Ivan Dean, Speeches Index

Thursday 2 November 2007

HUMAN CLONING AND OTHER PROHIBITED PRACTICES
AMENDMENT BILL 2007

Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Mr President, I must say a weight has been taken off my shoulders and I am already appreciating the freedom and the fact that I do not have to rush back north to look at a whole heap of documents and other things.

Mr Aird - I don't know if this is to the Government's advantage.

Mr Wilkinson - Somebody said to me today, is that Ivan Dean's brother that is in Parliament today? They thought it was your younger brother.

Mr Parkinson - I just think it is great that the new Mayor of Launceston supports the pulp mill and the democratic process.

Mr DEAN - Thank you very much for that introduction. Mr President, I will commence. All members have covered this very well and unfortunately I will be repetitive in some places because I must say right at the outset that I do not have the knowledge and the background that one would like to have when talking about a bill of this type. But I have gained a lot from the information that has been provided to me and the readings that I have completed, and I must say that the briefings were well done. I, like the other members, appreciated those briefings very much and they have helped me in making a decision on this matter. However, if on the way through I make a statement that is not right, then I would like to be corrected and put on the right path - and that is a possibility.

Ms Thorp - No worries.

Mr Parkinson - I love the way he is looking in my direction.

Mr DEAN - I must say, Mr President, and I think it was probably the member for Mersey who mentioned it in the first place, that the name of this bill is most unfortunate. A number of people have raised this with me.

I do not know what else you could have called it, but the minute you use the words referred to in the title of the bill, the words 'human' and 'cloning', together in the same sentence, people automatically think of a whole raft of things that really are not right and have an improper understanding, or position, or feeling in relation to it. They think of things like mad scientists, Dolly the sheep obviously comes into it and a lot of Frankenstein stuff. That is what is immediately conjured up in the minds of a lot of people when they see those two words together. So it would have been nice to have seen this referred to as something else, but it was not to be. This is not science fiction this is a twenty-first century and modern-day medicine.

My first question was: what are stem cells? Dr Andrew Corbett provided me with a very easy to understand explanation of what stem cells are, and he said this:

'Stem cells are essentially those parts of the human body that are designed to make running repairs. When you cut your finger, stem cells go to work to repair your broken skin.'

It is a fairly simplistic understanding of what stem cells are. The parts of the body that can repair themselves are skin, bone and muscles and they can do this because of stem cells. Unfortunately not all parts of the body have stem cells to make repairs when things go wrong. Scientists believe that human embryonic stem cells have the capacity to become the repairers for parts of the body that do not have stem cells. As I understand it, this bill before us is to enable the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT, known simply as therapeutic cloning, as a source of human embryonic stem cells.

Therapeutic cloning is about saving and improving lives. It is fundamentally different from human reproductive cloning. It produces stem cells, not babies. How does therapeutic cloning differ from reproductive cloning?

Ms Thorp - Is that a rhetorical question?

Mr DEAN - No, it is not. I am asking myself, because I will now explain the position as provided to me. Both therapeutic and reproductive cloning utilise the same technique, called somatic cell nuclear transfer. During this procedure a human embryo is produced. If the embryo is implanted in the womb of a human surrogate resulting in pregnancy and birth, the process is termed reproductive cloning. If an embryo is used to harvest embryonic stem cells, a procedure that destroys the embryo, the process is referred to as therapeutic cloning.

It is important to remember that embryonic stem cells have been used in research in Australia since about 2002, according to my information. This bill will not enable someone to go out and clone a human being. What it will do is enable researchers to take cells from early embryos, called embryonic stem cells, and convert them to other cells for the treatment of medical conditions. Surely this must be a good thing for the advancement of medical treatments in our modern world.

This brings me to the subject of medical research. To research or not to research? And how far can we go in the name of medical research? As I said, I am not a medical expert, but I am a person who realises that our modern world has the need for realistic and progressive medical research. Medical research and advancement are critical and should be supported in most cases, if not all, provided adequate safeguards are in place to prevent misuse. In this instance I believe that there are adequate safeguards. For offences that could well be committed there is up to a 15-year jail sentence that could be imposed. I think that would be a deterrent to most people to not abuse this legislation if it is supported, and I am quite confident it will be supported. I think that the safety mechanisms are there to ensure that it is complied with.

In the last 50 years, Mr President, we have seen amazing medical research and medical advancement with huge changes in the way we treat a variety of devastating diseases and ailments. It has changed tremendously. Without medical research and advancement we would not have seen the development of successful treatments for historically devastating diseases such as poliomyelitis and leprosy, or the development of defibrillators as an effective and efficient treatment for heart rhythm problems. And there is a multitude of others.

