Choose Life Australia

 
Filed on 10 March 2006 in Media Releases category. Print This Page

A Comment on the Lockhart Review Committee Report
for Christian Leaders

The Human Embryo, Cloning and
Medicine without Morality

A need for strong, ethical leadership by Government.

Executive Summary

The recommendations of the Lockhart Legislation Review Committee cross moral boundaries that ought never to be crossed. These include the deliberate creation of human life for the express purpose of destructive research, cloning, and the mixing of human and animal genetic material.

In using one permission or decision to justify another on the grounds offairness and consistency and not a major additional step(s) the report illustrates very cogently the step-wise ‘slippery slope’ into medicine without morality.

In changing the definition of human embryo to allow research to occur without breaking the law, the committee has engaged in blatant subterfuge. It also disguises a human embryo clone as a cellular extension of the original subject and that it only aims to copy a person’s cells.

In considering the views from different sections of the community the committee would appear to have given undue weight to scientists wishing to further advance their research and has disregarded what we consider to be moral absolutes. We believe that expert committees with a more full appreciation of the big picture and of precedents being set should be responsible in setting moral standards.

We believe that ethical research ultimately wins out and we would like to see Australia as a light-bearer in ethical and moral research. We cannot afford to practice medicine without morality.

Cloning is cloning. There is no difference between a therapeutic clone and areproductive clone. The adjectives therapeutic and reproductive describe their future, the former being destined to destruction with the hope that at some future time that destruction may have therapeutic benefit, the latter being destined for life outside the uterus but condemned to death because to be implanted and born is prohibited.

It is now incumbent on our Members of Parliament to uphold ethical and moral values that honour our country. It is their right and obligation to speak for such values. There is a moral compass that we as a nation must uphold and it must be upheld at this point. Our nation requires this strong, moral leadership to make Australia a safe place to raise our children.

The Human Embryo, Cloning and Medicine without Morality.

The Lockhart Legislation Review Committee Report raises the crucial issue of who is to determine the moral direction of Australia. Is it to be left to the recommendations of expert committees? Is it to be determined by courts or judicial inquiries? Is it to be decided on the basis of community opinion? What is the role of government? Should government be responsible and set standards for the nation?

The recommendations of the Lockhart Legislation Review Committee cross moral boundaries that ought never to be crossed. These include the deliberate creation of human life for the express purpose of destructive research, cloning, and the mixing of human and animal genetic material.

Under the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 destructive embryo research is permitted on ‘spare’ ART (Artificial Reproductive Technology) embryos. The recommendations go much further than this with the explicit creation of embryos using ART techniques to creation of embryos utilising cloning techniques and the insertion of human genetic material into animal eggs.

The logic that the report indicates the committee has used is so blatantly subterfuge by distortion of language that one wonders whether it is deliberate in order to provoke a response – which if not forthcoming would encourage researchers to push for more liberties with what we consider sacred.

This commentary is considered under three headings and two appendices:
1. The evidence that the report demonstrates as to the reality of the ‘slippery slope’.
2. The use of language and definitions to mislead
3. The role of such committees in determining the moral direction of our country
Appendix 1 highlighting further extrapolation of the slippery slope
Appendix 2 An Ethics Manifesto re Human Life

The reality of the slippery slope.

The findings of the Lockhart Legislation Review Committee in using one permission or decision to justify another on the grounds of fairness and consistency illustrate very cogently the step-wise ‘slippery slope’ into Medicine without Morality. The term ‘discrimination’ is not used, but using the same logic, any denial of permission would be inconsistent and unfairand would discriminate against the person seeking the permission, particularly when required for ‘therapeutic’ reasons.

“current ART arrangements already sanction the possibility of the destruction of embryos, in the process of helping people to have a family, and hence not to allow embryo destruction to help people with other medical problems would be unfair” (Executive Summary p.xiv italics mine).

