The moral maze

THE return of Brian Souter to Scotland's moral minefield, eight years after the emotionally scarring battle over Section 28, is a sure sign that something significant is afoot. The re-emergence of the Stagecoach tycoon, who made a £500,000 donation to last year's SNP election campaign, comes as MPs prepare to vote on some of the most controversial ethical issues our society faces today.

Writing opposite, Souter says the Embryology Bill is a "provocative" piece of legislation over which we should all be lobbying our MPs. He takes particular issue with those parts of the Bill that would legalise the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos for research and which would, in his eyes, dilute the rights of fathers in IVF treatment. Souter also says MPs should take the chance to revisit the current time restrictions on abortion and "set the ethical agenda".

As a leading businessman and donor to the governing party in Scotland, Souter's views are undoubtedly worth listening to. Even if his current intervention falls well short of the massive campaign he funded in the bitter debate over the handling of the issue of homosexuality in schools, politicians on all sides will take notice. In this newspaper's view, they must reject much of what he is saying, but should conclude that he is correct on one vital part.

To begin with the issue of animal-human hybrids, we have already made it clear that we believe it would be morally wrong to ban a science that could alleviate the suffering of thousands of people. There is no 'life' involved in any meaningful sense in the creation of hybrids, which involves the transfer of human DNA to an animal cell which is destroyed within days. If this allows scientists, with human cells in short supply, to pursue medical breakthroughs for conditions like multiple sclerosis and muscular dystrophy, then let them get on with their work.

Some believe a new method which creates embryonic stem cells from human skin and stem cells may prove more useful in the long run, but while there is doubt over which option to pursue then both must be allowed. As we said when Cardinal Keith O'Brien spoke out on this issue, we believe MPs should be free from the party whip when they vote on these matters, and they should vote for what will benefit society most.

Souter's stance on the rights of fathers in IVF treatment is something of a red herring. The huge majority of fertility treatment cases involve heterosexual couples in a loving relationship who are desperate for a family. The same will be true of the tiny minority of cases which involve same sex couples, and of single women seeking treatment. It is for the families involved, whatever their form, to decide how to approach the question of fatherhood, not the state.

This newspaper does, however, have some sympathy with Souter's concerns about current abortion laws, which allow terminations at up to 24 weeks gestation. While we do not agree with those who think abortions should be outlawed in all cases, medical advances suggest there should be a serious rethink on the time limit. An East Midlands study published in the British Medical Journal earlier this month concluded that survival prospects for babies born prematurely at 24 or 25 weeks has improved markedly in the last decade. As Souter points out, we could now have one doctor terminating a healthy foetus at 24 weeks while a colleague battles to save the life of another born prematurely at the same gestation.

The same BMJ report suggested that the limits of foetal survival had been reached, however, with no improvement in the prospects of those born at 23 weeks. This supports calls for a reduction in the time limit on abortions, probably to 20 weeks. This would provide enough time for most terminations to be fully considered and performed. It would also address some of the concerns of those who argue that the longer the wait the greater the risk that the foetus will feel pain; earlier abortions are also physically and emotionally easier on the women involved.

This is a moral maze and MPs will be attacked whatever they do. But they have a duty to pick a way through the labyrinth. They should listen to all voices – the voters, those with influence like Brian Souter and, above all, the scientists. Then they must put religious and other considerations aside and do what is right for society.