Læknablaðið - 15.02.1987, Side 20

50
1987; 73: 50-7 LÆKNABLAÐIÐ
Sir Malcolm C. Macnaughton
THE ETHICS OF ARTIFICIAL REPRODUCTION
The Sigurður S. Magnússon Memorial Lecture at Landspítalinn
17.10.1986
I am very honoured to be asked to give this
Sigurdur S. Magnusson Memorial Lecture. Siggi
Magnusson was a very close friend of mine for
many years. Our friendship began when he used
to come to Glasgow to the Royal Maternity
Hospital with his group of midwives. We met at
that time and spent many hours together talking
about obstetrics and gynaecology and many other
things and, at the same time, drinking malt
whisky which we both enjoyed.
In the true tradition of this country he was a great
talker and liked nothing better than a good
discussion. He often came to our home for an
evening and we would talk late before I took him
to his brother, Magnus’s, house which is near to
my own home in Glasgow. His friendship meant a
lot to me and we miss him greatly.
In 1982, he was elected to the Fellowship ad
eundem of the Royal College of Obstyetricians
and Gynaecologists and I know he was very proud
of this honour. I had the privilege of presenting
him to the President for admission at that time.
We were all very distressed to hear of his passing
and are most sad for Audrey and the family about
whom he talked a lot. The last time I saw him was
in Berlin last year and he said that I must come to
Iceland during my term as President of the Royal
College and I am very pleased to be here today to
honour his memory.
One of the topics I used to discuss with Siggi was
what we call now artificial reproduction. We
talkeda lot about this: the ethical, legal and the
moral aspects. In the UK, this has given rise to
wide debate and publicity and I thought it might
be of interest to discuss this with you today.
I became interested in this subject because one of
the thrusts of my own department is infertility
management. When the new techniques became
available, it was a natural step to start using them
in our clinical practice. I was then asked to
become a member of the Warnock Committee
which was set up by the British Government to
look into the whole question of human
fertilisation and embryoiogy and we spent two
years meeting regularly to discuss this matter and
produced in 1984 what is colloquially called »The
Warnock Report«. Much of what I will say
derives from my membership of the Warnock
Committee.
This Committee was set up to examine, amongst
other things, the ethical implications of the new
developments in the field of reproduction.
When we consider these new techniques, we have
to direct our attention not only to possible future
practice and legislation but to the principles on
which such practices and such legislation might
rest. One has to be careful not to appear to dictate
on matters of morals to the public at large.
Members of the Warnock Committee were also
keenly aware that no expression of their own
feelings would be a credible basis for
recommendations, even if everybody felt the
same. It is evident that feelings among the public
at large run very high in these matters. The
feelings are also very diverse and moral
indignation or acute uneasiness often takes the
place of argument but what the Committee tried
to do was to attempt to discover the public good
in the widest sense and to make recommendations
in the light of that. We had to adopt what a
philosopher would call »a steady and general
point of view«.
In the Inquiry, some members had a clear
perception of the family and its role in society; in
considering the various techniques the focus of
some is on the primacy of the interests of the child
and on the upholding family values. Others feel
equally strongly about the rights of the individual
within society. It was interesting that whatever
our feelings were at the start of the deliberations,
we all found that these changed and were
modified as we progressed and as we examined
the information that was sent to us. This is not
surprising because advances in this field are so
rapid. This illustrated how important it was to
base our views on argument, rather than
sentiment although we were mindful of the fact