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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1600 ..

That is the hard end of the debate. Although the minister and I disagree—and we will continue to disagree—in this context I have to put this argument. It is probably selfish for a mother who has been blessed with five children to state that we should not have assisted reproductive technology. The argument that is often used—and it is one to which I am very sympathetic—is that that is the way in which some people achieve what I achieved so easily. I place on the record that the means by which assisted reproductive technology achieves that end is, in my view—and I concede that it is a minority view and a view that is not unique—not moral or licit.

I refer to the types of intervention, to the drugs for super-ovulation and to the appalling exploitation of the people in this process. Research shows that the adverse health outcomes for mothers and children that are born as a result of those procedures are compelling. It is pretty much a case, 25 years later, of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. I realise that I will not turn back the clock tonight, but I take this opportunity to place on the record the arguments against assisted reproductive technology. It is not all sweetness and light and it is not all wonderful. It is invasive, it is painful and it fails more often than it succeeds.

Let us look at evidence-based medicine and at the failure rate of assisted reproductive technology. Hardly any other failed procedure would continue to receive the funding that assisted reproductive technology receives. It is an expensive process. Many who enrol in the process go away even more disillusioned and heartbroken and without a beautiful baby. We as a community must address all those issues. I do not expect all members to come on board today, but at least they should think about these arguments. They should think about where we are going with this really invasive technology.

In a large number of cases healthy children are born to people who want a child only to complete their family. I cannot appreciate the anguish of those who do not have what I have come by easily. However, we must address the really hard issues. We should not shy away from this difficult issue because it is confronting. I am well aware that I will not receive support for my amendment, but it behoves us all to think about the issues that are raised as a result of this assisted reproductive technology.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (10.53): Mrs Dunne’s amendment would make it an offence for someone to use a human embryo. That would be the effect of her amendment, if it were agreed to. Members can make their own judgement as to whether or not that is appropriate. Clearly, in my view it is not appropriate. It is an extreme position to suggest that any use of a human embryo should become an offence capable of being punished by imprisonment for five years.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 34, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 35.

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