I have no doubt there was a lot of concern expressed during the development of treatments for these diseases and ailments. I should imagine that would have concerned a lot of people at the time. Imagine what it was like to hear for the first time that someone was suggesting that an electric current be delivered to the human heart through paddles to re-establish a regular rhythm. What nonsense and how dangerous, people would have been saying. What must they be thinking? They are the sort of comments that would have been made. Fortunately for us this treatment was given a chance and it has now developed to the stage that defibrillators can be implanted inside the human body so that variations in the heart rhythm can be picked up immediately and a current can be delivered automatically to restore a regular heart rhythm. This is the advancement of medicine.

Penicillin is another one, Mr President, if you look at that. This is another very good example of the benefits of modern medicine or medical research. Imagine what people thought when they heard scientists were planning to make a compound to treat diseases and infections from mould, but what a wonder it has become. I would have thought that would have concerned a lot of people at the time when that was occurring.

If this legislation is supported it is suggested it will enable medical research to go forward. If medical research can effectively clone certain body tissues, they may be able to develop a more effective treatment or indeed find a cure for some very debilitating diseases and conditions that are causing pain, suffering, disfigurement, taking all quality of life from a vast number in our community. I am told the treatment of conditions such as diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, MS, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, arthritis, and many others may be considerably advanced as a result of the availability of this medical technology.

Mr Wilkinson - Arthritis is sounding okay.

Mr DEAN - Yes, you are right, it is sounding okay. We have seen many people disfigured, of course, through that and they suffer immensely as a result of it. I think if you had a friend or a relative, somebody close to you, a son or a daughter with any of these conditions, it would impact on you and probably would impact on your view in relation to this bill. I am confident it would do.

Religion versus science - I am not going to go into this in great detail because the member for Elwick covered it very well. In actual fact I was beginning to wonder where I was, but it was well done, Mr President, and he has a greater understanding of the Bible than I do. The clergy have a position and I respect that but I must question what their position is based on. I understand their position, I respect their position. The clergy have said that human embryos are not raw material for research, they are human beings at the very beginning of life. They in fact said that the utilitarian idea that we can justify doing a little evil for the sake of a greater good should be firmly rejected.

I cannot reject it, knowing that the embryos to be used would be discarded. That is what we are told and that is what we were told during the briefings, that the embryos that will be used through this process are embryos that would in fact be destroyed, that they would be thrown away. So they would never and were not likely to ever become babies, adults, human beings. We were told that, that that will not be the case. They will be destined to be discarded. I guess the question we must ask ourselves is at what point an embryo is considered to be a human person.

Other members have gone through that and put their position forward in relation to what they consider to be the starting point for a human, a person. What is an embryo? There is a definition - the early stage of development before an organism becomes self-supporting. What is a human embryo? The definition there is the developing organism from the time of fertilisation until the end of the eighth week of gestation when it becomes known as a foetus. So is a human embryo a human life? If my understanding of the definition is correct, it is not a human life until it is self-supporting. It becomes a human life when it is recognised as a foetus.

Ms Thorp - The honourable Leader thinks that is when you are about 26. Self-supporting.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - There are some a lot older than that. You are right.

Mr Aird - He has had very poor life experiences, don't you reckon?

Mr DEAN - Hasn't he. There is no doubt about that.

An important point here is the fact that unfertilised eggs will need to be donated for use in the therapeutic cloning technique. An ovum is harvested from a female, its nucleus is removed and DNA inserted into the nucleus from human tissue of the stem cell recipient so that stem cells can be harvested. If the eggs are unfertilised are they considered to be human? Does religion see unfertilised eggs as human beings? I raised this question during the briefing. During sexual intercourse where a person deliberately takes an action to stop fertilising an egg, what is the position there?

Ms Thorp - Coitus interruptus.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - That was not really what I was getting at, Mr President. That is far from it. Where a specific and intended direction is taken not to fertilise an egg in the case of vasectomies, pills, morning-after pills, it could be said that you are destroying a human life, that you are stopping a human life. That could be the case.

Mr Harriss - I bet you do not get too many requests for sex education in schools.

Mr DEAN - No.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - What is the difference? I have some difficulty in understanding the difference between -

Members laughing.

Ms Thorp - Are you saying you find it hard?

Mr DEAN - I will treat it in another way.

Mrs Jamieson - What are you going to do when you find your poached egg on the table in the morning?

Mr Parkinson - Sounds a bit like a scrambled egg to me.

Mr DEAN - I did say, Mr President, in future I will never eat a fertilised egg again, a chicken in the cooking, because of what I could be doing.

Ms Thorp - Is that a yoke?

Mr DEAN - It is a yoke. This is very serious.

I was going to raise the matter of Jesus and that was covered by the member for Elwick pretty well, I thought. If he still walked this earth, if he was here today, what would he think about this bill? He wanted to heal people, he did not want to see people suffering. He was a healer.

