Human Embryo and Human Dignity by Guy Barnett, Tasmanian Liberal Senator

Life begins for all of us as a human embryo. Let’s be clear about definitions. Human embryo is life, produced by human beings for the reproduction of life. It is not solely a laboratory creation, or some form of inhuman animal husbandry. The proposal before Australians to use human embryo for experimentation, research and then destruction, degrades each of us as individuals and diminishes the worth and dignity of human life.

If experimentation on human embryo, surplus to IVF programmes, is acceptable, then why is it not acceptable on other human embryo, anywhere, anytime? Whose job is it to decide which human embryo should be destroyed? Once there is wide support for the principle of experimentation and the subsequent destruction of human embryo, where and who draws the line to say enough is enough? My fervent view is a human embryo is not a commodity to be sold, or a resource for experimentation, exploitation or research.

The recent agreement with the State and Territory leaders is a compromise to the original proposal. With one stroke of the pen the latest proposal says that certain human lives are dispensable. It is the thin end of the wedge, and with a review in one year not three, expanding access to human embryo is clearly on the cards. With more compromise human cloning is an ultimate result.

We as a community should draw a line in the sand and say the protection of human life in whatever form is an absolute. No ifs or buts. Australians with disabilities, or those who are not functioning “normally” can be affronted by the proposal. I say one’s functioning ability should not determine the level of respect shown or protection given to the human life. These claims to respect and protection should be unconditional.

The possible and potential benefits resulting from the research and then the destruction of the embryo do not make it ethical or right. It is true that experimentation and research on human embryo has the potential to assist in the treatment or cure of serious illness such as Diabetes, Parkinson’s Disease, Alzheimer’s, and Motor Neuron Disease.

It is for this reason that I had to dig deep and consider carefully my own personal views. I have Type 1, or insulin dependent Diabetes, my three children are at greater risk of contracting Diabetes compared to other Australians, and my father died of Motor Neurone Disease. Despite my position and the potential benefits for my family resulting from this stem-cell research I cannot support a proposal which devalues life and shows disrespect for the uniqueness and “specialness” of human life. The ends do not justify the means.

Based on my inquiry, research on adult stem-cells, which is supported by all, has far greater potential to benefit those suffering pain from debilitating diseases. Such adult stem-cell research should be encouraged by the science communities, government and the general public.

This is the best and most viable alternative. There should be a concerted and reinvigorated adult stem cell research programme. After all, the relief from pain and suffering caused by diseases should be a top priority. To this end the results from research on human embryo remains speculative, while research on adult stem cells is not.

If there is to be a national regulatory regime or legislation, then what will be the penalties for a breach of the regime? Who will vet the scientists and apply the penalty, and what of the human embryo? It is a scary proposal with mind boggling possibilities that has the potential to damage our strongly held perception of human dignity and fracture the backbone of Australia’s conscience.

The clamour by state and territory leaders to ensure a bigger slice of the science economy, can only increase the pressure to further extend this research and experimentation on human embryo. The temptation will simply be too great, and the potential financial gain for major corporations and others will merely add to the pressure ten-fold. The proposal will open the door to dangerous possibilities if it is successful in Federal Parliament. It is for this reason that I will work with like-minded Parliamentary colleagues of whatever political persuasion, and others to oppose the proposal. I am prepared to move amendments or propose a private Members Bill to achieve these objectives.

The beginning and end of human life presents the most difficult ethical issues. Discussion and debate on this important issue in the community is in its early stages. I encourage all Australians to dig deep and consider their own views. This watershed issue is not only relevant to Federal and State Members of Parliament, but all Australians.

ENDS

8 April 2002

Related Reading: