'Pro-life' tactics on tissue typing

'[A] defeat for society at large and certainly an overwhelming defeat for Parliamentary democracy.' So read the response from Josephine Quintavalle, Director of CORE (Comment on Reproductive Ethics), to April's UK Court of Appeal decision concerning tissue typing.

The Court had reversed an earlier decision, in which a judge had held that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) was not empowered to grant a licence for this particular technique. Although the Court of Appeal's ruling may in turn be appealed to the House of Lords, Shahana and Raj Hashmi are in the meantime free to resume their efforts to have the child that could save the life of their son Zain.

While the latest decision was greeted with predictable warmth by the HFEA, the British Medical Association (BMA), and of course by the Hashmis themselves, CORE's response may seem slightly more surprising to anyone familiar with the organisation's raison d'etre. In a make-over of which any Westminster spin-doctor would be proud, CORE has sought to divest itself of traditional 'pro-life' trappings, re-casting itself as guardian of democratic accountability and champion of the people.

Yet CORE's website perhaps provides a more accurate picture of the group's ethical underpinnings than the statements Mrs Quintavalle shares with the media. In the section headed 'About Core', the site proclaims that 'Absolute respect for the human embryo is a principal tenet'. Of course, if such respect is absolute, then by definition it takes precedence over the will of Parliament, public opinion, the welfare of existing children, or any of the other concerns to which CORE pays lip service when the cameras are rolling.

It is worth looking a little closer at the message which is at the heart of CORE's (ethical, if not legal) objection to tissue typing. In a press release relating to this technique, CORE made clear where this objection lies. This statement was problematic on several counts, the most obvious perhaps being the claim that the child in such circumstances has been 'deliberately design[ed]... as a tissue match'. There is no question of the Hashmis (or the Whitakers, whose attempt to use a similar technique was refused by the HFEA) 'designing' the new child, in the sense of altering its genetic composition to render it a more suitable donor. Indeed, the labelling of such children as 'designer babies' is an example of the success groups like CORE have enjoyed in blurring the issues, replacing rigorous analysis with sensationalist sound-bites and sci-fi buzzwords.

Secondly, it should be remembered that the cells that are required for Zain's treatment will be harvested from the umbilicus, so no invasive surgery - such as would be required for bone marrow donation - will be needed. While CORE's purported concern for the 'autonomy and bodily integrity' of the new child is laudable, there is simply no question of either being under threat.

For a group that claims that absolute value attaches to life, it seems strange that CORE would object to a technique that creates one child's life, while saving that of another - and harming no-one at all. For a group that regularly invokes democracy and accountability as its concern, it seems suspiciously willing to use the courts to obtain its objectives, rather than follow the legislative path through Parliament. When a group like CORE substitutes overt concern for the embryo with appeals to democracy and accountability, when it replaces principled argument with legal technicalities, it is a clear indication that it regards the battle for the hearts and minds of the British public, and their elected representatives, as lost.

Colin Gavaghan is a lecturer in the School of Law at the University of Glasgow.