Page 987 - Week 03 - Thursday, 3 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are two parts to this that caused me concern and about which I am now reconciled. At one stage I would not agree with the use of embryonic cells for stem cell research because of what I was concerned was a lack of safeguards around the practice, the actual notice and the notion of sacrificing one life to make another life a little nicer or better or improved. But I reconciled myself to the fact that we are not talking about farming of embryonic cells for stem cell research but we are, in fact, using excess cells which would be destroyed anyway.
I know a bloke who sits in a wheelchair because he is a quadriplegic and he has a spinal injury, a trauma. I spoke to him about this. I looked into his eyes, and he said, to me, “Johnno, for my sake, if nobody else’s, support this research because I live in hope. I am now facing a shortened life. I am living in hope that maybe one day while I am still here stem cell research may be able to come up with something which can get me out of this wheelchair.” I confess to you, Mr Speaker, that I went away and I was deeply affected. I changed my position from that account. He was not being hysterical.
The other thing is—and I am not as eloquent as my colleague Mr Corbell, particularly on issues like this, because he has this ability to more succinctly put things together—that we are talking about the use of these eggs and sperm to test the viability of the sperm. It is true to say that the use of an egg to test the viability of sperm on a human was actually messing around with the reproductive process, when you think about it. What happens is: if we are going to test the viability of human sperm on a human egg and it is a viable sperm, it is likely that you are going to create a life. What happens then, I ask. Is that life then continued or is it discarded? I do not know the answer to that.
I am assured that the practice of testing the viability of sperm on a non-human egg is about the viability of that one sperm in the group of sperm that it travelled in and that it is destroyed basically the minute it is determined that it would have been a viable sperm and has actually penetrated the membrane and before the first mitotic division. I am convinced that the safeguards exist at this stage for that. I am also aware of the penalties for non-compliance with those safeguards. They are significant penalties, up to 15 years imprisonment.
I guess the bit that gave me the biggest angst was that we are not talking about an inanimate object; we are talking about mucking around with what can be a created life. We have to be very, very careful with this. I do not subscribe to the notion that we are elected to this place to reflect the views of the majority of our electors in this particular instance. I believe that we are elected to this place to have the strength of conscience and respect the faith that people have put in us on the use of that strength of conscience. My conscience on this particular piece of work was sorely tested.
I understand what Mrs Dunne is proposing. I applaud her for her stance. I respect very sincerely the position that she is taking from a deeply religious position and a deeply held personal conviction. I want to make sure that the record shows, and everybody that is listening understands, that I respect her position on this. But in this case I cannot support her amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .