Additional Comments in Support of the Bill
- We reject the assertion that supporting the Lockhart
recommendations means compromising on ethics and human rights. While we
acknowledge that an embryo is deserving of respect, the qualities that give
humans their dignity and special status are not present in a 14 day old embryo (Sub. 2, Sub. 8, Sub. 20b, Sub. 74.)
- Independent polls demonstrate broad community
support for this research. While the views of minorities must always be
respected, they should not override the views of the majority in such an
important issue. This is not an instance of “enforcing” a majority view on all
members of the community: those who object to the research are entitled to
refuse to participate in it. (Sub. 20, Sub. 21, Sub. 65.)
- The current law allows research to be performed
on excess ART embryos. Thus the Lockhart recommendations do not mean a “quantum
leap” in human ethics; the proposals only ensure that the most suitable stem
cells are available for the specific research being performed. (Sub. 20b, Sub. 21, Sub. 73.)
- Furthermore, the law already allows embryos to be
created in the knowledge that some will be destroyed for the purposes of IVF.
We reject the claim that the pursuit of life-saving cures is a less worthy goal
than that of helping infertile couples conceive children. Both goals deserve
our support. (Sub. 2, Sub. 29.)
- There have been claims that the Lockhart
recommendations, if accepted, will lead to women being exploited for their ova.
Australia has very stringent guidelines that govern the donation of organs and
tissue by living donors, and we see no reason that ova-donation should be
treated any differently. The NHMRC is well-equipped to monitor and enforce
guidelines to protect donors from being exploited. Women must be provided with
education and counselling in order to give informed consent; the law should not
treat women as being incapable of making the decision to be a living donor. (Sub. 63, Sub. 88, Sub. 186.)
- “Slippery slope” arguments do not hold any weight
in this debate. We must not block potentially valuable research on the spurious
grounds that it might in the future be used for undesirable purposes.
Parliament must continually respond to advances in human discovery in
accordance with community standards and human rights. We do not believe that
future Parliaments will be any less capable of performing this important task.
- The Lockhart recommendations are very clear in
stressing that reproductive cloning is unacceptable and the Bills propose very
serious penalties for anyone attempting to do so. All technologies bring with
them a risk of misuse, but the NHMRC is highly qualified to enforce the laws
and ensure that community standards are adhered to. (Sub. 2, Sub. 20, Sub. 168.)
- It has been argued that SCNT is unnecessary,
because adult stem cell research has more promise. To the contrary, there have
been numerous developments in the field both in Australia and overseas
suggesting that there is indeed great potential in SCNT. This evidence should
demonstrate to Parliamentarians the urgency with which the recommendations
should be implemented. This research is already being done throughout the
world, and we must not allow Australia to fall further behind in the field. (Sub. 65, Sub. 73, Sub. 74, Sub. 93.)
- While Parliament should be free to change its
mind based on new arguments and better evidence, the claim that the Parliament
unanimously agreed to a ban on SCNT in 2002 is inaccurate. In August 2001 the
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
(recommendation 12.42) proposed that:
“There should be a moratorium on the creation of embryos by
means of somatic cell nuclear transfer techniques for three years, at which
point the issue should be re-examined.” (Sub. 72, Sub.
88.)
- The Lockhart recommendations are the result of
this process. This Government-appointed committee recommended that it is now
time to lift the prohibition on SCNT. (Sub. 20, Sub.
74.)
- The Lockhart Committee notes:
“In the past 3 years, the following bodies have been
sufficiently convinced of the merits of the science behind ESC research and its
therapeutic potential to advocate for its support: the House of Lords; the UK
Legislative Review team; the majority of US Senators (almost 2/3); 80 Nobel
Laureates in the US; most, if not all, of the living medical Nobel Laureates in
Australia; the Australian scientist of the year, Professor Ian Frazer; the
American Medical Association; and the Canadian Medical Association. It is
possible, though highly improbable that these groups and individuals are all
wrong about the potential of human embryonic stem cell research.” (Sub. 20c.)
We urge Senators and Members to support this Bill.
|
Senator Natasha Stott Despoja
AD, South Australia |
|
Senator Ruth Webber
ALP, Western Australia |
|
|
|
|
|
Senator Claire Moore
ALP, Queensland |
|
Senator Carol Brown
ALP, Tasmania |
|
|
|
|
|
Senator Kerry Nettle
AG, New South Wales |
|
|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page