Lord Winston says the HFEA should be replaced with a body that is "a great deal less bureaucratic" after a series of public rows over decisions made by the fertility watchdog.

However, Suzi Leather, chairman of the HFEA defended its work saying they have to make "difficult decisions in a complex and fraught ethical area of science".

Do you agree with Robert Winston's criticism of HFEA? Should the HFEA be replaced? Or do you believe the authority manages well the minefield of ethical and medical dilemmas? Send us your views using the form.

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:

No other area of medicine appears to require an "ethical" regulator David, Leeds, England

No other area of medicine appears to require an "ethical" regulator. There appears to be no reason why the market cannot perform its own regulation in this area, just as it does in all other medical ones. As a concerned party Lord Winston is right to voice his opinion. It is one with which I have sympathy, especially as my ethics are not reflected in those asserted by the HFEA.
David, Leeds, England

I would recommend modernising the HFEA to bring it inline with this governments enlightened views on abortion, genetic engineering and IVF availability. However, I would rather it stay as it is than to see it cheapened and made farcical by the addition of a cadre of hardcore anti-choice militants.
Iain Howe, Amsterdam, Netherlands

The only thing the watchdog should have to do is make sure every objection which references religion is thrown out.
RS, Glasgow UK

The HFEA is advised by a number of self-interested committees who have made a number of very important ethical decisions without wide public consultation. It was not set up to make these decisions and should concentrate on improving its regulation of IVF clinics, as parliament originally intended.
Yvonne, London UK

I think the medical profession should govern themselves with regards to ethics and research - they take the Hippocratic oath. I trust that they have the ethics and all round knowledge to make the correct judgement, they are highly intelligent people.
Anonymous

No-one should make a single decision without the agreement of the couple concerned, any more than a doctor is allowed to remove a dead person's organ without their written permission while alive. Whatever "authority" is appointed must check for validity.
Mary Guttel, Esztergom, Hungary

The HFEA has been doing two jobs. One is regulation and the other is ethical. How can they make balanced ethical decisions when all the members are 'signed up' supporters of the technologies under investigation. What we need is a national bioethics committee to oversee the new technologies and give advice to parliament and the industry.
Roger, London, UK

Any regulatory body should include professionals... and strong representation from the families who receive the assistance CA Metcalfe, Essex, UK

I have some interest in the workings of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority as my child was conceived by fertility treatment 10 years ago. Some regulatory body is needed in principle. The problem with the HFEA, at least at the time I was having treatment, seemed to be inexperienced and young staff trying to deal with a fast moving field which was technically beyond them. Any regulatory body should include professionals with acknowledged competency in the field, and strong representation from the families who receive the assistance.
CA Metcalfe, Essex, UK

I wholly agree with 'Chris' this is an absurd waste of national resources. It is akin to cosmetic surgery and equally ridiculous and selfish.
Tony, E.Sussex, UK.

Chris, UK. If only you knew the heartache behind not being able to have children. I guess you do not have a fertility problem, or you would never have made such an insensitive comment. Our desire to have children is not 'selfish' but a want to love and cherish a child of our own. Steve, Newcastle. How ignorant can you get. If you think infertility is all about lifestyle, you are very much mistaken. Take it from a couple who know.
Natalie Smith, Newport, South Wales

To Chris, UK: I'm guessing you have never been in the situation of wanting children but not being able to conceive naturally. Fertility rates are dropping because of lifestyles, because of what we eat and do; over-population is not the cause.
Lenny P, London

To Chris, UK Who are you to decide who is born or not? My son was born via IVF - We spent over �8000 of our own money (not a penny from public funds) to have a child. He is very
Anon, Lincs, UK

I have the utmost respect for Lord Winston and the work that he has done. I agree with him that the HFEA should be replaced , or at the very least drastically updated. The amount of research carried out by the medical profession over the last 14 years is enormous. How can a body founded based on work carried out over 14 years be applying those views to today? The board needs to be made up of more lay members of the public rather than health professionals. Clear new guidelines need to be set on the ethical issues involved with issues such as 'saviour siblings'.
Mike Burden, New Malden, UK

