Licence to Kill?
The licensing of two fertility clinics, Sydney IVF and Melbourne IVF to use excess embryos in fertility experiments, provided the parents give informed consent, has re-opened the debate on the use of excess embryos. The embryos must have been created before April 5th 2002.
Many people believe this experimentation with the earliest form of human life is totally and always wrong. Senator Brian Harradine last week said, “A certain class of human life will now be considered expendable for profit.” Others believe, that with safeguards, it is acceptable practise in the light of potential good.
The issue is complex, and I spoke at great length in the Parliament on the Bill designed both to offer protection to embryos and at the same time to provide an ethical framework for scientific experimentation.
Here is but a small part of what I said:
“The Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill and the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill are very important bills.The bills are the New South Wales component of the nationally consistent scheme to regulate research involving excess human embryos and to prohibit human cloning, as agreed to at the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] meeting on 5 April 2002.
Medical technology is making new discoveries and bringing us closer to techniques that were previously unknown. The bills draw the line on what is good scientific practice and what is unethical and bad science.
That is important, because we are discussing research that may lead to the discovery of treatment and cures, for degenerative illnesses such as diabetes, Alzheimer’s and cystic fibrosis as well as for spinal cord injuries, burns and certain cancers.
Obviously, New South Wales also desires to be part of a nationally consistent scheme for the regulation of research involving human embryos and the prohibition of human cloning. Many ethical, social, legal and moral issues are relevant to this debate.
The Parliaments have legislated that human cloning and other unacceptable practices associated with the use of assisted reproductive technologies must be prohibited.
Research using early-stage excess assisted reproductive technology embryos, which would otherwise be discarded, must be allowed to continue within a regulatory framework.
Currently in New South Wales assisted reproductive technology embryos is conducted under a self-regulatory framework through the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee and National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] ethical guidelines.
The Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill applies the Commonwealth embryo research laws as laws of this State and implements a scheme that is to be administered, enforced and monitored by the Commonwealth. That means that the Commonwealth’s research Act is treated as an Act of this State, and any amendments made to the Act automatically become law in New South Wales.
Specifically, this means that the NHMRC licensing committee, established under the Commonwealth Act, has powers and functions in New South Wales law and it will be the only body issuing licences for the use of excess assisted reproductive technology embryos in New South Wales.
The legislation provides that only embryos created prior to 5 April 2002 and deemed excess will be available for research purposes.
Without a licence, the only activities permitted with regard to excess embryos are their storage, removal from storage, or transportation; their observation; allowing them to succumb; and the use of those not suitable for implantation in certain diagnostic investigations.
The types of research to be allowed by the legislation include derivation of embryonic stem cells and associated research activities, and research designed to increase the possibilities of creating a viable pregnancy for an infertile woman. Offences, including breach of a licence, will attract penalties of up to five years imprisonment.
Serious penalties are also imposed for a number of other activities that are considered scientifically or ethically unacceptable, including intentionally creating a chimeric and/or hybrid embryo. By way of explanation, that includes activities such as introducing a cell from an animal into a human embryo, or combining a human egg and animal sperm, or vice versa.
Other activities include developing a human embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days and intentionally altering the genome of a human cell, so that the alteration is heritable. These offences incur a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.
It is necessary to introduce New South Wales complementary legislation to prohibit unacceptable activities such as human cloning; to respond to community concerns that we regulate scientific research, and the use of excess ART human embryos; to maximise our chances of finding cures and therapies for diseases by allowing potential life-saving research involving excess human embryos that would otherwise be discarded to continue; and to ensure a nationally consistent approach across the Commonwealth.
The cloning of Dolly in 1997 opened up the cloning debate. Since then we have moved on to the stem cell debate. Most people are mystified by the claims and the confusing terminology. But we do not need a biological degree to understand all the terms. The fundamental ethical issues are easy enough to understand.
Why then are we having this debate? Regenerative medicine is an exciting new field of medicine in which different techniques are used to repair damaged organs and tissues. Stem cell therapy is one avenue of regenerative medicine. Stem cell therapy has enormous potential for good.
The ethical issue is not whether or not to use stem cells, but from where we get the stem cells. The destruction of embryos for stem cell research is ethically unacceptable.”
The licensing of the two IVF Clinics, now makes the destruction of embryos legal and experimentation within limits, acceptable. We will continue to stand vigilant on this issue of what is ethical scientific practise and what is immoral scientific practise.
THIS IS GORDON MOYES.
