Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury) Share this | Hansard source

In speaking on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 I want to thank those constituents both for and against this bill who have contacted me to express their views. I also want to thank those people whom I have sought out, again both for and against the bill, who were so generous in providing me counsel on what for me, someone who has been brought up as a Catholic, has been a very difficult matter.

The bill before us today addresses a majority of recommendations of the Lockhart review. The Lockhart review was established by the government under the provisions of the previous Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 to consider the scope and operations of these acts in light of developments in assisted reproductive technology and in scientific and medical research, in light of the potential applications of any research and in light of community standards. Having conducted the review, the independent committee, chaired by Lockhart, recommended a number of measures that are largely reflected in the contents of the bill before us today.

Initially I want to say a few things about what the bill does contain as well as what it does not contain. The bill changes the definition of a human embryo in two ways. Firstly, it recognises that fertilisation is a process and that an embryo does not arise until this process is complete. Secondly, it includes in the definition of ‘human embryo’ entities that are created other than by a human egg and sperm. This includes embryos that are created using a human egg, removing its nucleus and replacing it with the nucleus of a somatic cell—a skin cell, for example. This process is referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer. The purpose of including somatic cell nuclear transfer in the definition of a human embryo is to recognise that, while the embryo is not created by the process that most of us understand an embryo to be created from—that is, a human egg and human sperm—the entity created by somatic cell nuclear transfer is uniquely different to other cells, as it has some albeit limited capacity to develop into a human.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer technology was used to create and clone Dolly the sheep. Scientists will argue that it is SCNT where the most exciting advances in stem cell research will be found. Under current legislation, researchers can apply under licence to use excess embryos from IVF for stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are unique in that they are immature master cells that can give rise to all of the cell types and tissues in the body. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is where, science argues, the true potential of embryonic stem cell research lies—that, in using this technique, it may be possible to have stem cells that have the same genetic make-up as a particular individual. This may one day allow for patient-specific therapies, including the replacement of damaged tissues and cells in the body to potentially treat a range of conditions such as spinal injuries, heart failure, diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. By having the same genetic material, the cells will not be rejected by the immune system of the patient.

Again, the science is very immature. Whilst the claims being made are broad in scope, the reality is that we just do not know at this stage where embryonic stem cell research will take us. We have seen some potential in the short time it has been conducted in Australia but, again, it is a very new area of research. Opponents of this bill have pointed to advances in adult stem cell research, which does not require the creation or destruction of a human embryo. It is true that adult stem cell research has much potential. The scientists would argue, however, that adult stem cell research is limited in where it can go, as there is a limit to the type of cells that adult stem cells can develop into, and they are extremely difficult to harvest.

After some 30 years of adult stem cell research there are only nine therapies available to date, all of them being related to bone marrow. Under strict licensing conditions, this bill allows for research: that uses IVF excess embryos and IVF embryos deemed not suitable for transplantation; that creates and uses human embryos, using methods other than fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm; that creates and uses human embryos by a process other than by fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm containing genetic material provided by more than two persons; that creates and uses human embryos using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human foetus; and, that involves the fertilisation of a human egg up to but not including the first mitotic cell division outside the body of a woman for the specific purposes of research and training.

The use of human embryos that may be authorised for licence are only authorised for development up to 14 days. The bill continues to prohibit, among other things: placing of a human embryo clone in the human body or the body of an animal; importing or exporting a human embryo clone; creating a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in a woman; creating or developing a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm which contains the genetic material provided by more than two persons; developing a human embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 13 days; making alterations to the human genome which can be inherited by future generations; collecting a viable human embryo from the body of a woman; and commercial trading in human eggs.

