Lisa Singh, MP
Many working people are living and working with such a disease, many hiding the fact that they have it in fear of being discriminated in the workplace. Many are living with constant pain or problems with writing, eating, getting dressed in the morning and so on, all things that we do easily and that they should not have to live with. Parkinson’s is not the only disease. There are so many others that people live with, with no end in sight.
Extract from House of Assembly Hansard 24 October 2007
[12.07 p.m.]
Ms SINGH (Denison) – I rise to contribute to this significant debate and in doing so I would like to acknowledge and thank the minister for all the work she has done on this bill and for the briefings she has provided. I would also like to acknowledge the moral issues for some surrounding this matter and the groundbreaking scientific research that can emanate from this bill being passed. I have done a lot of my own research on this issue and my decision as a member of parliament, bestowed upon me by the people of Denison, is at the end of the day my decision, a decision of conscience. In making my decision I rely on my intellect, my values – which are progressive values – and my sense of humanity. I have listened to the views of all people on this issue and I respect their views. I share the views of many I have listened to, while others have different views. Still I respect that that is their view, whatever their basis. The fact is there is no monopoly on morality here. We are all weighing up the issues at play.
I believe it needs to be made clear at the outset that we are not talking about reproductive cloning; we are talking about therapeutic cloning. Unfortunately there are many in our communities who are not really aware of the real issues with embryonic stem cell research. I think they have been unnecessarily led down the wrong path, a path that restricts research that could save many hundreds if not thousands of lives. What we also have in this legislation is a tight regulatory framework around which science can be carried out. I acknowledge that this a unique position in which to be placed as a member of parliament – to vote according to conscience on this issue. I am not a scientist, nor do I have a scientific background, but I know that science is the future if we are going to live a healthy and disease-free life.
This bill has already gone through the Federal Parliament, as well as some State parliaments thus far. But even before that point, the issues contained in this bill have been around for more than a decade. Since then our parliamentary colleagues in Britain have accepted this research. On top of that we have had formal inquiries, the Andrews Report, the Lockhart Report and a recent Senate committee report, all of which state that there should be regulation and regulatory processes by which this kind of stem cell research can be carried out, and that is exactly what we have in front of us here today.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a great supporter of science that benefits humanity. Today I want to put forward my support this bill based on the utilitarian argument. Utilitarianism is an ethical argument that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome; that is, the ends justify the means and that we should always act to produce the best possible consequences. I believe that this bill in question has a lot of merit to be argued upon utilitarian lines.
To quote John Stuart Mill, public moralist and philosopher, on his principle of utility, he says:
‘The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable and the only thing desirable as an end.’
And that is what we are debating here today.
Part of the reason I am supporting this bill is that I want everyone to have a healthy and happy life. I do not want people to have a debilitating and painful life with an incurable disease. I want people to enjoy a full happy life so it is simple; we have to allow science to progress. We have to allow science to research to find cures to such things as diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and so on. We have to because we surely cannot accept and think it is okay for such people to live in suffering and pain. Surely we must realise that advance in research in this area is a good thing for humanity.
I would also like to quote from the number one utilitarian whom I totally support and who is a medical doctor in Melbourne, a director of the Murdoch Institute at the Royal Children’s Hospital and former Oxford University, Professor Julian Savulescu. Professor Savulescu said at the annual symposium lecture at the Australian Academy of Science in 2005 this, and I quote:
‘I think the great ethical issue is what a staggering failure of moral imagination we have in our society today when it comes to this kind of research. I think the real moral issue is that it is wrong to retard this research and we should be devoting more energy to it.’
He went on to explain the research on an ABC radio interview on The World Today on 12 November 2004, prior to the changes passing the Federal Parliament. He said the idea that you could take a skin cell from a patient with, say, leukemia and use that skin cell through a cloning process to produce embryonic stem cells and use those stem cells to produce bone marrow for, say, treatment of leukemia, could also be very useful for understanding why we get cancer and developing treatments for diseases like cancer. The idea that cloning could be used to better understand why cells age, why they develop in certain ways and why they develop abnormally in cancer cells is a very important and exciting possibility that is currently banned in Australia. That is what we are debating here, Mr Deputy Speaker, an advancement in science for the betterment of humanity.
Further, I place my support for this bill on the basis of our moral responsibility to future generations. It is clear that the decisions that we make here today will have an impact on future generations so to allow this research to go ahead in Australia will give hope to all those people who will in the future, unfortunately, suffer from a disease for which there is no cure. We hold the power and bear the responsibility.
