Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, in speaking to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 I would like to spell out that I am speaking as an individual today, that the position I take and the responses and the statements that I make have in no way been the result of pressure by any third-party individual or organisation, or, can I say, any local church. Bills such as this one before the House today are a matter of individual conscience. Each one of us has the responsibility and indeed carries the severe and heavy weight of these matters in order to take a stand one way or another to make a decision: yes or no.

Although I generally would approach such matters from a conservative point of view, having a strong view that life begins at conception, I have approached this matter from the outset with an open mind, attending many briefings by scientists and reading as much material as possible to inform my decision. In the Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, in an article entitled ‘Human embryonic stem cell research: no way around a scientific bottleneck’, James L. Sherley, Associate Professor of Biological Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote:

... reports on the controversy around hESC ... only listed nonscientists as critics.

…            …            …

The public needs to know that many expert stem cell biologists are also against research that results in human deaths.

He states:

... [such] research cannot be justified on scientific grounds. Effective, long-lasting cell therapy requires adult stem cells.

Further on in his article, he says:

In order for promised hESC-based therapies to be successful, first hESCs must be converted into adult stem cells.

…            …            …

Adult stem cells can be obtained from informed consenting adults, and they already have examples of successful cell therapies. Bone marrow transplantation is one example ...

These arguments are also backed by over 200 doctors. Doctors against Cloning state:

Scientifically, claims about potential benefits from therapeutic cloning have been misleading.

A distinctive lack of scientific evidence and the absence of clinical trials, which indicates that there may not be any benefits to human embryo stem cell research, is one reason I oppose the bill. I ask the question: will this send scientists down a track that will attract funds that will produce no results, when these funds could be focused on adult stem cell research which shows there is already evidence of real relief for disease? Professor Jack Martin, from the University of Melbourne, expressed openly on more than one occasion to the Senate committee that ‘there is no proof of principle regarding the benefits of embryonic stem cell research’. I would like to see further investment in research to find answers for people suffering from such debilitating diseases as Parkinson’s, MS, Alzheimer’s, diabetes and many more. I have friends and family who have suffered and continue to suffer from such diseases—an uncle with Parkinson’s, a dear friend with MS, two beloved friends who died from cancer only a few short months ago, a cousin with type 1 diabetes, and a grandmother who suffered from Alzheimer’s.

I personally do not want to see people suffering, and all of us would like to increase the time, money and resources directed towards medical research. Where we disagree is how to go about this research. Are people in this place prepared to put aside moral and ethical considerations and also shift focus away from possible real answers—that is, discoveries from adult stem cell research? Associate Professor Sherley claims that there are vast gaps between promise from human embryo research and scientific reality. There are numerous clinical trials already taking place around the globe involving adult stem cells. Such trials indicate that there may be no need for therapeutic cloning. N Scolding, in ‘Stem-cell therapy: hope and hype’, in the Lancet, writes:

Techniques for culturing human embryonic cells have advanced ... but an increasing appreciation of the hazards of embryonic stem cells has rightly prevented the emergence or immediate prospect of any clinical therapies based on such cells. The natural propensity of embryonic stem cells to form teratomas—

tumours—

their exhibition of chromosomal abnormalities, and abnormalities in cloned mammals all present difficulties.

My second reason for opposing the bill has to do with the falsified information in the Lockhart review—its recommendation which is the foundation for this bill. The Lockhart review’s recommendation to pursue this was based on the work of Korean researchers, Professor Hwang being one of them, which was publicly retracted as fraudulent not long after the report was released. I find it personally very difficult to support the recommendation and the subsequent bill with a foundation or basis of or link to fraudulent, falsified and possibly deceptive claims.

My third point relates to licences. Why are there so few licences for research into disease since changes to legislation four years ago? The NHMRC confirms only one licence has been issued, to IVF Australia, which focuses on treating one single condition. Is this real hope for people with disabilities and diseases or false hope presented to extend possibilities and the use of artificial reproduction technology?

I have two main ethical concerns. The first relates to the creation of an embryo for experimentation and destruction, as noted in an article by Frank Brennan in the Age in October this year. As a professor of law at ACU, he said:

If we allow the creation of SCNT embryos for destruction and experimentation, why would we not also allow the creation of embryos formed by natural fertilisation.

