 |
Other Parliamentary SpeechesThis page is dedicated to Peter's speeches during parliament that do not fall under Questions or Questions without notice. They range from debating legislation, reporting on events or issues in his seat of Southport and his Ministerial Statements.
Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill. Regulation of Research Involving Embyos and Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill |
![]() |
| Posted by Administrator (admin) on Mar 11 2003 |
| Other Speeches >> |
Mr LAWLOR (Southport-ALP) (12.46 a.m.): I rise to support the Regulation of Research Involving Human Embryos and Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill and the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill. As the Premier said in his second reading speech, one of humanity's defining characteristics is our continuing quest to overcome diseases and injuries that diminish quality of life. That is what this bill may make possible. This bill complements the Commonwealth Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002, which were passed by the House of Representatives on 11 December 2002 and may lead to huge leaps and advances in the quality of life for the sufferers of many diseases and injuries that I will mention later.
These two bills incorporate COAG agreements and seek to provide a regulatory framework for the federal legislation. Without this framework there would be a research free-for-all. There is a possibility that human embryonic stem cell research could lead to treatment which would benefit thousands of Australians whose lives are shortened or made painful by diseases and injuries such as juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, liver and other organ failure, a variety of cancers, spinal cord injury, inherited conditions such as cystic fibrosis, and nerve cell damage caused by stroke and heart disease. In this regard I have a personal interest. One of my brothers is about 46. I suppose I should know his exact age, but that is about it. He would be the oldest living cystic fibrosis sufferer in Australia. Obviously, any cures that may be found will not assist him, but it might assist many people in the future to avoid the pain, suffering and uncertainty that he has gone through throughout his life and the impact that illness has on the whole family. We must bear in mind that as a result of this legislation, as has already been mentioned, not a single extra embryo will be created, nor will a further single embryo die. Research will only be conducted on assisted reproductive technology embryos that are surplus to requirements and which are currently disposed of by exposure to room temperature. So rather than let early stage embryos which would otherwise be allowed to die be simply wasted, they might be used in research that might advance lifesaving and life-enhancing therapies. The only embryos used in this research will be excess assisted reproductive technology embryos created prior to 5 April 2002 that donors have consented can be used.
The source of the excess embryos capable of donation for stem cell research is the IVF program. It is interesting to note that the basis of the opposition to stem cell research from organised religion, particularly as I understand it the Catholic Church, is its basic opposition to IVF. That is interesting, because that is a similar-type conscience issue as we are debating here tonight.
I had an interesting situation some years ago when a couple, who were personal friends of mine, went through the IVF program. Their most enthusiastic supporters were two Catholic nuns. They prayed fervently that the IVF program would be successful, celebrated when the wife actually fell pregnant and similarly celebrated when the baby-a little girl-was born. She is now 12 years old and is an absolute joy to her parents and to all who know her. Those two nuns were praying for a result that was contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. So each person must make their own decision, as all members of this House have after a thorough examination of their consciences.
While on the subject of the Catholic Church, I am afraid that it has a fairly ordinary record when it comes to scientific discoveries. The example of Gallileo springs readily to mind. I will give members a little history lesson for a couple of seconds. In 1632, Gallileo published Dialog on the Two Chief World Systems-Ptolemaic and Copernicus. In 1633, Gallileo stood trial for heresy by the holy office of the inquisition and his book, the dialog, was prohibited. On 8 January in 1642, Gallileo died. Just to put Gallileo's death into context, Isaac Newton was born that same year on 25 December.
In 1822, the holy office permitted publication of books that teach earth's motion. In 1835, Gallileo's dialog was dropped from the index of prohibited books. In 1979, Pope John Paul called for theologian scholars and historians to re-examine Gallileo's case. In 1992, Pope John Paul publicly endorsed Gallileo's philosophy, noting how intelligibility attested to by the marvellous discoveries of science and technology leads us in the last analysis to the transcendent and primordial thought imprinted on all things. The holy office of the inquisition was a committee of 10 cardinals appointed by Pope Urban VIII. He rejected various pleas for a pardon and as a result Gallileo was subject to house arrest and humiliation and persecution for the rest of his life.
It may be argued that this legislation is not only a matter of science; it is a matter of morals and ethics. For that reason it is most appropriate that these bills be the subject of a conscience vote. The point of mentioning the tragic circumstances of Gallileo-a pious man whose two daughters were nuns, and who certainly was not a rebel-is simply to show that a proclamation on a matter of faith, that is that the earth was the centre of the universe, a belief for which the Catholic Church condemned Gallileo as a heretic, was changed and Gallileo was exonerated. Not that it did him much good-either him or his family-because it took 359 years for the church to come to the conclusion that Gallileo was correct.
That was on an issue that was scientifically provable. How much harder is it to be correct on an ethical or essentially moral issue in relation to which there is no absolute right or wrong. So long as every member has thoroughly examined their consciences-and I am sure that they have just as I have-then everyone is correct, even though we reach different conclusions.
So far as cloning goes, like all of the other members here, I am absolutely implacably opposed to it. As a result, I would be supporting both of these bills. Last changed: [PUBLISHED_DATE] at 11:00 PM
Back
|
|
