Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Synod nod to gays on in vitro babies Church nod for gay in vitro couples

Clare Garner
Wednesday 26 November 1997 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The Church of England has declared that a couple does not necessarily have to be married to receive in vitro fertilisation. Furthermore, it has not ruled out that in exceptional circumstances same-sex couples might be eligible for the treatment too. Clare Garner heard yesterday's debate on reproductive ethics at the General Synod.

Cohabiting couples and those in same-sex relationships can provide an equally loving environment in which to raise a child as married couples - and therefore should not be barred from receiving IVF treatment, the Church decided yesterday.

An overwhelming majority of Synod members approved an amendment to the motion on human fertilisation so that it acknowledged that "some couples seem to be in that relationship (ie marriage) in all but name." The amendment was proposed by the Rev Cannon Dr John Polkinghorne, retired professor of physics at Queens' College, Cambridge, and chair of the Church's medical ethics committee.

In the debate, Dr Polkinghorne insisted the Christian response to the issue of IVF should be "positive affirmation rather than any form of negative absolutism." He continued: The diversity of circumstance in which a couple can bring a child into the world and provide that child with a stable upbringing means that such a subject cannot be reduced to one line answers." Marriage was the best - but no the only - environment in which to bring up children.

"As Christians, we certainly believe the lifelong institution of marriage provides the ideal for all procreation," he said, adding that "there are today many couples of manifest stable commitment who do not choose to undergo a legal and public affirmation of marriage."

The original wording of the motion, proposed by Keith Masters, an obstetrician and gynaecologist from the Lichfield diocese, recommended that the Church's guidelines on IVF should state that "the procedures should be used only to treat cases of infertility in married couples with stable and continuing heterosexual relationships." When Dr Polkinghorne raised his objections to the exclusive phrasing, Mr Masters thanked him for bringing the motion "up to date".

Last year the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, who was at the debate, criticised cohabitation and reasserted that there should be no sex outside marriage. After the debate Dr Polkinghorne elaborated on his position on the eligibility for treatment of same-sex relationships. He did not rule out IVF for homosexuals: "I don't think moral judgement proceeds by a big check-list ... a supportive relationship with two same-sex people is clearly better than an utterly destructive relationship of a ... heterosexual couple."

The Church did, however, adopt a strong line on a menopause cut-off point. Members voted to limit availability of IVF to women of a child-bearing age.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in