Lockhart himself noted that logic does not define a moral difference between embryos formed from SCNT and those formed through natural fertilisation. Are they not both forms of human life? If planted into a womb, they have the potential to develop fully—fully human. What value are we going to place on human life? When ought someone to value human life—only sometimes, in 2002 but not in 2006? What is the line that we are considering crossing—the creation of human life only for experimentation and destruction? Do we want to go down that path? Is there another line to cross? If it is ethically acceptable to create SCNT embryos for experimentation, why is it not ethical to create naturally fertilised embryos for experimentation? I believe neither is ethically acceptable in a society where human life is valued.

When this bill was first discussed some months ago I was unsure what decision I would make. At first I thought if a sperm was not involved then it might not be a human life. I thought that it might be okay until, after careful study, it became clear to me that the embryo created through SCNT has the same future potential to develop into a full human, being a clone, as an embryo created by a human egg and sperm.

Another ethical challenge is with regard to the 14-day limit on embryos for experimentation. Professor Jack Martin, from the University of Melbourne, told the Senate committee that any research on embryos generated in this way for the study of disease would certainly require embryos to grow beyond 14 days. So will we be back again and possibly again to make more changes? Cloning depends on a continuous supply of fresh human eggs, and without eggs cloning is impossible.

Few in the debate over recent months have mentioned women and the possible risks to women. Egg extraction requires large doses of powerful hormones to hyperstimulate the ovaries. Professor Bob Williamson told us that egg extraction involved a small element of risk, but how much is small? The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is experienced by 10 per cent of women, where 30 or more eggs start to develop simultaneously and fluid leaks out of the blood vessels and collects in the abdomen. The ovaries can swell to the size of a grapefruit. Imagine these consequences—stroke, organ failure, polyps, ovarian cysts, respiratory distress or death, long-term risks of infertility and reproductive cancers.

In all the briefings I have attended it was noted that therapeutic cloning is very inefficient, requiring hundreds, if not thousands, of eggs to produce a single clone. Where will the eggs come from? Will an incentive such as a financial payment be required to entice women to donate eggs, or will the importation of eggs from overseas be an additional step? Women may risk their lives for cures that may never be found through this type of research. Katrina George suggested that research ought to be about healing, not causing harm.

Harvesting ova from dead women and using leftover eggs from IVF have been suggestions. Research has indicated that this is not realistic. Another suggestion was for women on IVF to donate extra eggs. This was tried in the UK and women refused. Overseas experience shows that the only way is to pay women. In England, it has taken only a couple of years to head down the path of commercialisation. There is a risk that, just as those in the current debate have changed their minds since 2002, the current ban against growing cloned embryos beyond 14 days could be lifted in a few short years.

In 2002 the majority of all members in this House supported the use of excess IVF embryos for experimentation, but all who declared their position opposed the creation of human embryos only for destruction and experimentation. The Lockhart report favours the creation of an embryo to be used for experimentation and then destroyed, provided that the embryo is not implanted and provided that it not be permitted to thrive beyond 14 days. What bill will be put forward in another one, two, three or four years?

The bill lists practices that will be completely prohibited—that is, the bill is placing in law offences that never needed consideration in Australia. They include placing a human embryo clone in the human body or the body of an animal, importing or exporting human embryo clones, creating a human embryo for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in women, creating or developing a human embryo by fertilisation which contains genetic material provided by more than two persons, developing a human embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days, collecting a viable human embryo from the body of a woman, creating a hybrid embryo, and commercially trading in human eggs, human sperm or human embryos.

The prevailing legislative regime requires this research to conform to ethical codes and community expectations, including that proof of concept should be shown in animal models before research is carried out on humans. Longstanding ethical codes respect what constitutes ‘human dignity’ in research which by its nature is destructive of excess ART human embryos. Do we want to have these codes overturned? Personally, I think not.

If we look back at the list of offences, we see that the penalty for these offences is 15 years imprisonment. This brings me to my final reason for opposing this bill, and it is based on personal experience. I have visited prisons as a volunteer for 15 years, some of that time with Prison Fellowship, and have met hundreds of people who have bent, broken and ignored different types of written laws to commit offences. As a family counsellor, I have counselled many parents and young people who, when no-one else was watching them in their own home, have bent, broken and ignored written laws to commit offences. Many of these offences would make us feel sick if we described the details of them. Someone at some time will, when no-one is watching, bend, break and ignore these boundaries and commit one or more offences. I am not confident that the legislative framework will protect or prevent the offences listed from being undertaken, and that is of great concern to me. I therefore oppose this bill.

See this speech in context