Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Jackie Kelly (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I never thought I would see the day when this parliament introduced legislation more bizarre than fiction. In the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie The 6th Day it was legal to reproduce people’s pets but not humans. Hence the fiction—Arnie had to die because he was close to discovering RePet Incorporated’s big secret: they had been cloning humans.

So in the bowels of Hollywood, script writers are dreaming up something so horrible to base their story-lines on—something that would shock the average person in the cinema, really horrify them, turn their stomachs and scare them silly—and what do they come up with? Human cloning. Yet this bill makes the corporation RePet illegal but ‘ReArnie’?—that is legal. Truth is stranger than fiction.

You can deny to the man in the street that the cells involved in the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 are embryonic. You can call them SCNT cells, stem cells, pancreatic cells or what you like, but if this cell is implanted in a uterus it will give birth to a clone. Let me read from the executive summary of the Lockhart review:

A further argument was that it is wrong to create human embryos to destroy them and extract stem cells. Human embryo clones are human embryos, and given the right environment for development, could develop into a human being. Furthermore, if such an embryo were implanted in the uterus of a woman to achieve a pregnancy, the individual so formed would certainly have the same status and rights as any other human being. However, a human embryo clone created to extract stem cells is not intended to be implanted, but is created as a cellular extension of the original subject. The Committee therefore agreed with the many respondents who thought that the moral significance of such a cloned embryo is linked more closely to its potential for research to develop treatments for serious medical conditions, than to its potential as a human life.

We are dealing with clones. We are talking about clones. This bill takes into account human frailties, so it makes it an offence punishable by prison to allow these cells—these clones—to survive beyond 14 days. You know why we do not want clones to survive beyond 14 days, don’t you? What if the scientist is hit by a bus and comes back to the lab 28 days later? What would these cells look like? How about 140 days later—what would these cells look like? I can tell you and so can any woman who has had an 18-week scan during a pregnancy.

Denying that this bill makes cloning possible is feeble at best. It is cloning. But what is so wrong with that? Belgium, China, Singapore, Japan and Sweden—they are all doing it; why not us? China is also using body parts of executed criminals for organ transplants. I am fed up with Australia being the lead contractor in our defence contracts. We always seem to be paying extra for our defence equipment because we are the lead supplier. Yet it is government policy that we should be purchasing, off the shelf, tried and proven international methods. What is wrong with Australia waiting a few more years to see how this technology turns out?

We said no to this bill in 2004. I do not think the parliament got it wrong. I cannot see anything that has happened since 2004 to lead me to any belief that we should expedite this research, which is barely eight years old. In any event, the scientists, thanks to the 2004 bill, already have access to all of the surplus IVF embryos with the parents’ consent. This bill also insists on a woman consenting to the use of her eggs. Good luck, because you have not had much success with the eggs already available and these women have already gone through the arduous hormone treatment and very painful egg extractions. You are not getting my eggs for that effort!

So where are the eggs going to come from? If these are truly SCNT cells, why not just let them reproduce in the petrie dish ad infinitum? Just simply kick the process off with the existing surplus IVF eggs and do not kill them at 14 days but let them keep reproducing. You will not have any requirement for more eggs, but do you know why we require more eggs? We must kill these clones at 14 days because we know what happens if we do not.

So we are going to need an enormous supply of eggs. That is the kind of stuff that horror films are made of. It is absolutely abhorrent to put the mothers, sisters and daughters of the one million diabetes sufferers, 200,000 Alzheimer’s patients and 10,000 people with spinal cord injuries in a situation where they are expected to donate their eggs with the associated risks to their ovarian health. Spare us women the added burden of guilt, expectation and exploitation that will come with this bill.

There has even been one suggestion that aborted foetuses could be the source of these eggs. I cannot be satisfied with the efficacy of the egg collection and I do not believe that women will volunteer en masse on the scale required to make any significant contribution to the discovery of cures in this area of research. I have sought to amend this bill to satisfy all the concerns I have, but it is fundamentally flawed. I would rather spend my time dealing with the consequences of the weird and wonderful ways people have already used the IVF technology.

I could craft legislation for the rights of a woman whose egg is used to create the life. I could crystallise her rights to court to gain access to the child subsequent to birth. I would limit the number of eggs a single woman could donate to create children. I would put systems in place to prevent children created in this way from marrying their genetic siblings. I would codify the rights of a woman who carries another couple’s embryo. I would determine that $200,000 is grossly inadequate compensation for a surrogate mother. I would regulate the possible career of surrogate motherhood and determine that they must have already given birth in order to be a surrogate mother. I could limit the number of surrogate children a surrogate mother could give birth to. I could give the baby bonus to the woman with the mothering expenses rather than to the woman with the confinement expenses. I could codify the rights of the woman who orchestrates a surrogate birth and will for all purposes be the mother of that child, and her partner, who is complicit in the creation. Their names could appear on the register of births, deaths and marriages. They would be liable for child support in any subsequent Family Court matter.