There are a number of complex issues involved in this bill. For me they essentially boil down to four questions. Firstly, is the entity created by the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer actually a human embryo? Secondly, if yes, is it morally correct, through the process of research, to in essence destroy this human embryo? Thirdly, is it morally correct to allow the creation of a human embryo by somatic cell nuclear transfer for research purposes? Fourthly—and weighted against those questions—is it morally correct to deny the prevention of human suffering that may—and I stress may—result from research utilising entities created from somatic cell nuclear transfer? These are in essence the four issues we have had to grapple with in this legislation, and they are not easy ones. On the first question—whether the entity created by the processes of somatic cell nuclear transfer is actually a human embryo—many people in the community, me included until I started researching this, would have had the common understanding that a human embryo is created by the fertilisation of the human egg and a human sperm.

That is what I learned in biology at school and would reflect the common understanding within the community. However, the Lockhart review has expressly recommended that the definition of ‘human embryo’ be expanded to include entities created by processes such as somatic cell nuclear transfer. Father Frank Brennan, someone who I greatly respect, expressly argues that somatic cell nuclear transfer does create a human embryo. Whilst I do not agree with the conclusions that this takes him to, I do agree that for all intents and purposes somatic cell nuclear transfer does create a human embryo.

The second question is whether it is morally correct, through the processes of research, to destroy a human embryo. Many religious groups would argue most strongly that it is not. Many of these groups consider that embryos are divine creations in that they are the beginning of human life. These groups generally also oppose abortion and IVF as it leads to the destruction of excess embryos. These groups have very specific views about when life begins and the sanctity of such life. Others argue from an ethical view point that as embryos will develop into persons they warrant the same moral respect and dignity that personhood warrants. To some extent, as someone who is pro choice and who voted to allow stem cell research on excess IVF embryos set to be destroyed, I have already declared my hand on this issue. By supporting the destruction of an embryo through the right of women to choose whether or not to continue with a pregnancy, and by supporting the previous stem cell research, it would be somewhat inconsistent for me to now to raise an objection on the grounds that research destroys an embryo.

The third question then is whether it is morally acceptable to create a human embryo purely for research purposes. This is an extremely difficult question to answer, and the one that I have found the most difficult. I believe that most people, when asked this question, would have concerns—and I do have concerns—about the creation of human embryos purely for research purposes. It concerns me greatly that it could lead to human embryos being treated as yet another commodity. It seems to me a step well beyond the previous legislation that allowed research on excess IVF embryos that would eventually be destroyed. However, it is impossible to see this question in isolation from the final question: is it morally correct to deny the prevention of human suffering that may—I again stress may—result from research utilising entities created from technology such as somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Some argue that this boils down to whether you believe the means—that is, the creation and then destruction of a human embryo—justify the ends of potentially alleviating human suffering. I frankly think that this simplifies what is a far more complex and emotional question, a question all too easily answered if you are not experiencing such suffering yourself or having to watch someone you love grapple with a disease such as Parkinson’s. In essence, the argument for me in this bill is: do I have the right to allow my moral objection to the creation of human embryos purely for stem cell research to stand in the way of the potential alleviation of suffering for people with debilitating medical conditions? The answer for me has to be no. I do not believe in all conscience, despite my concerns, that I can stand in the way of potential scientific developments that could in the future help alleviate such pain and suffering.

So whilst I do have concerns about this bill I have to ask myself: if I was faced with my own child suffering from a debilitating medical condition, would I deny them the use of technology developed using embryonic stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer? And the answer is, of course, no, I would not. I will therefore be supporting this bill.

I have no doubt that those that disagree with me will pick holes in the arguments I have tried to put forward to explain why I have come to the decision I have. Many will I am sure be more expert than me in matters of morality and ethics, but I again ask, as I have on previous bills that confront such difficult moral questions, that you respect that I have not come to this decision lightly. I have genuinely, despite some claims to the contrary, agonised over this decision. I respect that there will be those who do not agree with the position that I have taken but equally I ask that you respect that, in weighing up this most difficult matter of conscience I have, after all, only one that I can exercise: my own. I support the bill.

See this speech in context