Mrs Jamieson - He was also a virgin birth.

Mr Aird - That's why he probably would have asked Mary.

Mr DEAN - So I would think that He may well have been supportive of a bill that was likely to see medicine develop to such a stage that it would help support people who were suffering.

Mr Parkinson - Have I got a message for her next time I see her!

Mr DEAN - I knew this was going to happen. I was not quite sure how to get through it. Safeguards for the misuse of the technology: I have heard it said that if this legislation is passed, it will open the door for unscrupulous individuals to create superhumans for specific purposes such as elite sportsmen. That probably would not be a bad idea because Richmond are not going too well at the present time.

Members laughing.

Mr Martin - Ricky Pontings.

Mr DEAN - Yes, Ricky Pontings - can you imagine 11 Ricky Pontings in your team? They probably would not bowl that well.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - The creation of a Mini-Me society, the creation of drug labs - and that has been said, Mr President, if this bill is passed that there would be the opportunity for that to occur - clandestine laboratories being set up. Really, it is nonsense - absolute nonsense and it could never happen. This is a unique issue so any opportunity for that is just not there and it is quite nonsensical in my view to raise that situation.

Positive results have already come from research into the use of adult stem cells and cord blood, and there are many examples of where that has been successful and evidence to show where it has assisted many people suffering from ill-health, cancers and other horrible diseases. There has been a lot of success in that regard.

Worldwide there are already many places that have legislation in place to enable therapeutic cloning for research purposes but as yet there have been no positive results from this research. Several States and the Australian Government have supported it. You would not think that all could get it wrong - I guess that is debatable. As the member for Huon said, I do not suppose it necessarily means that we have to follow suit.

Should we deny this legislation because the results are purely speculative at this time as there have been no positive results as yet? We were told during a briefing that results could be many years away. I think not. Every medical advance has started as theory and speculation. Without research, as the member for Nelson said, there is no discovery. Without research people, including children, will probably needlessly die or live a life of pain and suffering with little or no quality of life.

As I said earlier, there have been many medical advances that would not have seen the light of day if the researchers, scientists and theorists had not been given the opportunity to undertake the research necessary to investigate and develop their theories.

I think we all have family members or perhaps friends who could be treated with the embryonic stem cell procedure in the future if advances are made in that regard. Quality of life could be assisted or restored. We know that without this sort of research or a miracle a cure may never be found for many of the diseases and sicknesses that cause enormous suffering.

Is it incumbent on me or you to provide such an opportunity? I think it is. Both my parents died young, both died of cancer and, who knows, with this type of research in the future, that may not occur to people. I had a brother who died at a very young age from an incurable disease and with him in mind I wonder where the research is going to go. There is a possibility of cures being found through this sort of research.

Listening to the member for Elwick really brought it all back very clearly as to where we could be going with this sort of research and the cures that could well be found to help people who we know will die young or will suffer.

I wanted to finish with a couple of comments. We were all given this document, 'Stem Cells and Cloning Debate - Don't Cross the Line', and I want to quote from that document, Mr President. I read under the first heading of 'What are the benefits of stem cell treatment?' - and I quote:

'The only stem cells that have helped patients so far are adult stem cells. There is significant medical evidence to support the benefits of adult stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research has not helped a single patient in the entire world. It has a zero success rate to date.'

It will continue to have a zero success rate unless we pave the way for the use of these cells for research purposes. We are told that the potential is there for embryonic stem cell use in the treatment of many diseases into the future, if it is given an opportunity to move forward.

I referred earlier in my speech to the successful uses of adult stem cells and this booklet identifies where adult stem cells have been successful in assisting many people in some very poor situations. There is evidence of where it has helped paraplegics, people suffering from Parkinson's disease, to make partial recoveries and recoveries in some instances.

Another comment I want to make is under the heading of 'What's wrong with using embryonic stem cells for research and cures?'

I further quote:

'It is unethical to use embryonic stem cells. The process to obtain them destroys a human embryo and this cannot be justified even if the aim is to save a life or cure a terrible disease.'

I struggled with that when I read it. I cannot support this notion and I do not have a family member suffering a debilitating disease and hopefully I will never have one, but I cannot accept that notion at all. Another quote:

'It is unnecessary to use embryonic stem cells. While many actual benefits have been obtained from adult stem cells over recent years, we have as yet no demonstrated benefit to human patients from embryonic stem cells.'

I refer to the words 'we have as yet no demonstrated benefit to human patients from embryonic stem cells'. What will the future hold? We do not know and will not know without the opportunity to provide for research.

Having listened to the other members and taken on board much of the very good information coming from the briefings and from what I understand the position to be, I will have no alternative but to support this bill.

Return To Main Page. Return To Speeches.