Page 929 - Week 03 - Thursday, 3 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
embryo could be used for experimentation only if it already existed and was going to die anyway. This bill proceeds on an entirely different principle: that we will now allow the creation of human embryos solely for the purposes of research. So great is the difference that the bill also amends the title and the objects of the previous act.
My own view is that allowing the creation of a human embryo for the purposes of experimentation is an ethical line that we should not cross. While I think that this bill already goes too far, it also seems to me that we are entering into dangerous territory and that we are on a slippery slope towards a place that many would agree we should not be going to. While the bill provides for a 14-day limit on the life span of the embryo, it is very easy to start to extend such limits after they are in place. There is really no ethical principle involved in extending 14 days to 16 days, extending 16 days to 21 days or extending 21 days to 30 days and so on.
Once you have accepted the principle of creating embryos for experimentation, you are marching towards a logical end point whether you like it or not. Vague ideas about not letting the embryo develop for too long are a very amorphous protection at best. Indeed, once we cross the ethical line from experimentation on existing embryos to the creation of embryos for this very purpose, it will not be very difficult to simply extend a time limit or take other small steps to get closer and closer to full-blown human cloning or experimentation on highly developed embryos. If this dire state of affairs ever comes about, I am sure that at every step of this journey we will hear sincere assurances that this legislation will “never go further than this” or will “guarantee that”. How often has that been heard through the parliamentary system over the years?
Some may object that embryonic stem cell research requires only a certain amount of time to work—that maybe we do not need 16 days, 21 days or 30 days for some particular scientific procedure. However, we are not able to anticipate the kinds of medical experiments that may arise in the future or whether there may be future proposals to allow a longer time period for some new kind of experiment. Once we have crossed the line to allow the creation of embryos for experiments, there is no reason to suppose that we could not extend this line for this kind of experiment or that kind of experiment.
The matter reminds me of when I worked in the food industry. There were various tests and procedures to check the safety of food. In the mid-1980s, we discovered that there was a problem that had particularly adverse impacts on pregnant mothers. It resulted from a development within dairy-based products. It took 18 days before the problem came to light. The science that we were applying to test the safety of food did not contemplate this time frame. The only reason I cite that as an example is that, as we move through, things change. New science comes to light and then a new rationale is suddenly developed to change the ground rules. I have little doubt that that is what would happen once one started going down this road.
I have noticed that when one puts forward an opinion of this kind there are people who will try to paint you as not caring about the suffering of those who might be cured by medical technologies that might be developed from such experimentation. Mrs Dunne most articulately touched on this issue in her remarks. It is a sentiment that I can relate to. No-one denies that medical research is a good thing and that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .