Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As I was saying before the debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 was interrupted, as embryonic stem cells currently hold the greater prospect for potential success, it makes sense to proceed in this manner. This leads me into the ethical elements of the debate. So many arguments have been put forward that I am going to put forward some answers to them now.

First and foremost is the argument that to conduct research on embryos, or even to undertake the process of SCNT, is immoral because it results in the destruction of human life or a potential human being. Of course I accept people have religious and moral beliefs, and they are entitled to, but I am just not prepared to accept many of the arguments being put forward that embryonic research results in the ‘death’ of a human being. There are several reasons for this. The main reason is that I do not believe it is the role of the parliament to enforce a particular religious view upon society. We are here to provide guidance and to make decisions for the good of the community as a whole, not just for some sections of it.

It is interesting that, according to Hall and others in the previously mentioned paper published in Stem Cells in March this year, while some religious groups are of the view that human life begins at conception, others such as Islam and Judaism consider that life begins only after the development of a fully formed foetus. It seems these religious groups are not opposed to IVF treatment for a husband and wife only.

Therefore, this is a debate to which there is a need to apply some logic, and logic indicates that many of the arguments are indeed invalid—particularly those concerning embryos of less than 14 days or prior to the formation of a primitive streak, which is the beginnings of a nervous system. After all, as Steinbock, Professor of Philosophy at the University at Albany, argues: why does biology confer a special moral status? What constitutes moral status is in itself a detailed and complicated argument. However, there is a view that to have moral status a being must have an interest in its own welfare, which an embryo without even the precursor of a nervous system does not have. A blastocyst contains 100 to 200 cells—no brain, organ system or any form of personhood. Steinbock also argues that, if left alone, a foetus will most likely develop into someone with a valuable future, whereas an embryo—whether it is leftover from IVF or even created deliberately for research, which is allowable in some counties—left alone will die. It therefore does not have a valuable future.

It is perhaps Brock in a recent article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics who outlines the ethical arguments in the case for stem cell research to proceed. Currently, the IVF process results in extra fertilised eggs producing embryos. On average, for each embryo born alive at least three other embryos created will die before birth. That is the figure relating to normal sexual reproduction, not IVF! So those who argue that to undertake research on an embryo is sacrificing a human life need to consider the sacrifice made during normal sexual reproduction. Three deaths for one live birth is rather a sacrifice, don’t you think?

Perhaps the strongest argument in this respect is the following one—also put forward by Brock. Consider a fire in an IVF laboratory. You are there and you have the opportunity to save a tray of 100 surplus embryos or one eight-year-old child. Which do you choose? If you follow the argument that an embryo is indeed a life then you must save the lives of the embryos and let the child die.

Also, if an embryo is a living being, what of the embryos that are considered unsuitable for implantation? I referred to those at the beginning of this speech. They are not implanted; they will never reach the stage of being a living human being. So what is their moral status? There are some who argue that research on embryos is unethical as they are potential life. However, if you take this view, then the embryos will not be actual life until they develop. With the process of SCNT, this is an unlikely event. While it is true that Dolly the sheep is the product of this process, the developmental complexity is much less in sheep and, indeed, many other species than it is in human beings. It is extremely unlikely that the SCNT process would ever produce a cloned human—and, of course, under this legislation attempts to undertake this are prevented.

For those who put forward the so called ‘slippery slope arguments’ of how, if we proceed down the path proposed by this bill, we will have embryo farms and cloned babies or use foetuses for spare parts I argue this is why we need this bill—to stop those very things. It continues to be illegal to sell human eggs or sperm—incidentally, it is not illegal for a woman in the United States to sell her eggs—it will be illegal for any embryo that has undergone SCNT to be implanted and it will be illegal to breed babies to create a farm for human spare parts. These are just not acceptable arguments against adopting the bill before us today.

Similar unacceptable arguments include the possible exploitation of women. Such an argument is a paternalistic one. With free and informed decision-making, women are able to make a choice. Brock argues that there are greater risks involved in the donation of a kidney to someone, yet this is something that occurs within our Australian society today. And why does this occur—why do we allow someone to donate a kidney to someone else? The organ donation debate has some similarities to this one. When making a decision, it is necessary to consider all of those who may potentially benefit. If one person donates a kidney to someone else, a life may be saved or another human being may be given improved quality of life.

This debate must consider the potential benefits that may—and I emphasise ‘may’—be possible from the application of stem cell research. It may be something that is way into the future, but we must make the right decisions here today if the future is to bring any benefits. I think the final word on this matter has been outlined by Brock, who writes:

Public Policy that binds all citizens should not be based upon reasons whose force depends on the acceptance of a particular religious doctrine that many citizens reasonably reject.

I reject the reasons for the objections to this bill, as I have outlined today, and therefore support this bill fully.

See this speech in context