Science and Technology Committee - Identical twins on demand

Identical twins on demand

A childless woman is approaching the menopause but is keen to start a family with her new husband. The couple have failed to have a child naturally and begin IVF treatment. The couple wish to have two children and in view of the woman’s age, they decide they would like identical twins using a process called embryo splitting. Should they be allowed?

Legal status: Lawful but regulated by HFEA but clinics are expected not to “produce embryos in vitro by embryo splitting for treatment purposes” (HFEA 6th Code of Practice).

Scientific status: Animal research well advanced and this may be available in the future.

Slippery slope?

posted 02/02/2004 - 14:54 by kjt

Given that the chance of being born underweight, premature and/or with other medical problems is significantly higher for twins and triplets than it is for singletons (reflected by clinics and regulators all over Western Europe trying to move clinicians and patients to only implant one embryo at a time), it does not seem advisable to implant twins into an older woman's body. With regard to embryo splitting, the technology has received some negative press lately with doctors offering it for less than ethically acceptable uses. Thus, as it seems that there is no significant benefit from allowing for it (why not implant two different embryos at the same time instead of two embryos of monozygotic twins?), it might be better to regulate it until a bona fide use might re-open the question of embryo splitting.

Message from the committee secretariat

posted 10/02/2004 - 17:28 by robertsa

Would it make a difference if the embryos resulting from splitting were implanted separately?

The scenario as outlined above used the example of an older woman. Perhaps we should consider a situation where a younger woman simply decides that she would like to two identical children. Is there any reason why somebody should be prevented from doing so?

Dr Alun Roberts
Committee Specialist
Science and Technology Committee

Supermarket shopping?

posted 12/02/2004 - 23:38 by S Williamson

It feels like supermarket shopping if you can pay for it you can get what you want. We really need to start thinking about what the children would want as well as the whole family needs not on a wish of a mother. It feels like the mother/ fathers needs are paramount and no thoughts of the children's on how would the children react how it would effect them growing up.

Isn't one good enough?

posted 14/02/2004 - 10:30 by Fiona

I agree with the objections to embryo splitting already stated. In addition, I can see no reason why anyone should be allowed to demand two babies. Isn't one good enough?

IVF should focus on ensuring that everything is done to safeguard the life and wellbeing of every embryo that is created by making the conditions as optimal as possible. Presumably the optimal conditions would mimic the non-interference in a normal pregnancy which takes place inside the woman's body. In assisted reproduction like normal pregnancy, every medical expertise should be employed to ensure that the embryo once created has the best chance of survival, so that every child created through IVF can be the best he or she can be. We should have a regulatory ethos that reflects the preciousness of each embryo, which would be better for the parents using IVF as well as the children created by IVF.

"Would it make a difference if the embryos resulting from splitting were implanted separately?"

I strongly oppose this on the grounds that deliberating separating identical twins in assisted reproduction, either by a time lapse between the birth of each clone or by using a surrogate mother so that the twins are born at the same time, would violate the unique bond all brothers and sisters, but particularly identical twins have. If the separation of the twin-clones is intended just for the duration of the pregnancy before the twins are reunited, then it is exploitative physically and emotionally of the woman who is used as a surrogate, and constitutes a wrong to the child who is then separated from the gestational mother. If there is no surrogate, but the twins are born in different pregnancies to the same woman, then these clones (time lapse twins) are not twins as we know them. Their existence generates all the psychological identity and expectation problems of reproductive cloning and having an older clone.

Why use embryo splitting at all? I cannot see any reason for it. It seems merely cosmetic. If the identical twins are kept separate after birth, then why create identical twins in the first place?

I just agree so much with eve

posted 14/02/2004 - 17:36 by June Parr

I just agree so much with everything that Fiona has said. Well done. June

Embryo splitting

posted 15/03/2004 - 10:10 by Philippa Taylor

Embryo splitting is not lawful for treatment, only for research, under the HFEA. This policy was developed in 1994 by the HFEA when it agreed that it would only permit embryo splitting in research projects where the aim of the project did not include increasing the number of embryos for transfer. (see Cloning Issues in Reproduction, Science and Medicine, by the HFEA and Human Genetics Advisory Commission, 1998). This policy was developed because this was regarded as a type of cloning technique. Surely the reasons for preventing it for treatment purposes are are as relevant now as they were in 1994?

HFEA conclusions still apply

posted 15/03/2004 - 13:02 by careorg

Allowing such a process would be allowing a type of cloning. This is universally abhorred by society and should not be permitted. The discussions and the then debates (see report by the HFEA and Human Genetics Advisory Commission 1998) still apply now. The conclusions still remain as to why this should not be allowed. Progress in science in achieving this is not itself a reason to change these conclusions.

Allowing a few selfish adults to have children by such means and at such high costs (including implications for the child born, and the legacy of inherent genetic flaws for the later generations born of that child) is highly irresponsible.