Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to place on record my opposition to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I do not do this lightly; nor, I suspect, have any of my colleagues on either side of this debate reached their positions without careful and even painful consideration. Like everyone in this place, I would desperately like to see successful research that would provide a cure for so many of those diseases that plague humanity. As a close member of my family suffers from Parkinson’s disease—one of those often mentioned in the context of this debate—I would be thrilled to see stem cell research provide a breakthrough that would reverse his illness. Yet I am convinced that human cloning is not the way to achieve this breakthrough.

I remain fundamentally opposed to the creation of life for the purpose of its destruction in the process of research, no matter how honourable the aims of that research or how potentially beneficial its achievements. Scientific and medical research cannot be driven by a utilitarian, pragmatic approach. Our decisions cannot be made solely on the basis of what is attractive, what is achievable or what is possible. They must be made within an ethical and moral framework. I acknowledge that this framework varies from person to person and I do not seek to criticise others with opposing views. However, for me the fundamental issue is the sanctity of human life, regardless of its stage of development. I simply cannot accept that a human embryo is merely a piece of tissue or property created for the purpose of experimental research and which will be destroyed in that process.

When we as a society step over the line which upholds the sanctity of life, we step into dangerous territory. With the removal of that absolute, everything becomes relative and subjective. Any new line is far more difficult to draw and far harder to sustain. The experience of the last four years should cause some concern in this regard. When we last debated this matter, parliament overwhelmingly—and, I think, from the point of view of those who expressed their views, unanimously—rejected human cloning. During that debate, a number of people, including me, spoke of the slippery slide if we accepted embryonic stem cell research. Despite the rejection of those concerns by many speakers, that is exactly what has happened over the past four years.

Here we are, so soon reconsidering this issue, and the speeches to date would indicate that parliament will support this bill—something we rejected overwhelmingly just four short years ago. Members and senators who four years ago stated strong opposition to cloning are now supporting the legislation. Already that line has moved—and I am left wondering where the next line will be and how long before it moves again, and again. For instance, the Lockhart review, in recommendation 17 on page 168, advocates research involving ‘the fertilisation of animal gametes by human gametes’ of up to, but not including, the first cell division. Again, how long until this line is crossed if utilitarianism prevails, given Lockhart’s first stated reason for advocating such research is ‘because of potential benefits’. My concern is that what is deemed as acceptable is driven by what is possible, rather than the possible being evaluated in the light of ethical acceptability. Again, once we reject the imperative to respect the sanctity of human life we move into uncharted and dangerous territory.

I want to turn briefly to one other aspect of this debate, and that is the record of success of embryonic stem cell research compared to adult stem cell research. The point was made in this debate four years ago, by me and a number of other speakers, that early indications were that adult stem cell research seemed to offer far greater potential. Nothing has changed in the past four years. In fact, recent evidence reinforces those early indications. There are currently an estimated 80 therapies and 300 clinical trials under way using adult stem cells across a range of more than 70 medical conditions. In stark contrast, there are no therapeutic uses of embryonic stem cells in human treatments—and those are not likely to come for some time. In fact, holding out this expectation to sufferers and their families is misleading and unfair. A number of leaders in this field have indicated that effective therapies from this research would most likely be several decades away.

The point is this: the record to date shows adult stem cell research has far better prospects than cloning and embryonic stem cell research. That is where the focus of research funding needs to be. Further, it carries fewer risks, eliminating the 25 per cent rate of malignant teratomas in embryonic stem cell implants. Thirdly, and significantly, it carries none of the profound ethical issues involved in human cloning. Even if stem cell research using cloned human embryos yielded similar potential to research on adult stem cells, it would not justify the creation of life for the intent purpose of its destruction in research. With a much less promising record, its case must be even weaker.

Let me conclude where I began. We would all like to see cures for Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, diabetes and a range of other diseases listed as potential beneficiaries of this research. But crossing the threshold which allows the creation of life for destruction in the process of research is not the way to do it. The implications involved in that approach, in the rejection of the absolute sanctity of life and in the domination of utilitarianism are far too profound. For these reasons I oppose this bill.

See this speech in context