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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1597 ..

either still want them or have not made a decision about their future. We must ensure that people who are participating in IVF do not leave those embryos sitting on a shelf or in a freezer somewhere for an indeterminate period.

I do not necessarily agree with the argument that was put forward earlier by Mrs Dunne—that a life has been started and that we cannot let it die. If we agreed with Mrs Dunne’s argument, those embryos would be left in limbo and they would not fulfil their potential. Mrs Dunne said that these embryos would not be able to be used for research, and thus they would be space fillers. I might be wrong in my interpretation of Mrs Dunne’s arguments, but in my mind I do not see that as a positive step forward. I do not support Mrs Dunne’s amendment.

MRS DUNNE (10.32): Mr Corbell and Ms Dundas both referred to this issue as a moral dilemma. The whole point of this amendment is to highlight a moral dilemma that we have created. After 25 or more years of assisted reproductive technology we have created something with which we do not know how to deal. Mr Corbell expressed concern about the fact that the amendment would leave these embryos in limbo when that is already occurring. A large number of people are now confronted with the fact that they have embryos in storage and they do not know what to do with them. So those embryos are in storage and they are confronted with a moral dilemma.

Mr Smyth just pointed out to me that I should have amended clause 10 (3) (a) (v) by removing the word “succumb” and by inserting instead the word “destroy”. That is what my amendment proposes to do. I said at the outset that I do not have a solution to this problem, but this amendment highlights that profound problem. Somewhere along the line we will experience storage problems. However, we should not state, “Because we have a problem with storage we should be clearing out all these embryos.” We should be going back to basics and stating, “We do not know what to do with these embryos because no-one has a use for them. Should we be creating these embryos in the first place?” We seem to have got ourselves into an awful mess.

There is no easy solution to this problem. Should we allow this clause to remain as it is and permit the destruction of these embryos, or should we adopt my amendment? It is an intractable problem, but I would rather have an intractable problem to which a solution might be found one day than an intractable problem that cannot be resolved. If we ever find a solution there will be no going back. We will not be able to do anything about the embryos that we have destroyed. At this stage we do not know how to solve this problem. If we allow these embryos to thaw out and we then destroy them, we will be doing away with the evidence but we will not be addressing the problem.

MS DUNDAS (10.35): Mrs Dunne put forward some eloquent arguments. I wish to respond to one point that she made. She referred to a couple of people who have been involved in ART and who will now have to make choices about the future of those embryos—choices with which they are not comfortable. I refer again to her use of the word “choice”. It is their decision whether or not to choose to use them, to defer their decision, or to let those embryos succumb. Those who are involved in that process should be making that decision. They should not be forced into keeping those embryos by the removal of this clause; they should have those options. If we support Mrs Dunne’s amendment we will limit their options and their choices.

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