A- A A+

Close cloning vote reflects complex and confronting issue

Francis Sullivan |  13 November 2006

Close cloning vote reflects complex and confronting issue

Last Tuesday night, the Senate passed Kay Patterson’s private member’s bill to legalise human embryo cloning. It was carried by the barest of margins, two votes. As a conscience vote it exposed senators to a level of public scrutiny seldom paralleled in normal debates. Many felt exposed and vulnerable. Most registered the weight of the decisions before them. It stretched their comfort zones. Speeches were impassioned, and oscillated between those promoting cloning in the search for disease therapies, and those anxious to safeguard human life from deliberate destruction. Ultimately it came down to numbers, just enough for some, frustratingly short for others.

The next day Senator Andrew Bartlett mused publicly whether his vote was too hasty, even cast in the wrong direction. Such was the pressure.

The debate was too short and intense. It lasted only two days. A senate committee had held separate hearings, but even these were hurriedly convened and tightly managed. The upshot was a divided report coming on the back of a commissioned technical study, which raised as many questions as it answered.

The fair-minded would quickly concede that these issues are complex and confronting. They are far from settled in the scientific and ethical academy, let alone the community generally. So there’s little chance that overworked and hard-pressed parliamentarians can easily rise above the clutter of their daily lives, to ponder the application of fundamental principles in moments of pause and reflection!

However, the debate reflected what previous inquiries had revealed. Maintaining rational argument and logical deduction is difficult in the face of moving human anecdote.

Nowhere is this more acute, than when dealing with the crusade to alleviate suffering and chronic disabilities. Yet experimenting with human life is fraught. The prospect of miracle cures stirs the imagination and excites curiosity. It conjures what could be possible, but challenges long-held fundamental values which underscore our sense of community, even human rights. As much as the challenge is to courageously march into the unknown, so too is the conviction that correct behaviour often involves restraint.

Close cloning vote reflects complex and confronting issueThus the dilemma faced in making a conscience vote. It is not enough to base decisions on emotional responses, intuitive reactions or mindless obedience. It calls for a deeper, more exacting introspection of what is important. Put simply, it asks an individual to discern which values should prevail in the inevitable contest between desirable outcomes.

What was placed before the senate did a disservice to the advancement of both the protection of human life, and the search for disease therapies. Senators were asked to choose between the two, rather than be implored to deliver for both. Despite well-founded concerns from medical research scientists about the effectiveness and productivity of embryo cloning, the senators were presented with a choice which insisted that only through embryo cloning could the hope of disease therapies be properly advanced. A choice that necessitates the destruction of embryos, and as such diminishes the intrinsic value of human life in general.

This decision has taken the senate to a new place. It has effectively enshrined a precedent that human life is expendable. By permitting the cloning of human embryos the senate has given approval to the deliberate destruction of innocent human life. A precedent which cannot be justified in the context of advancing disease therapies, given the almost universal recognition that such therapies may, if ever, eventuate at best no sooner than twenty years from now.

Close cloning vote reflects complex and confronting issueIt is said that at times of intense conflict of conscience, prudence is a virtue. So too is having adequate time to digest all the relevant information. In the rush of this decision, some senators pleaded for more time. Others felt corralled into hasty, uncertain voting. Too few seriously debated the health risks associated with amendments that place extraordinary burdens on women to produce enough eggs to satisfy the research agenda and timelines.

This wasn’t the senate at its best. Often it is noted that conscience votes bring out the best of parliamentary debates. It liberates members to speak their minds free of party constraints. This debate had some of that, but it was sadly wanting on time for contemplation.

Maybe this is what Senator Andrew Bartlett means. Surely having second thoughts is not a crime, but doing nothing about them could be.



Comments should be short, respectful and on topic. Email is requested for identification purposes only.

Word Count: 0 (please limit to 200)

Submitted comments

The big voting absention of senators in conviniently non participating in the important and serious embryoni stem cell research is a disgrace and

I am most dissapointed.


Charles Rodrigues 14 November 2006

Senator Bartlett's reflections remind me that the Democrats were once labelled as the party that represented people who couldn't make up their minds, and that as a party they represented those people very well. But at least Senator Bartlett is prepared to express his doubts and dilemas.

Of more concern to me is that politicians in general can agonise over the ethical dilemas inherent in tightly controlled stem cell research while simultaneously ignoring the ethics involved in both the targeted and random violence inherent in going to war.

Warwick Dilley 22 November 2006

Similar articles

Middle East nuclear abolition dreaming

Bill Williams | 30 October 2006Middle East nuclear abolition dreamingWestern nations are tightening the noose around Iran’s neck for its nuclear recalcitrance. Meanwhile, Israel lashes out at guerrilla forces embedded in civilian populations in Lebanon, electing not to use its unacknowledged nuclear weaponry, on this occasion.

The union official as pastoral carer

Brendan Byrne | 30 October 2006

The union official as pastoral carerUnion officials and ministers of religion have much in common. No-one rings a union to tell them that they’re being treated well and paid decently. People only ring the union when they’re in trouble, and usually, by the time they get around to doing so, they’re in lots of trouble.

Economic boom's new generation poor

1 Comment
Stuart Braun | 30 October 2006Economic boom's new generation poorA decade of economic growth has been good for many Australians. The property market has boomed. Wages have spiralled. Equity markets continue to ride record highs. Ordinary Australians have grown rich—but others have missed out.

ANZAC tradition now beyond satire

1 Comment
Brian Matthews | 30 October 2006In an age of continuous and ambiguously justified war, the ANZAC commemoration has become highly politicised, infiltrated by party politics and populist bravura.

Three card trick keeps media oligopoly firmly in place

Jack Waterford | 30 October 20063 card trick keeps media oligopoly firmly in placeJohn Howard seems to have pulled off the three-card trick, on both the National Party and the public, with changes to the media laws. His spin was that the small concessions were worth it in its efforts to "free up'' Australia's media.