Stem cell bill won't prohibit abortion

[Max]

Stem cell bill won't prohibit abortion
Date: August 18 2002


By Fia Cumming, Political Correspondent

Claims that legislation on embryo stem cell research will be a backdoor route to banning abortion in Australia have been rejected by the Howard Government.

Government advisers said fears that the wording of the bill could ban the removal of embryos from women for any purpose, including abortion, were unfounded.

The bill, introduced by Prime Minister John Howard, is due to be debated when Parliament resumes this week.

It includes fines of $66,000 for doctors and $330,000 for corporations for removing a viable fertilised embryo from a woman.

But the Government's technical adviser on the bill, National Health and Medical Research Council official Clive Morris, has denied that the provision applies to abortion.

Mr Morris said the bill referred to collection of embryos, not their destruction.

But IVF clinics are concerned about other provisions in the bill that could affect current research and training.

While the bill allows the use of "excess" embryos for stem cell research, it limits any use of embryos to those created before April 5 this year.

IVF clinics believe the limitation would stop them using "fresh" eggs in women undergoing IVF treatment, possibly resulting in lower pregnancy rates. They say the ban will prevent research and training programs within laboratories.

The executive director of fertility clinic network ACCESS, Sandra Dill, said the use and disposal of embryos was often required in research aimed at reducing the number of treatments women needed to get a baby.

"This bill in its current form will ban current IVF practices that are necessary for maintaining and improving pregnancy rates," Ms Dill said.

Mr Howard's bill has caused divisions within the Government and the Labor Party.

Both sides have agreed to allow their MPs a conscience vote on the issue.


This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited.

[SMH Home | Text-only index]

[Max]

Stem cell conscience vote: much to digest before the shouting starts
Date: August 17 2002


By Mark Metherell

If individual MPs expected that Parliament's own independent source of advice on tricky issues would help decide their conscience vote on stem cell legislation they will be disappointed.

Parliament is expected next week to begin protracted debate on whether or not to allow human embryos to be destroyed in the interests of science.

In the first conscience vote held by the Parliament for six years, debate is scheduled to start on Tuesday night and could run for days before even getting to the Senate, where the final vote is likely to be close.

With divisions crossing party, religious and scientific grounds, many MPs are likely to look to the bill's digest, the independent analysis on legislation produced by the Parliamentary Library.

But on what has become a threshold issue - whether the controversial embryonic stem cell research is needed in light of advances using adult stem cells - the much relied-on digest has opted out.

The 32-page document concludes its section on embryonic stem cell research with the words: "It has also been argued that adult stem cells can be used successfully in research rather than embryonic stems cells. This remains a contested issue."

The library has taken a more cautious line than the Government's medical science advisory body, the National Health and Medical Research Council, which says that while there is "mixed opinion, many researchers consider that it is necessary to pursue research into both adult and embryonic stem cells, due to the great potential of both fields ..."

An opponent of embryo stem cell work, Sydney MP John Murphy, doesn't quibble with the digest's open stance on the issue.

But he criticises the Government for rushing the parliamentary debate schedule, giving MPs less than a week to consider the digest's analysis. The digest acknowledges that the main concern over embryonic stem cell research comes down to whether the early embryo has the equivalent legal and moral status of a baby or adult.

"The key to this argument is thus the time at which 'personhood' or a 'soul' is acquired. These notions are strongly contested ethically," Mr Murphy said.

It's a line likely to be validated by numerous MPs next week.


This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited.

[SMH Home | Text-only index]

==============================
"With every scientific advance, we grow closer to unlocking the mysteries of life and creation. But what have we gained if in the process, we lose our humanity. The most powerful thing we pass along to our children may not reside in the genes, but in the soul."
The Outer Limits(Criminal Nature)