Fed: Stem cell debate inflames passions in parliament
By James Grubel, Chief Political Correspondent
CANBERRA, Aug 30 AAP - The debate over stem cell research has certainly inflamed morethan a few passions in federal politics.
In a rarity for modern parliament, the nation's elected MPs have spoken from the heartabout a genuine moral issue.
Even more rare is the fact that everyone who speaks on the stem cell laws has the freedomto say what they like, and vote according to their own conscience.
That's due to the fact that all parties have given their MPs and senators a free vote- a move that makes it difficult to predict how the numbers will fall.
That move has breathed new life into a parliament where the numbers and political positionsare generally well locked in before legislation makes it to the floor of chamber.
The new laws, if approved, will allow Australian scientists to carry out research onstem cells taken from existing human embryos which have been left over from IVF treatments.
Prime Minister John Howard is backing the legislation, which is in line with an agreementbetween the federal, state and territory governments.
If the laws pass, Australia will have nationally-consistent laws which will allow forongoing research.
So far, some 105 MPs have spoken on the legislation in the House of Representativesand the secondary Main Chamber.
And for the most part, the debate has been passionate and constructive.
But not everybody is happy, including NSW Premier Bob Carr and Victorian Premier Steve Bracks.
They are concerned that the legislation is becoming hopelessly bogged down in federal parliament.
And then there is the storm surrounding the nation's leading stem cell scientist AlanTrounson, who has been accused of misleading politicians about the benefits of his stemcell research.
Professor Trounson denies deliberately misleading any MPS over his video of a crippledrat which developed the ability to walk due to stem cell-related treatment.
His video, shown to MPs and senators in a range of briefings throughout parliamenthouse, was a potent example of the benefits of embryonic stem cell research.
But it has since been revealed the rat's treatment had come from germ cells taken froman aborted foetus, and not from embryos.
Professor Trounson has apologised, but says the germ cells have exactly the same capacityfor good as the embryonic stem cells he is championing.
His backdown and apology have been a public relations disaster for supporters of thelaws, but they are unlikely to have an impact on the outcome of the parliamentary debate.
However, one thing has angered opponents and some supporters of embryonic stem cellslaws even more.
That is the emotional debate being waged by Professor Trounson and Mr Carr.
Both men have regularly talked up the need for the research to help find cures fora range of crippling diseases and conditions.
Mr Carr was at it again today, saying the choice for federal politicians was whetherthey would support cures for child diabetes and the like.
By implication, Mr Carr is painting opponents of embryonic stem cell laws of beinghappy to delay cures.
But opponents of embryonic stem cell research, such as National Party leader John Anderson,consider the debate to be a deeper moral question about the beginning of human life.
Mr Anderson said he strongly supports adult stem cell research - an area showing enormouspotential - but he has real trouble supporting research on human embryos.
What he doesn't like is being labelled as lacking compassion.
"Something else that concerns me is the emotive labelling of those who would have reservationsabout embryonic stem cell research as lacking in humanitarian concern for others," hesaid.
"It is often the very concern for the human values of others that lead people to opposethis research."
Mr Anderson and Mr Howard are on different sides of the debate, but they do agree onthe need to tone down the inflated rhetoric about the benefits of embryonic stem cellresearch.
Mr Howard told parliament this week some supporters of the legislation were going toofar and were raising unrealistic expectations for people with disabilities.
"When you are dealing with people who have profound disabilities and whose expectationsof a decent life is miserable, in my view you owe them two things: to do everything humanlypossible to find a cure ... and not to unfairly inflate expectations," he said.
"Everybody who comes to this debate has a responsibility to behave intelligently."
His words were directed straight at Mr Carr.
Mr Howard knows the debate still has a long way to run.
The numbers appear at this stage to support the laws in the House of Representatives,but the numbers in the Senate are far more unpredictable.
Mr Howard now wants the debate to calm, and to return to the moral issues at the heartof the laws.
In the meantime, Mr Carr and Professor Trounson would do well to hold their tonguesif they want national rules across the states.
AAP jg/daw/mg/de
KEYWORD: NEWSCOPE FEDERAL (ANALYSIS)
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий