Chain在她的演講中指出，該法案不包含“任何與患者、患者安全甚至治療結(jié)果相關(guān)的詞”。作為監(jiān)管者，她認(rèn)為HFEA有責(zé)任“將所有這三件事放在我們工作的前沿”。

　　PET主管Sarah Norcross對現(xiàn)*化的呼吁表示歡迎。她說：“我們決定召開我們的“生殖監(jiān)管”會議，發(fā)言者包括HFEA和其他監(jiān)管機構(gòu)，因為管理生育治療和相關(guān)研究的法律法規(guī)正在暴露他們的年齡?！斑@是一個絕佳的機會，可以闡明誰調(diào)節(jié)生育能力以及如何調(diào)節(jié)。”

　　在她的演講中，Chain強調(diào)了該法案中需要特別關(guān)注的幾個領(lǐng)域。第一個涉及患者保護和維持為他們提供的護理質(zhì)量。這將包括更廣泛的解決績效不佳的方法，例如對不合規(guī)診所的經(jīng)濟制裁。這還包括解決生育部門日益商業(yè)化的問題，其中65%的治療是自籌資金，公共資金分配不均，導(dǎo)致“郵政彩票”。

　　在這個標(biāo)題下，Chain還討論了生育治療的“附加”，以及這些可能導(dǎo)致患者混淆或容易受到診所經(jīng)濟剝削的可能性。她解釋說，就目前的情況而言，HFEA在生育治療的這方面幾乎沒有權(quán)力——因此HFEA最近與競爭和市場管理局合作，后者的消費者保護主管在PET會議上與Chain一起發(fā)言。

　　Chain談到了其他幾個她認(rèn)為該法案不符合現(xiàn)*家庭和醫(yī)學(xué)的領(lǐng)域，包括將母親定義為“懷有或已經(jīng)懷過孩子的女人”。這實際上排除了一些同性伴侶、跨性別父母和單親父母。

　　Chain還特別指出了14天規(guī)則，該規(guī)則要求用于研究的人類胚胎在其創(chuàng)造后的14天內(nèi)銷毀，以及有關(guān)生育治療的信息具有醫(yī)療保密的特殊地位（超出患者的一般考慮）。保密）。

　　Chain預(yù)計這些變化將取得快速進展，并表示“我們不是從一張白紙開始，該法案的大部分內(nèi)容仍然適用于目的”。她補充說，她的目標(biāo)是“明年與衛(wèi)生和社會保健部就需要改變的內(nèi)容達(dá)成大綱協(xié)議”。

　　The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority(HFEA)has detailed potential updates to current laws regarding fertility treatment practices in the UK,including improved patient protection.

　　The announcement was made in a speech delivered by Julia Chain,chair of the HFEA,at the annual conference of the Progress Educational Trust(PET,the charity that publishes BioNews).She clarified that much of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990,which established laws regarding fertility treatments and research(and was given a major update in 2008),remains suitable for purpose.However,she argued,the sector had become increasingly difficult to regulate,given substantial medical advances and changes in social attitudes.

　　'The fertility sector has really changed significantly since the Act was first brought into being',Chain told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 prior to the conference.'It's time we really had a look at what needs to be modernised.'

　　In her speech,Chain pointed out that the Act does not contain'any words in it relating to patients,patient safety,or even outcomes of treatment'.As a regulator,she argued that it was the duty of the HFEA'to keep all those three things at the front of our work'.

　　Sarah Norcross,director of PET,welcomed the call for modernisation.'We decided to hold our"Reproducing Regulation"conference,with speakers including the HFEA and other regulators,because the law and regulation that govern fertility treatment and related research are showing their age',she said.'This is a fantastic opportunity to clarify who regulates fertility,and how.'

　　In her speech,Chain highlighted several areas of the Act that require particular focus.The first concerned patient protection and maintaining the quality of care provided for them.This would include a broader range of methods for addressing poor performance,such as economic sanctions against non-compliant clinics.This would also include addressing the increasing commercialisation of the fertility sector,where 65 percent of treatments are self-funded and public funding is poorly distributed,resulting in a'postcode lottery'.

　　Under this heading,Chain also addressed fertility treatment'add-ons',and the possibility that these may contribute to patient confusion or vulnerability to financial exploitation by clinics.She explained that as things currently stand,the HFEA has little power over this aspect of fertility treatment–hence the HFEA's recent collaboration with the Competition and Markets Authority,whose director of consumer protection spoke alongside Chain at PET's conference.

　　Chain touched on several other areas where she considered the Act to be out of step with modern families and medicine,including the definition of a mother as'the woman who is carrying or has carried a child'.This effectively excludes some same-sex couples,trans parents and single parents.

　　Chain also singled out the 14-day rule,which requires human embryos used in research to be destroyed within 14 days of their creation,and the fact that information about fertility treatment has a special status of medical secrecy(over and above ordinary considerations of patient confidentiality).

　　Chain anticipated that quick progress would be made bringing about these changes,saying that'we are not starting with a blank sheet of paper and much of the Act remains fit for purpose'.She added that her aim is'to reach an outline agreement with the Department of Health and Social Care next year on what needs to change.'