Senate debates

Tuesday, 7 November 2006

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

In Committee

8:04 pm

Photo of Kay PattersonKay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think Professor Skene, who was one of the members of the Lockhart committee, indicated that her view in the beginning was that there was no problem with creating egg-sperm embryos for the purpose of research. I do not know the views of the other members of the Lockhart committee—they have not expressed them—but her view was that there was no difference between a SCNT embryo and an egg-sperm embryo. However, as the committee went around talking to a large number of people from all walks of life and to those who presented submissions, she became convinced that people saw the egg-sperm embryo as different. Two people had come together to create that embryo, whereas a somatic cell nuclear transfer embryo did not have the same potential and purpose. That is the reason that the committee finally came to the decision to continue the prohibition of the creation of egg and sperm embryos for the purpose of research.

Also, there was an indication that there were excess embryos to the needs of ART, whereas that is not the case with SCNT embryos. There is a difference in the sense that there are existing excess ART embryos, but there are no existing SCNT embryos. So one argument is that you are creating something that you do not necessarily need, because it is already there. The other argument is that, for many people, those embryos have a different significance. That is why there is provision in the bill, if it goes through, for the legislation to be reviewed in three years time. People may have different views then, but that was a strong view of the community at the time.

One of the things the Lockhart committee was asked to do as part of its review was to look at community attitudes. So the members of the committee took into account what they felt was a strong expression by people who had egg-sperm embryos that were excess to ART and how they saw them differently, although the legislation encompasses SCNT embryos and egg-sperm embryos under the definition of embryo.

Comments

No comments