Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It seems to me that, ironically, the debate about stem cell research surrounds the ethical question of the value of human life but from opposing ends of the spectrum. It is a debate in which the protagonists argue either from a moral-ethical perspective or from a pragmatic-humanitarian one. Each position has merit, and I recognise and respect the rationale behind each position. That is not to say that someone has to be entirely right and someone has to be entirely wrong. Each case has within it a degree of justification; it just depends on the perspective you choose to adopt. When the House debated the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill in 2002, many of the ethical versus humanitarian issues were broached, and it seems that we are revisiting the same question.

There can be no doubt that this research is receiving a growing acceptance throughout the world. It is worthwhile noting that in the United States neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration has ever prohibited the private funding of embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cell research is comparatively well funded, both privately and publicly, in the United States—so it can be expected that the United States is better positioned to develop emerging discoveries in the field of stem cell technology. In Britain, a similar disposition has been reached, although the approaches have their unique distinctions. Adult stem cell research appears to have received acceptance but, on the question of embryonic stem cells, the debate remains wide open.

There is no disputing the scientific evidence that embryonic stem cells present the greater potential, but that means that cells have to be harvested from human embryos. Therein lies the conflict in the debate, which has collided with prevailing Christian-Judaic values and beliefs of our Western society. So it is not a matter of us debating stem cell research today as such; rather, it is a debate over the morality of harvesting stem cells from embryos and at what stage we view the embryo as a living human being. We can look at this in two ways: either from an emotional and spiritual point of view or dispassionately and pragmatically. The emotional and spiritual point of view respects the sanctity of life, a value that sets the human race above other species. But so too does the pragmatic approach, which says that living human beings whose quality of life has been compromised through injury or disease, or those facing imminent death, are entitled to every opportunity for a relatively normal life.

I am heartened by a newspaper report on August 24 that a United States company has announced that it has developed a way to make human embryonic stem cells without harming the embryo. Whether this comes to fruition or not remains to be seen, but it does illustrate the progression of science and offers a way out of the present ethical conflict. I can only reiterate my statement of 2002 in which I said:

As an individual with a Christian ethic, I have a deep respect for the sanctity of life and I believe that, as Christians, we have a duty to ease the suffering of humankind. If we are to hold true to that tenet then we are beholden to explore avenues as to how we can do that, which brings us back to the original, very valid first question: are the IVF embryos created in the test tube in the first place life or just a basis for the continuance of life? If we can reconcile that concept within ourselves, then the decision is an easy one. If we accept that these artificially created embryos are not life, as in the accepted sense, then this places the proposition in the same vein as the issue of organ donors—

something I firmly believe in. I continued:

The extraction of stem cells, therefore, becomes an obvious progression. In my mind, I am reconciled with the view that greater good can flow from this and that research should be allowed. I will also be supporting the splitting of the bill. We can mourn at what might have been but we should also rejoice at what can be.

I have not changed my views. In fact, the more people I come across with Parkinson’s disease, MS, spinal injuries, blindness, cancer and many other debilitating diseases, the more I am convinced that the time has come to modify the values that were instilled in us that were a product of a bygone era. I believe that there is a moral and societal obligation to pursue this research. But such a direction should only be taken within the strictest guidelines and in accordance with prevailing community standards.

In that respect, we are here today as advocates for our respective electorates to reflect the community attitude as a whole. I would hope that prior to coming here the question has been well canvassed and that we speak from a position that reflects the majority view rather than promoting our own personal views. On a question as important as this, I would have difficulty in advocating a view that was not widely held and held by significantly more than a simple majority. There has been much public conjecture over this issue. I sought the views of the people of Gilmore by way of extensive surveys in 2002 and now, which I distributed to a significant proportion of my electorate. It is through those responses that I make this statement, knowing that it reflects the majority view. To those persons who hold an opposing view, I can only say that I respect your views and appreciate why you have them. At one time, I may have held similar views but, with the march of time and through life’s experiences, I have changed those views. The reasons for my change of heart I described in my statement in 2002, and they are on the public record.

In closing can I say that this technology offers humanity great hope for overcoming some of the terrible conditions that blight people’s lives. It is certainly not the miracle cure some might hope for, but it does advance the march towards addressing those conditions that bring so much misery and sadness to individuals and their families. It is only right that we continue to pursue technologies that improve the quality of human life. To argue otherwise is a fatalistic acceptance that denies hope and aspiration, a very common human condition found in us all. I support the bill and commend Senator Patterson on her bill. I know that the work that she did was very intensive and from the heart.

See this speech in context