I am forever amazed at the comments levelled at couples suffering from the misery of infertility. Having children is what we are designed to do and when nature gets it wrong the consequences can be cruel. Infertility causes untold distress, isolation and sadness. It's easy to label infertile patients "selfish". Say that to my elderly aunt who at 80 still grieves quietly for the children she never had or the grandchildren she was denied. Our patients just want to be like everyone else, they want a baby to love and cherish - and I cant see anything wrong with that.
Wanda, Notts, UK

I can see no reason for a 'regulator' which makes what seem to be arbitrary decisions about people's and children's lives Naomi Richland, Bushey, Herts

I can see no reason for a 'regulator' which makes what seem to be arbitrary decisions about people's and children's lives. There is no doubt that some of the advances being made ought to be controlled but any issues that arise from these new technologies ought to be controlled by legislation; there already is legislation in place to prevent human cloning. Another point to make is the double standards of a legal system where anyone can terminate a life but the right to help save/cure a life is often hard won.
Naomi Richland, Bushey, Herts

I agree, HFEA is a bureaucratic organisation that needs to be replaced with a more 'human' organisation that perhaps involves more lay people with first hand experience of fertility issues. It is an organisation that seriously effects many lives both present and future and I do not believe that many of the decisions reflect this. How can a person who has never experienced a particular situation make a decision on it that effects and in many instances destroys those it does involve?
JF, London, UK

I notice that people who can, and do, have children without recourse to medical treatment are rarely referred to as "selfish".
Jane, Wales, UK

Sorry Peter from Nottingham, but if your desire to be a parent is so strong after your illness then why is IVF the only way you consider? Having our 'own' children has become the only way for childless couples to go now, what about all the children who need to be adopted and fostered?
Jennifer, Netherlands, ex UK

Why have any regulatory body at all? So-called "ethics" are merely an excuse for people to interfere with the freedoms of others. Science has always followed its own path, seeking knowledge for its own sake, often with unforeseen benefits, sometimes the opposite. The fears of cloning, and the clamour about "the rights of embryos" are only personal opinions of groups with a religious, or "moral" viewpoint and should not be allowed to restrict the search for knowledge, in this or any subject.
Barry P, Havant, England

By all means get rid of the HFEA; but replace it with a national bioethics committee and one which has pro- and not just anti-lifers on it. The HFEA is inconsistent, made up of people who are very much against the pro-life view and it bows to whatever the government wants to hear. Get rid of it and quickly.
Karen Bruin, York UK

The problem, which Suzi Leather herself acknowledged, is that the legislation establishing the HFEA is now 14 years old. This is one of the fastest areas of scientific advancement and the legislation and the watchdog should be updated.
Katherine, London, UK

I find it odd that Prof Winston believes the HFEA to be inefficient. Several legal challenges have been brought regarding decisions of the HFEA (Ms Quintavalle having been involved in at least one of them) and yet each time the HFEA's actions have been upheld. Sounds to me like it's doing its job of implementing the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 1990 just fine.
Georgie, Cambridge, UK

I don't understand Lord Winston's logic in wanting to remove a regulatory body whilst at the same time wanting someone to prevent wrong practice. Does he want to leave it to the professions themselves?
Jennifer, Isle of Lewis

I agree with Lord Winston. The HFEA should be reorganised along the lines of similar bodies in other countries, which deal more with the bioethical aspects of such a matter. What we have at the moment is a quango which does not appear to be answerable to anyone, not even to Parliament.
G F D Smith, Manchester, England

I do not think the HFEA should be scrapped. On balance it has done a good job since it was formed and has done a far better job of addressing the ethical issues than many other countries. It is essential that such an agency exists to regulate science where human life is involved. It may well need to have its remit revised in the light of scientific advances but for that reason it is more needed than ever - we are dealing with the building blocks of human life.
Ian, Oxford, UK

Their selfish desire is not a reason for us to spend a fortune making the world's problems worse Chris, UK

We should stop all IVF treatment for anyone. The fertility and birth rates are falling because we are massively over-populated, a problem that will find it's own solution if we don't solve it first. I understand that some people want children and can't have them, but their selfish desire is not a reason for us to spend a fortune making the world's problems worse. Time for people to realise that they can't have everything they want. Spend the money wasted on this finding ways to actually improve our world.
Chris, UK

