Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill 2007 
|
| Wednesday, 06 June 2007 | ||||||
|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [10.11 p.m.]: I stand before the House today genuinely torn on the question of what is right in relation to the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill 2007. I have listened to both sides and remain convinced even now that the issues are complex, with no side able to confidently acclaim that they hold the truth. There is a balance of a call for help for many whose desperation I cannot pretend to truly understand versus a sense that we are meddling with something that is far greater than we can ever know. However, in reaching my conclusion I do not try to dictate my position as the essence of moral righteousness; more, it is the result of wrestling thought and ongoing discussion over the past few days that I commend all in the House for doing with diligence. The debate can be emotive and, indeed, some positions have been put in a spirit that, to me, undermines the responsibility of all in this place and the community. Surely our role as parliamentarians on matters of conscience is to weigh all evidence, listen to all arguments and vote with an understanding that many in the community or our colleagues next to us may well draw different conclusions. These differences on matters of conscience are to be respected. All of us in this House have a desire to reduce suffering and at the same time protect what is precious. That is what makes us who we are. I cannot help but feel the tension of this bill that places in direct conflict a potential hope for many who have none versus an innate responsibility to protect life itself. I have looked in this debate at the potential benefits this research could provide and, in part reflecting my banking background, remain somewhat short of the empirical evidence that compels the outcomes. There are no assurances that this research will produce quick cures and it principally remains a journey of hope. Whilst I ponder this, I am also drawn on whether there are other avenues that could lead to the same hope. There is evidence that adult stem cell research is working and making a tangible difference in the life of many. I believe that the Leader of The Nationals made an excellent presentation on some of those benefits. There is also a clear understanding that animal research remains well short of being complete. In this I struggle, as I think that to progress to this bill the argument would be more compelling if there was a clear and exhausted demonstration of success with animals before this science is applied to human circumstances. I acknowledge the work of the Lockhart committee and its due diligence in wrestling with these issues. However, as I have begun to delve into the science of what we are being asked to approve, I cannot help but feel uncomfortable and wonder what is the next request that will come to this Parliament. In essence, we are being asked to support a bill that allows a human embryo of sorts—certainly there is limited scientific difference between them—to be created for the primary purpose of saving or improving lives. If this is the case, are we not trying to create and then destroy life itself? The question must wrack all of us as to when life begins. I cannot be held to any scientific position on this question for we are not the authors of life and few would argue that we would ever have all the answers. However, I do feel compelled at this juncture to share the story of some very good friends of mine. Just over a few months ago they were blessed with the news of new life and eagerly awaited the birth of their third child. After a few weeks they then received the news that every parent dreads; there was something wrong. The condition is called anencephaly, which results in the casing of the brain not forming. The end result is that the baby cannot survive beyond a few hours out of the womb. The convention of medical opinion and science is that this life should have ended at this point. The parents, when confronted with this issue, felt a strong conviction that they were not the determinants of when life starts or ends. There is something truly noble in their stance and it is a lesson for us all. In two weeks time Zoe will be born facing the inevitable outcome. Whilst the parents are preparing a service of thanksgiving, I note the joy of a mother, who feels Zoe kick and turn in her womb today and the words of the father to me last night when he said, "Yes, Zoe will die but before that she will live." I cannot help but make the connection of an embryo, however formed, to the life of Zoe. We cannot judge the quality of life lived, its inception, and we know that it cannot be repeated. In this debate the clinical and dispassionate treatment of a cloned embryo feels a mechanism to distance oneself from life. Zoe gives me a personal dimension that will forever remind me of the beauty of life itself. What we can factually say is this, that is, that if a cloned embryo is placed in a womb there is a chance, however small, that it would create a human clone in exactly the same way that Dolly the sheep found its way to this earth. In this respect we are toying with an element of life and to me the proposed protections in the legislation, such as prohibition on implanting and research beyond 14 days, appear as a warning sign that we are on the precipice of the moral divide. I feel it is beyond our call as parliamentarians to determine where life starts and, importantly, where it ends. Without definitive evidence that this research will produce cures rather than just hope, and the overwhelming sense of the need to treasure and protect human life itself, I feel compelled to oppose the bill. I firmly believe in hope, and trust that those many men and women who spend days and nights searching for cures will continue to do so. In any journey there must be boundaries and I believe that we have reached those boundaries on this research. I urge the House to oppose the bill. Add to:          Write Comment
|
||||||
