IVF for lesbians overturns the interests of children, family campaigners warn

Family values campaigners reacted angrily yesterday to a proposal by the head of Britain's fertility regulator to give equal access to IVF treatment for single and lesbian woman.

Suzi Leather, chairwoman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, called for the scrapping of the law that requires women to find a man to act as father to their child before they can be accepted for treatment. She was setting out her views - revealed in The Independent - as the Government announced a review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, 1990, to bring it up to date with current developments in science and changes in society.

But the proposal was condemned by the Tory peer Baroness O'Cathain, who said the HFEA was turning the principle that the interests of the child should be paramount, "completely full circle".

She said the proposals would prioritise "the interests of adults who see children as a way of fulfilling themselves", and they took no notice of "research which says that children really do much better being brought up with a mother and a father".

Ms Leather told BBC Radio 4's World at One that the HFEA recognised children had the best chance of thriving with two parents. Under the current law, doctors must take account of "the need of the child for a father" when deciding who to treat. But that could drive some single women to risky and unorthodox methods such as buying sperm from the internet, warned Ms Leather.

"It is possible that some single and lesbian women are being put off having fertility treatment in licensed centres and are instead, for instance, trying to get hold of sperm on the internet," she said.

"That is a dangerous thing that carries greater risks both for the women involved and indeed is a disadvantage for the children created. They will be denied precisely the kind of protection the Government has announced today - the right to know, when they are 18, their genetic father."

Lady O'Cathain rejected the argument that the changes could limit the risks of what was already taking place unofficially. "Lots of things are happening already that we don't necessarily approve of - paedophilia, child abuse of one sort or another," she said. "Just because something is happening it does not mean that it is right."

Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust also condemned Ms Leather's proposals. He said: "It is yet again undermining the two-parent family. The child has a need for both a father and a mother and together they can provide a richness of care that is not available in any other setting."

A spokesman for the charity Life said: "Suzi Leather's comments that a child's need for a father is somehow outdated is a slap in the face for all men who have campaigned for so long in favour of equal recognition for the vital role that the father plays in the upbringing of a child."

The Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris agreed with the proposed change. He said: "This would be a welcome step, since the evidence is now absolutely clear that children brought up by lesbian couples develop normally and are just as well adjusted as children brought up by mixed-gender parents. Also, single women can do a perfectly satisfactory job of raising children, especially when compared to two-parent families with the same income."