Steve, Newcastle. I hope you never have testicular cancer and require IVF. Unfortunately some "selfish" people feel the need for life saving chemotherapy which leaves them sterile and then further seek to annoy you by wanting children. Infertility is very rarely caused by lifestyle choice.
Peter, Nottingham

The HFEA is out-of-line with thinking on some fertility issues compared with countries abroad Liz, Brighton

The HFEA is out-of-line with thinking on some fertility issues compared with countries abroad. One example is the draconian rules about compensating egg donors which has led to waits for donors in the UK of up to 2 years. For many older women this waiting time is unacceptable and this forces couples to go abroad for treatment where there is a more enlightened attitude and thus a more ready supply of egg donors.
Liz, Brighton

The HFEA is just another example of 'nanny state knows best'. On top of that it is an unelected quango staffed by establishment free loaders. Close it down!
Rob, Sunderland, England

Does Robert Winston not have a guarded interest here though, given that his work seems to defend IVF for anyone and as many times as they need it at the expense of all other medical research and work? If people followed a healthier lifestyle, we would not need to divert as many funds from other important research work to satisfy some couples selfish needs
Steve, Newcastle

Ethical decisions, following new technical developments, should be taken by Parliament alone Josephine Quintavalle, London

IVF is about the creation of children, and their welfare and safety deserve maximum protection; and the interests of society as a whole also need serious consideration. The HFEA should continue to implement regulation, and ensure that clinics are clean and efficient and functioning properly. But its role should stop firmly there. Ethical decisions, following new technical developments, should be taken by Parliament alone, with due public consultation, and advice from a democratically structured national ethics committee.
Josephine Quintavalle, London

It's no surprise that a fertility doctor dislikes the HFEA. It's a bit like British Telecom asking for Ofcom to be scrapped! The HFEA is has an absolutely vital role. Scientists should not be a law unto themselves just because they claim that everything they do is for the benefit of mankind.
Peter Shields, Bradford, UK

Yes, this unelected group of self-interested individuals should be scrapped. Why doesn't the UK follow the example of other nations and form a national bioethics committee made up of people with real expertise in dealing with ethical dilemmas?
Julia Millington, London, England

The term watchdog gives the impression that this body is here to ensure safety. Whereas it appears to me to give licence to any research or treatment that comes up. I'm waiting for scientists to start applying some moral framework to the work they engage in and take some responsibility for it. It is about time we realised that just because something can be done doesn't necessarily mean we should do it.
Ged, Liverpool

The public needs protection from the "Frankenstein" lobby who want to play God Len, Scotland

A typical outburst from a member of the medical profession who has a public image and wants everything his way! The public needs protection from the "Frankenstein" lobby who want to play God! Review and adapt the HFEA rather than scrap.
Len, Scotland

The HFEA should not be scrapped as I believe that there should be a body to govern the practices but then again if they are as 'useful' as the other watchdogs - Ofsted, Ofwat etc, what is the point? I think flexibility is the key point to remember. Whilst the majority of people can conceive naturally there are a large number of people that simply need this body looking out for their interests and somebody to go to if they get improper treatment at the hands of some unscrupulous private health clinic who prey on the heart felt desires of the people who want families.
Simon M, London, UK

As long as progress isn't impeded and human development is allowed to flourish then what does it matter who oversees the issues? As long as we don't have fundamentalists screaming foul play at all attempts to cure disease, I don't see a real issue here. We use animals for similar tests and very few of us cry out about the unethical ways in which we do that. Humans are simply animals. We share the same life-characteristics as other animals. We are not special, and in fact, only reached our current advanced state due to luck and violence.
Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, UK

The HFEA seems unable to form a coherent policy on what is and is not allowed Al, Skipton UK

Lord Winston is correct in his opinion of the HFEA, who seem unable to form a coherent policy on what is and is not allowed. However, there must be some form of regulation in this area, if only to allay fears of abuse of the technology. A new HFEA, with new members, should be instigated, and a remit more in line with the current technologies.
Al, Skipton UK