Katie Allen (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a clarification around a technical point, as a paediatrician and someone who has worked in stem cell research and, in fact, worked for a long time at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, where Professor David Thorburn, who's one of the pre-eminent scientists in the area, works. I have a significant amount of background in this area and have also worked in the area of the ethics of new technology.

We know that throughout history new technology has been something that has benefited Australia and, indeed, the world over and over again. Every time there is new medical technology that has an ethical dimension to it, it comes to places like this parliament to make important decisions. It's probably worth reminding that at each point it's important that the conversation and the debate is had right across the whole spectrum of belief systems, but sometimes there can be some technical things that people are confused about. For example, 40, 50 years ago there were a lot of concerns about organ transplantation and donation. In fact, some faith based communities believed it would create monsters of humans. There were many debates and ethical concerns about whether indeed we would have Frankenstein people as a result, because where is the soul based? Is it based in an organ or in the soul of a person? There have been a lot of changes over many decades. IVF is another example where there has been a change in technology.

When it comes to the question raised by the member for Menzies, the two types of techniques that are being discussed do make a big difference to whether this technology is likely to be successful or not. The PNT, the pronuclear transfer, technology is the one that is leading the way with regard to the technology discoveries that are being talked about. If we were to support the MST, the maternal spindle transfer, technique, that is less likely to be successful. So, if you are to vote for one over the other, then you are more likely to vote against the technology being able to be supported and therefore being successful in the treatment of this condition. I just wanted to make that technical point.

I also want to finally make the point that, as a doctor—and I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander, will have had this experience—over and over again I find that people will be very clear about their views until they have to face those medical ethical questions themselves. Organ donation is a great example. So often people will say it's incredibly distasteful to think about organ donation for a loved one, but if you ask, 'Would you like to receive an organ donation?' their views can often change.

I'd like to just point out that the member for Mayo made a very wonderful speech last night. I think, for anyone who would like to have a look at it, it's a beautiful speech expressing how it's impacted her family. As a paediatrician—I know you, Mr Deputy Speaker, feel like me about this—I think it's very important we remember that the theories we're talking about here have a direct effect on individuals, and it could be one of us in the room at some point. I'm very supportive of the fact that we're talking about these different techniques, but the technique that we're talking about with the member for Menzies is not the technique that is likely to be successful for this technology going forward.

See this speech in context