“Thus, to permit one (production and destruction of ART embryos) but not the other (production and destruction of nuclear transfer and other bioengineered embryos) would be inconsistent and appear to attach more importance to the treatment of infertility than to the treatment of other diseases and conditions that could be helped as a result of this activity.” (p170)

Some use the ‘law of unintended consequences’ as an alternative description for the slippery slope but this is clearly inadequate as theadditional steps or extensions of permissions are frequently intended and are perfectly logical – as the report shows – once a clear-cut boundary has been crossed.

Regrettably one significant boundary has already been crossed with the existing legislation i.e. research on ‘spare’ embryos that knowingly results in their destruction, this being ‘justified’ on the grounds that these will die if not implanted either into the biological mother or an adoptive mother.

But a new boundary is now threatened – one with huge consequences for the future of society – and that is the explicit creation of human life with the deliberate intent of its destruction. Worse still, the creation of this life utilising cloning techniques and also by mixing human and animal genetic material. The report belittles the significance of the cloning step by saying that it was not a major additional step.

Therefore, if research on excess ART embryos is permitted, it is not a major additional step to permit SCNT (p171).

and

… so the production and destruction of such an (SCNT) embryo is not dissimilar to the production and destruction of excess ART embryos, which is permitted by the legislation and accepted by society (p171).

In denying the reality of the slippery slope and taking another additional step and crossing another boundary

… the Committee considers that continuing a ban on reproductive cloning would effectively prohibit the development of human embryo clones beyond 14 days or the birth of a human being using such methods. The Committee therefore rejects the ‘slippery slope’ argument (p170)

the committee has relied on the boundary of 14 days and the ban on reproductive cloning – but these are artificially imposed boundaries that themselves are subject to step-wise change on the grounds of fairness and consistency (see appendix for future extrapolations).

The use of language and definitions to mislead.

A new definition of embryo to avoid breaking the law.
Human life begins at fertilisation – the penetration of a human oocyte (ovum/egg) by a human sperm cell. At this point the chain of events is set in motion. To define the fertilised egg as only being an embryo after the first cell division – because that is when it is ‘recognisable’ as a ‘new genetic entity’ (p98) – and then allow research and destruction up that point is because it is not yet an embryo is trickery. Far more transparent to call it an embryo but say research is considered ethical to that point rather than calling it a different name and then announce to the community that embryos are not being destroyed.

The Committee noted that changing the definition of a human embryo… would allow much of the research described above to occur without breaking the law (p167 italics mine)

In any event, it is only a matter of time before we have ways and means of determining when the ‘new genetic entity’ is ‘recognisable’.

The circuity of the argument is evident in the following:

Associate Professor Wendy Rogers, Department of Medical Education, Flinders University, told the Committee that it was not clear that an SCNT clone should be called an ’embryo’. If it were not defined as an embryo, there would not be a problem with creating one. (!) (p97)

The desire to make the technology ‘respectable’ is also evident further down the same page:

…respondents stressed that the definition of a human embryo clone needs to be honest and rigorous but at the same timeflexible enough to cover all the emerging technologies in this area

Another ‘definition’ is subtly introduced to make fertilisation a processinstead of an instant in time and thereby justify the new definition of embryo as not occurring until the first mitotic cell division

(i) the first mitotic cell division when fertilisation of a human oocyte by a human sperm is complete (p174 Rec 28)

Terminology and intention
The term ‘therapeutic clone’ instead of ‘clone created for therapeutic intent’, to somehow make it distinct from any other clone and therefore to justify its destruction is also circuitous and deceitful.

However, a human embryo clone created to extract stem cells is not intended to be implanted, but is created as a cellular extension of the original subject. The Committee therefore agreed with the many respondents who thought that the moral significance of such a cloned embryo is linked more closely to its potential for research to develop treatments for serious medical conditions, than to its potential as a human life (p170)

But it is still a separate human entity – a human embryo clone – identical in its capacity for independent existence as an ART embryo.

And in the argument for SCNT (cloning) the committee concludes

…SCNT only aims to copy a person’s cells; therefore… there is no objection to this (p171)

But it is still an embryo, still human and still alive.

