also relevant in a context in which a husband and wife have no fertility issues, in the sense that they can conceive naturally, but there is an inherited mitochondrial disease in the family. What people may not understand is that the wife's ovum needs to be corrected in this particular way. I am conscious that this is at the frontier of reproductive medicine. It is something I was aware of when I prepared the draft Bill, and the reference to part of an ovum was designed to address this issue. I am conscious that when dealing with legislation there are ten different ways one can draft something to address a problem - there is no perfect drafting methodology - and one can problem-solve with a variety of different phraseologies. I am not sure whether there is a definitive definition. In the context of dealing with the embryo, there is a reference to "a human egg" and "a human sperm" and there does not seem to be a recognition, as the legislation is currently drafted - I am open to correction - that one could in fact be dealing with 99.9% of an ovum derived from the wife, with the final 0.1% coming from a donated ovum, which would correct an inherited deficiency that has an impact on well-being and welfare not just for the child that is born but for generations into the future. This is an issue that is relevant to this section and to earlier sections, and it is important that it be teased out a little.