What are the rights of a child conceived in another jurisdiction in circumstances illegal in Australia but brought up under Australian law? Have the parents committed an offence? In a family law dispute should frozen embryos be determined as a property right? Who owns them? What if one parent is dead? What are the rights of the other parent? What are the inheritance rights of a child born two years after either parent dies? Does this affect the other siblings’ inheritance? If the federal parliament is not prepared to legally codify the consequences of all of these things and more, then I do not think it is quite up to the standard of dealing with a whole bunch of new issues that will face Australians as they use this technology in weird and wonderful ways.

What are the rights of a child whose mother—and it could be a scientist; don’t think all scientists are male; a woman will go to extreme lengths to have a child—took the nucleus out of, say, a skin cell of hers, impregnated her eggs and gave birth to herself? Whether it is by therapeutic cloning or somatic nuclear cell transfer—call it what you will—the ability for a woman to have a child independently of a man is just around the corner. How will we as a society react to that?

My husband often complains that, in our family, his needs are irrelevant; however, this legislation makes men totally redundant. We said no to cloning four years ago. Let us say no again—at least until we have had more time to consider the consequences of this legislation and this technology elsewhere in the world. In the meantime, scientists can continue embryonic stem cell research on surplus IVF eggs, as provided for under existing legislation. Let us just wait and see. What is the rush towards ‘Repo Arnie’?

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the few minutes left, I rise to oppose the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. In my view, there are a number of flaws in this bill and in its capacity to do good for society, other than to line the pockets of medical corporations.

I have nine points of objection and they are: (1) the views espoused by Senator Patterson and other proponents of human embryonic cloning have the propensity to mislead and confuse us with the terminology and the issues and, with respect and in my opinion, this has contaminated the minds of the public, including us, the parliamentarians; (2) nothing has changed scientifically since this parliament voted to outlaw human embryonic cloning in the 2002 legislation, and I was on that Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry between 2000 and 2002; (3) elements of the Lockhart report are discredited, flawed in fact and it has reached biased conclusions; (4) the greater public interest of Australia opposes human cloning; (5) embryonic stem cell research has failed to deliver the promise for miracle cures and this is compared with the strident gains in adult stem cell research; (6) women are being exploited in the payment of money for their ova or human egg donation; (7) there are serious technical flaws in this bill, especially those provisions dealing with the so-called prohibitions; (8) there is more than one way to create a human embryo, not just by egg-sperm fusion; (9) in 2005 Australia signed a United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning and this bill violates that UN declaration.

When considering this bill before the House today, I am reminded of the words of Nazi German’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels. He was attributed with saying, ‘Make the lie big enough, tell it often enough and people will believe it.’ What is this lie? The lie we are repeatedly expected to believe is that somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, is not cloning. We are further led to believe, wrongly, that there is a fundamental difference between a human embryo created by SCNT and a human embryo created by egg-sperm fusion. This lie, told often and consistently throughout this debate, has been recited, with respect, faithfully by Senator Paterson in her speech of 7 November 2006 on this bill. Senator Patterson said:

It is interesting that many of those against this bill base their objection to it on the status of an SCNT embryo being equal to that of an egg-sperm embryo.

…            …            …

Looking back, I think that somatic cell nuclear transfer as a source of embryonic stem cells became an unfortunate victim of the fear and confusion about what cloning meant.

And later:

Cloning of whole human beings will continue to be strictly prohibited. Let me repeat that: cloning of human beings will continue to be strictly prohibited.

Senator Patterson speaks the lie loud enough and long enough to dupe the Senate. The lie is the expressed and implied assertion that SCNT is not cloning. We are told, wrongly, that SCNT is not the same as human cloning, which properly and exclusively means cloning from egg-sperm fusion. This mantra is—to use the words of Dr David van Gend, in his text Conscience versus Con Science, dated 30 August 2006—‘the great lie at the heart of the cloning debate’.

I put to the members of the House this afternoon this fundamental question on their knowledge of the substance of this bill: is SCNT technology cloning? The answer is yes. I quote from the text of Dr David van Gend, who in turn cites an article entitled “Playing the Name Game: Stem-cell scientists should not try to change the definition of the word ‘embryo’”, which was published in the scientific journal Nature:

Nature accused scientists of “playing semantic games in an effort to evade scrutiny” and restated the biological truth that the entity created by cloning was just the same as the entity created by IVF fertilisation:

Whether taken from a fertility clinic or made through cloning, a blastocyst embryo has the potential to become a fully functional organism. And appearing to deny that fact will not fool die-hard opponents of this research. If anything, it will simply open up scientists to the accusation that they are trying to distance themselves from difficult moral issues by changing the terms of the debate.

There is a famous reported legal case called Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners [1964] AC 465. From this case the saying was coined ‘a burn is a burn is a burn’. This saying means that harm from a burn caused by a fire is the same as a burn caused by scalding water, by electricity or by heat induction. So, too, today it is put that a human embryo is a human embryo is a human embryo. Whether the human embryo is created by cell, sperm fusion, SCNT technology or other techniques, such as pathogenesis, the bottom line that members here must understand is that a human being is being created. That blastocyst, once created by cell-sperm fusion, SCNT or pathogenesis, has the potency to become a fully functional human being. That is the moral reality of what is being debated and voted on here today. This House, if it passes this bill, will permit the creation of human embryos for the sole purpose of harvesting body stem cells.