The key parameter is the value we put on human life. If we say that all human life has intrinsic value then an embryo is an embryo regardless of the purpose for which it was brought into being. As soon as we start weighing the value of one person against another ‘for therapeutic purposes’ we have crossed another significant boundary. We could then argue the merits of sacrificing a Down’s Syndrome child for its liver when this is needed for ‘therapeutic purposes’ as if this justifies the sacrifice.

Or when we ultimately have – legally or clandestinely – mature cloned beings to argue that it is acceptable to use those designated therapeutic clones for organ transplant purposes because they were created especially for that purpose – as cellular extensions of the original subjects – but not acceptable if they were created for other reasons e.g. sterile couples.

Nobel Laureate Prof Barry Marshall, a member of the committee to whom great honour is deservedly due, is quoted (The West Australian 21/12/05) as saying that the recommendations of the Lockhart Committee on Human Cloning and Embryo Research are a “compromise between scientific freedom and ethical regulation”. Now Barry Marshall is a shining example of the benefit of lateral thinking and scientific freedom as in his ground-breaking research, but the Lockhart Committee’s recommendations in allowing the creation of human life for research with the inevitable destruction of that life has crossed a divide that should never, ever be crossed.

Cloning is cloning. There is no difference between a therapeutic clone and areproductive clone. The adjectives therapeutic and reproductive describe their future, the former being destined to destruction with the hope that at some future time that destruction may have therapeutic benefit, the latter being destined for life outside the uterus but condemned to death because to be implanted and born is prohibited.

Determining the moral direction of our country.

The committee has weighed views from different sections of the community in reaching a ‘balance’. But this assumes there to be no moral absolutes, no ‘natural law’, and the committee has not attempted to set moral standards. There is good reason to believe that expert committees with a more full appreciation of the big picture and of precedents being set should be responsible in setting such standards. This committee has reneged on that responsibility.

It is evident that the committee has given significant weight to scientists wishing to further advance their research and has disregarded the moral implications

The Committee has therefore reached an opinion, based especially on the evidence of experts… that further research involving both adult and embryonic stem cells is required (p170)

It appears that many scientists, in wanting to keep pace with overseas developments and to avoid a ‘brain drain’ will argue that we need the same opportunities and a level playing field. Hence it is argued

…the prohibition of human cloning to generate patient-matched stem cells should be lifted in Australia to allow Australian researchers to continue to contribute to the intellectual and biotechnological developments in this field. (p170)

But agreeing to this logic means we would always descend to the lowest common morality denominator whereas we would like to see Australia as a light-bearer in ethical and moral research. We believe that ethical research ultimately wins out and that history affirms that ‘righteousness exalts a nation.’

The committee fails to declare a moral standard when it is considering the relative merits of adult stem cell research and ESCR

Although there has been substantial progress in adult stem cell research in the past few years, the developments in adult stem cell research do not remove the need to make progress in embryonic
stem cell research. The Committee agrees with the views of the many researchers who consider
that both types of research should continue. (p170)

The committee misses a golden opportunity to make the moral point that where research that is widely regarded as being ethical is weighed against another regarded by many as being unethical, then the second should be put on the backburner while the former progresses.

The Hon John Lockhart AO QC in delivering the Review Committee’s findings to the Australian Government in a Media Release 19 Dec 2005 said:

“The Committee has concluded that, based on its wide consultations, there is a need for an augmentation of the current system to allow research, within a rigorous ethical framework, into emerging scientific practices that will assist in the understanding of disease and disability.” (italics mine)

The key phrase being within a rigorous ethical framework and this is where we believe the committee has failed.

While recognising the knowledge and stature of the members of the committee it is not sufficient to weigh the relative merits of one living human organism against another for ‘therapeutic’ benefit. It is not sufficient to call this ethical when an ethical boundary of great significance for our future is being crossed. This is no simple ‘crossing of the Rubicon’ into an uncertain and risky adventure but a known descent into relative ethics of one human life against another and whether a life “is worthy to be lived.” It is a great watershed from which other courses inevitably flow.

It impinges on the very definition of what it means to be human.