People are suffering with disease, living with pain, every day of their lives. They have no choice and they know that research will take a long time and that it probably will not be in their lifetime perhaps that a cure will be found. But they know, through this bill, that there is a light on the hill for those that will inevitably suffer, like them, diseases such as Parkinson’s disease.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a close and dear friend who has Parkinson’s disease and through him I have come to understand the disease. I know what he goes through on a daily basis to cope with that disease. I know what lies ahead in the future for him, in 10 or so years as he lives long term with that disease. I wish more than ever that a cure could come about so that the future could be turned around for him. Through passing this bill there is a slim chance of that happening, maybe not in his lifetime, but then again maybe, and he is not the only one, by any means. Many working people are living and working with such a disease, many hiding the fact that they have it in fear of being discriminated in the workplace. Many are living with constant pain or problems with writing, eating, getting dressed in the morning and so on, all things that we do easily and that they should not have to live with. Parkinson’s is not the only disease. There are so many others that people live with, with no end in sight.
Mr Deputy Speaker, by allowing this bill for research to go ahead here today, what we do know is that future generations will have the possibility of not living with diseases like this or other diseases. We all want a healthy and disease free life for every individual and no one understands that more than those who live with incurable diseases every day of their life. The flipside of not allowing this bill to pass can be seen through the number of people who suffer so much that they would prefer not to be alive, those who ultimately seek euthanasia.
Through my support for this bill today, I feel I am giving those people a voice. I am speaking on their behalf and I am speaking on behalf of future generations who may end up with any of these incurable diseases. I do not believe that scientists will conduct destructive research. I have more faith and trust in our Australian scientists than that. Our Australian scientists should be highlighted as some of the leading scientists in the world, not treated as backward, inward-looking, pessimistic, untrustworthy people. The fact is that there is no evidence of a slippery slope. Cloning of whole human beings will continue to be strictly prohibited. Allowing somatic cell nuclear transfer research does not take us down that path.
It has also been claimed that embryonic stem cell research is not needed because adult stem cells can provide all the answers, but that is simply not true. Scientifically we need them both. We need stem cells from surplus IVF embryos as well as SCNT and adult stem cells. Of course we need regulations as to how scientists use all of these and that is what we have, but we need to pursue SCNT as a source of embryonic stem cells because it has significant advantages in the ability to create disease specific stem cell lines. What does that mean? I would like to quote from Senator Kay Patterson on that, who said the following in her speech on this bill in the Senate:
‘This means that by taking a cell from an adult with a particular known genetic disease and producing stem cell lines via SCNT, we could have an array of particular cells with known defects. Scientists could research or test drugs on those disease cells, so hastening the process of understanding and the possibility of finding therapies for those diseases.’
That is what today is all about. As I have said, it is about finding cures to those diseases of which there is no cure and which people live and struggle with every day.
I also want to highlight the issue of a woman’s consent. I find it peculiar the way some members here have spoken about the role of women in this debate as though they must be mindless on this and as though they are unable to make or give informed consent. Interestingly, women already donate ova for IVF, either to someone they know or anonymously, but for some reason, some here today see that women are incapable of informed consent when it comes to this issue. I find that insulting and am quite incensed by the presumption that women must be insane or losing their minds to donate their ova. That is their choice and their choice alone and I think this Parliament should give those women who have undergone IVF and the associated processes some more deserving credit for making the difficult decisions that they make.
At the end of the day, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not a political decision. This is a decision about humanity, about the good of all humanity to live a happy, health life, free of disease. It is about the future and future generations. To vote against this bill is to diminish to hopes of people living with Parkinson’s, leukemia, Alzheimer’s, MS and so on. Put simply, these people will die if we do not do this research. While nothing may come about for these people living today with disease, we are unlocking the door for future generations to live without such disease. Why should we take away their hopes? To vote against this bill also tells our school students who are eager to enter the field of science and our current young scientific minds in Australia that we do not have faith in them and that we really do not trust them. In turn, we are saying that our regulatory processes are flawed and cannot be counted on to protect us from something unethical.
Further, if this bill does not pass through Parliament then I can see Australia will end up buying at a very high price products from the US, the UK, China, and so on, and we will be using them because it is not as if we are going to not allow the import of such products because they were derived using embryonic stem cell research when they are going to be such life-saving treatments. Australia is a world leader in research and should not be prevented from doing this research. It is research that Australians could be doing and that some Australians will want to benefit from.
I will vote for this bill. I believe in the regulatory systems that will allow for the scientific advancement of research into improving the lives of people, and I look forward to the day in Australia where Australian scientists come up with some groundbreaking science that will enable people to live a disease-free life that most of us in this place take for granted every day.
