Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1578 ..

Commonwealth laws or other state laws; they go the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that there is a widely held, all-encompassing view that embryonic stem cell research has the potential to benefit society. Much of this view comes from the belief or the hope that we may find a holy grail that will be the solution to a range of diseases such as those the Minister for Health listed—Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries, cystic fibrosis, motor neurone disease, and the list goes on.

As I have said in this place before, I am the parent of two children with cystic fibrosis. I have had discussions at length with the adult of those children about what this legislation does. My daughter Olivia and I were sufficiently moved on this issue to make a submission to the Senate inquiry into research involving embryos in 2002 on the basis that this is not the way to go. As I have said here and in other places, I believe that to find a cure for my children for the diabetes that they may acquire or for their non-functioning endocrine system would be a great thing indeed, but not at the cost of somebody else’s life.

I recall having a discussion with some of the grandparents of my children about this matter. They said, “How could you possibly oppose this? One day, when you need a cure for something, Olivia and Conor might be able to find a cure.” I cannot, in all conscience, support this sort of research on the grounds that one day one of my children might need a cure and it might be found because the means by which this cure would be found is fundamentally immoral.

When we talk about stem cell research we need to be clear that we are talking about cells which are derived from embryos in the very earliest stages of development, which are either purpose produced or the by-product of assisted reproductive technology. What this legislation and the Commonwealth legislation seek to do is say that, for the time being—and only for the very narrow time being—we cannot purpose produce embryos for assisted reproductive technology. We have the unfortunate phrase of “excess embryos”. Excess embryos seem to be fair game under this legislation.

I am entirely convinced that there is a possibility of the legitimate use of adult stem cells. There has been much research in this area, which shows promise. Ms Tucker has referred to some research. The list of successful but still nascent early research is very long. I will not bore members with a long account of successes as Ms Tucker has touched on some of those things. The reasons why I think it is licit to continue the research on adult stem cells are many and varied. There is also a licit use for stem cells which are obtained from umbilical cord blood. It is obvious that the applications for adult stem cells are wide. As technology advances, the practical uses for adult stem cells keep expanding. In this whole debate, I have never heard a refutation of the advances and treatments being achieved by those using adult stem cells. In addition—and this is the really important part—the harvesting of adult stem cells is not fatal to the donors. Researchers and clinicians are able to obtain proper consent before they harvest, so there are no moral impediments to their use. Also, as adult stem cells can be harvested from the patient and returned to the same patient, there are not the medical issues associated with cell rejection. None of these things apply in relation to embryonic stem cell research.

I see no legitimate moral use for embryonic stem cells in research here. This view is informed both by a moral argument and a utilitarian argument. Firstly, despite all the attention and discussion of issues and all the hype, it has become increasingly obvious

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .