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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1593 ..

regulation. Clearly that is not what it is about. It would not be open to us to make a conscience vote if that is what it was about. This legislation is about a fundamental ethical question. Most people have addressed that question in some detail and they have searched their own consciences in an attempt to deal with it.

I want to make some comments about the points that were raised in relation to this issue. In my view this is not a matter of achieving consistent regulation between the states; this is a fundamental question about the use of human embryos for medical experiments and research. It is not a question about whether we have in place a rigorous regulatory framework. I disagree with the statement made earlier by Ms Dundas. We do not have in place a rigorous regulatory framework. I referred earlier in my speech to some of the concerns that I have. The debate that took place in the federal parliament and the issues referred to by my colleagues explains a lot more.

The issue that we are addressing does not involve the use of spare embryos. The comment that I make about that issue is that that demonstrates how technology creates dilemmas for society. As I said earlier, when assisted reproductive technology commenced, we did not anticipate that there would be this problem or the opportunity to use spare embryos. That happened as technology developed. Society made a decision to assist women with fertility problems to undergo this process. For years many women have undergone that difficult and painful process. Technology then got better and better and suddenly we were confronted with the spare embryo issue.

That is not the main issue with which we are dealing. The question that is now being asked is: how come that happened without us having a real debate about how it happened and what we do with it? We have tried, to a degree, to regulate the storage of those embryos. The United Kingdom has gone to a great deal of trouble to deal with that issue. However, as I said earlier, that is not the central point that we are dealing with. The utilitarian argument, which does not address the issue, is that as an embryo is going to be destroyed it might as well be used. The argument of choice is also irrelevant to that fundamental question.

If we use the argument of choice, right now there are many families around the world who are choosing to sell their children to pay off debts. That choice by the parents does not legitimise the act. I do not think that the question of choice is relevant. As I said earlier, the fundamental question is that we have to determine whether or not we use human embryos for research and experiments. If members do not think that is a problem, that is fine. That is what a conscience vote is all about. The fundamental question is: what is the issue with which I have a problem?

We are attempting to move across a dangerous line. This issue is totally different from abortion. I have said in this place that abortion is about a relationship between an embryo and a woman—the embryo being in the woman’s body. Abortion is a woman’s life choice. It is about the control that a woman has over her body and her life. The moral argument that can be put in relation to assisted reproductive technology and to the use of that technology is that the issue is still about a mother and an embryo. We are talking about an embryo and science, the corporate sector and pharmaceutical companies, which are very different issues. Tonight the decision that I have made is that I do not believe we should cross that line.

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