It is not sufficient to listen to voices of scientific progress and reasonalone. We must reason also for our long-term future and to ensure ourprogress into that future.

We need a safe place to raise our children.

We cannot afford to practice medicine without morality.

It is now incumbent on our Members of Parliament to uphold ethical and moral values that honour our country. It is their right and obligation to speak for such values. There is a moral compass that we as a nation must uphold and it must be upheld at this point. Our nation requires this strong, moral leadership.

Appendix 1: Extrapolation of the Slippery Slope

Consistent with the crossing of the creation for destruction boundary ontherapeutic grounds, other not major additional steps are consistent and fair for research, training and clinical improvements (p169) e.g. pharmaceutical experimentation on embryos and the creation of chimeras.

At this time the proposed legislation bans the implantation of all clones and demands their destruction before 14 days. But with the promise of the artificial womb being able to keep the clone alive for many months (and even till ‘term’) it will only be a matter of time before someone in need of a formed liver will argue that they need the clone for valid therapeutic purposes and as it is going to be destroyed anyway – and has not been implanted – then it is discriminatory to deny them the right to further development of the clone.

It will be argued that the time limit for embryo destruction be extended on the grounds that the embryo is not an aware human person – consistent with the ethics of Professor Peter Singer who argues that destruction is even acceptable up to about six weeks after delivery. Why be limited to an artificially imposed time limit of 14 days? After all, the embryo is not really a person. What difference is there between a 14-day embryo and a 14-week foetus? This would then allow for actual organ transplantation to the clone donor for a disease otherwise untreatable.

It is unrealistic to think that the adjective therapeutic will not be extended although ultimately it may be dropped altogether as so many instances ofreproductive cloning will in reality be therapeutic for those who desperately want a baby. Protection of the uterus for the clone will then be demanded.

It will be argued that parents who have lost a child should have the right to clone that child – particularly if beyond the age of reproduction or in the event of sterilisation.

The right to clone will also be argued in the event of one spouse having a serious hereditary defect and that it is discriminatory not to allow cloning of the un-affected spouse, or even for that matter a single person to argue the right of parenthood. The case will be made that to deny them a child is discriminatory in denying them the therapy they badly need.

Once we have let go of the façade that cloning is not being performed then the way is opened for the meeting of other ‘needs’ with enhancement of various characteristics only being limited by the imagination. The potential for evil is huge.

Appendix 2: An Ethics Manifesto re Human Life for the 21st Century.

We affirm that human life begins when a cell containing human chromosomes first has the ability to replicate and differentiate into individual tissues, as occurs at fertilisation. The genetic pattern of such a cell is uniquely human and determines its adult characteristics.

We deny that any other definition of the beginning of human life is acceptable. We believe this to be a line that must not be crossed.

We affirm that human life has intrinsic value at every stage of life and dependency from its beginning to its natural end and must be protected against experimentation or exploitation.

We deny that concepts of personhood and self-awareness, being arbitrary and capable of varying definition, are acceptable as indicators of the presence or absence of human life.

We affirm further that the human embryo, being human life in the truest sense, has intrinsic value and that the extraction of stem cells from it is unacceptable.

We deny that cloning technology is acceptable whether for so-called therapeutic or reproductive purposes. We also deny that fertilisation attempted between human and non-human cells (to create a ‘chimera’) is acceptable.

We affirm from the evidence of many scientists that stem-cell research on adult tissues and other non-embryonic tissues (e.g. umbilical cord) already has proven benefits and safety as well as increasing promise for the future and that research on embryos is not as necessary as other scientists make out.

We deny that it is acceptable to do harmful research on human life at any stage regardless of impairment or impending death or to terminate such life before its natural end. We further deny that it is acceptable to do destructive research on so-called ‘spare embryos’.

We affirm our right – and indeed obligation – to speak for the future of our society. We assert that ‘natural’ Law is present in the heart of mankind; that this law exhorts us to protect the innocent and helpless and to uphold the sanctity, preciousness and intrinsic value of life at all stages. We further assert that these are eternal and immutable principles.