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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1592 ..

How can the Catholic Church claim to follow a saviour who told a crippled man to "Pick up thy bed and walk", while opposing the science that might just make this happen? Has scientist Alan Trounson (The Clone ranger, April 23) ever put this question to his religious friends? As a Christian confined to a wheelchair by cerebral palsy, I would be fascinated by the answer.

That set me thinking on this whole question. We spend a fortune on improving the quality of life for the sick and the disabled; by doing good deeds, which might be wonderful for our own consciences; through charity; and by raising money by various means—indeed hardly a week goes by without there being some fundraiser or another—yet we refuse to countenance the most positive of all improvements: the quality of life of the future sick and disabled. I speak, of course, of a cure for illness or disability. Oddly enough, that sent me to a transcript from CNN. Orrin Hatch is a Republican of Utah and is opposed to abortion—and still is, as far as I am aware. He came out in support of embryonic stem cell research, having studied the legal, medical and religious ethical issues. He states:

The reality today is that each year thousands of embryos are routinely destroyed. Why shouldn’t embryos slated for destruction be used for the benefit of mankind?

I think we have got to the point of embarking on research that could improve the standard of living for people who live with pain, disability and shortened life expectancy. I believe that we do not have any right to stop this research from going ahead. We have no right whatsoever to prolong pain if we can find a means to alleviate it. While I respect the rights of others to their beliefs, religious or otherwise, I do not think that those beliefs should override the rights of sick and disabled people to medical practice that could improve their chances of a better standard of living or a longer life. I believe we do have the right to allow this research to go ahead and that sufficient safeguards can be built in to ensure that it will ultimately prove beneficial only to mankind. A big ask? Well, I have enough faith. As a member of this Assembly I gave the following oath:

I swear that I will faithfully serve the people of the Australian Capital Territory as a member of the Legislative Assembly and discharge my responsibilities according to law …

I believe I have a duty to support legislation that permits improved physical quality of life—not immediately, and probably not within my lifetime, but that should not prevent this opportunity being taken. I think it is the Chinese who say that, if you concentrate on the past and the present, you will be denying the future. I therefore will be supporting the government legislation but will not be supporting Ms Tucker’s amendment or any other amendments. The one thing that came out very clearly from Mr Corbell’s earlier statement was that this legislation is consistent with national legislation. I believe that, if we are to advance and if we are to try to relieve pain and seek cures for illness and disability, consistency is absolutely essential.

MS TUCKER (10.07): I would like to make a few more comments in relation to this amendment, which I am aware will not be successful. In order to speed up the process I will not move my other amendments, as they are consequential on this one. However, I would like to respond to some of the points that were made tonight by other members. Mr Corbell said earlier that we must ensure that this legislation is about consistency and

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