House debates

Tuesday, 5 December 2006

Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006

Second Reading

6:31 pm

Photo of Bob BaldwinBob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak against the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. This bill seeks to permit certain types of research involving embryos. Those embryos may be developed for up to 14 days. It follows from the Lockhart review, which examined the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. The amendments in this bill are based on the 54 recommendations of that review, which was tabled in December last year.

I wonder what proponents of this bill think of the saying ‘underpromise and overdeliver’. Unfortunately, when it comes to embryonic research, there are some proponents who have falsely built the hopes of thousands facing the challenge of living with a disease and the hopes of those who are caring for loved ones with a disease. There is not a person in this parliament, or indeed the world, who does not want to cure all the diseases in the world. Opponents and proponents of this bill both want an end to the suffering of millions of people across the world who suffer or die from disease. This bill is not about whether either side of this debate is more caring or compassionate than the other.

We all face struggles and challenges in life. I have personally lived through the difficulties of watching my mother and father die of lung and heart disease, My younger brother Bill struggles with diabetes. His eyesight is deteriorating, his kidneys no longer function and last week he suffered the second partial amputation of his leg at Westmead Hospital after gangrene set in. It is a hard life when every second day it is dialysis, changing the dressings or injections of insulin, but what steely determination he has. I am so proud of him. What a terrible predicament for a young man, a man who would not pull through if it was not for his wonderful tower of strength, his wife Kim. I know all too well the lengths that we would all go to to protect our families from harm. I also recognise the outstanding efforts of the spouses, families and carers who help and more importantly stand by those who suffer from serious health conditions. They are the towers of strength.

I would give anything to make my brother well again; to cure his disease. My brother has had more than a rough trot. In fact, I feel somewhat guilty in being the relatively healthy one of the two of us. If it were possible to donate a kidney for transplant to him, I would without hesitation, but golden staph infections preclude that. But I can do that: I can make the choice to use my body for the benefit of another. But the created embryo cannot speak for itself; it cannot give consent. But does that lessen the value of that created life?

What this bill is asking us to do is condone the creation of a human life so it can then be destroyed for research. In the debate in 2002, I said:

We need to go to the very beginning to understand where life actually begins. Life begins when a living sperm fertilises a living ovum—they are not dead sperm; they are not dead ova. To believe there is a point in time some five days later when life begins is quite wrong. And that is the textbook version: all of the embryology textbooks confirm that, in fact, all human life begins at fertilisation. The formation of that individual human being is when the DNA is typecast, and at that point in time it is a real human life. Destruction of that human life for whatever reason should never, ever be considered. At that point, as I said, the DNA is formed, and with DNA we have a distinct human structure with a set gene pattern—herein, a life. To purposely try to destroy that life is really to conduct tests on human beings. There is no other way of applying our conscience to it.

Since I said that in 2002, my resolve has strengthened, not weakened. Some proponents argue that the creation of this human embryo for research is not the same as the conception of a human through an egg and a sperm within a woman’s body. And I agree that they are a different method of creating life. However, the proponents’ argument is shot down by all the parents of IVF and other assisted conception children. They too were created outside a woman’s body but no parent would deny that their much-loved child was a miracle of life, a treasured gift and not something created to be destroyed in the name of scientific research.

I believe in the sanctity of human life. My faith and values are not for sale—not for my personal benefit, not for my family and not, indeed, for anyone else. I do not believe in creating a life so that it can be experimented on and then destroyed, all in the name of science. As I have stated in this House many times, I am a Christian with a faith so strong that it is not negotiable.

I am not convinced that there is sufficient scientific evidence to support human embryonic stem cell research. As Senator Alan Eggleston pointed out in his very convincing speech on this matter:

… it is apparent that no-one has discovered how to reliably trigger stem cells to grow into specific organs such as heart, brain or pancreatic cells.

He went on to say:

… cancer formation in stem cell implants is a problem. It has been confirmed that embryonic stem cells have a propensity to form a highly malignant tumour called a teratoma in 25 per cent of implants.

We need to understand that research with adult cells has made significant inroads since the debate on cloning in 2002, and they already have runs on the board. Bone marrow transplants have been performed for years. As Queensland scientist Dr Peter Silburn said:

If you have a galloping horse like adult stem cells, why not pursue that? ... cloning is not necessary.

Professor Bob Williamson, from the Australian Academy of Science, told the Senate inquiry:

It is probable that such (adult) stem cell lines as these will render therapeutic cloning irrelevant and impractical.

Adult stem cells are unspecialised cells that can self-renew, repair tissue in their locality, and divide to generate specialised mature cells. Adult stem cells in bone marrow include blood-forming stem cells from which red and white blood cells develop. Mesenchymal stem cells are a type of adult stem cell that can produce cartilage, bone, tendon, fat, teeth, muscle and nerve cells and may come from bone marrow.

The first reported case using adult stem therapy for lung ailments was reported in January this year. Scientists from the Samsung Medical Centre implanted mesenchymal stem cells, taken from animal umbilical cords, in test animals with damaged lungs, and the stem cells repaired parts of the lungs. Professor Alan Mackay from Griffith University found in 2005 that human nasal adult stem cells could differentiate into new brain, liver, heart, kidney and muscle cells when transplanted into a chick embryo. The cells were easy to grow and did not form tumours. A trial using animal models of Parkinson’s disease is currently underway.

Scientists from Britain have grown human cartilage from patients’ own adult stem cells. This has potential for treating osteoarthritis. In the Hunter region, a patient at the John Hunter Hospital was treated with his own adult marrow cells, which were injected into his heart to help regenerate heart muscle. It was the first procedure of its type in Australia in 2002. These examples of the use of adult stem cells highlight that clinical trials for therapies using embryonic stem cells are years away. In fact, a former Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Frazer, has said that therapies involving embryonic stem cells could not be expected to be available to treat patients for at least 75 years. Adult stem cells already have a proven and promising record, without the ethical problems. Importantly, adult stem cells are donated with the permission of the person whose cells they are.

The feedback I have received in my community concerning this bill argues overwhelmingly against the legislation. I will read into the record some of the comments I have received from people in my community. A biomedical researcher wrote to me and said:

As a senior biomedical researcher, I am perhaps more aware than most of the potential clinical benefits of such research. However, I see it as unethical and damaging to human society to legislate for the creation of a human individual solely for the purposes of benefiting another human individual. To my mind, the ends, no matter how apparently worthwhile, do not justify the process involved, inherent in which is an insidious and alarming denial of basic human rights to cloned individuals. I am also opposed to human-animal hybrid research but supportive of adult stem cell research.

Another constituent raised the concern that has been aired many times in this debate, and that is the effect on women who may provide eggs for money. He wrote:

I am writing to ask you to NOT allow therapeutic cloning to proceed. I believe this move could only have detrimental effects on the health of women, particularly those from poorer regions.

The need for the vast quantities of eggs required for cloning can only be produced by administering powerful hormones to women to hyper-stimulate their egg production. The long-term effects of this procedure are unknown.

Is it really worth risking the lives of these women, who will be coerced into this procedure for money? The end does not justify the means.

I also received a letter from a local doctor, who said:

I implore you as a human being of reason and compassion to please stop and consider the importance of the decision you are to make when voting on the bill to legalise cloning. A cloned embryo, even though it would not be conceived in the usual way, would still be an embryo. It would have the potential to become a fetus, a baby, a child and an adult human being, only needing nutrition and the right environment to do so.

If this Bill is allowed to pass, it will lead to the production for the first time in Australian history of two classes of human being. One created for the intention of living and one for the intention of being killed. The law specifies that the embryos must be destroyed within fourteen days.

Furthermore, this Bill does allow immature cells from aborted fetuses to be matured and then fertilized by human sperm to provide embryos for experimentation. It is a horrifying dimension of the Bill that needs to be fully understood. Do not be fooled. These embryos would not be cloned embryos.

Please do not be responsible for creating a class of Australians which by law must be destroyed within fourteen days of creation. Please reject this Bill.

In conclusion, I have researched this bill and I understand what is wanted and what is at stake, but as I said about the previous bill in 2002:

In light of all these arguments both for and against, I make my decision on this bill based on my ethical beliefs driven by a strong commitment to my God. I refer you to Psalm 139:13-16, which, in summary, says that the unborn are known and loved by God.

Colleagues, I ask you to join me in rejecting this bill in its totality.

Comments

No comments