Stewart Barbara: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20704] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. This legislation will extend the current controls on xenotransplantation until 31 December 2006 by which time the human tissue legislation should be in place to legislate for this area of biotechnology. The proposed amendment to the Medicines Act currently before us does not call for a ban on innovations in treatment. Instead it puts an onus on the Minister of Health to be satisfied that issues surrounding them have been adequately addressed before the go-ahead is given. 
Xenotransplantation is a complex issue. There is no doubt that this technology is very innovative. It can be used for a wide variety of purposes—Dr Hutchison outlined some of them—from the insertion of animal cells into humans and the growing of human cells on layers of animal cells to whole organ transplants. All those procedures are still developing. Some are much further along than others. It is a technology that in New Zealand both the public and the Government need to be very sure about. We know that we have world-class scientists here in New Zealand. We also know that medicine in various countries around the world uses replacement heart valves sourced from pigs. But those products are all chemically treated and are not functional living tissue. That is what distinguishes them from the various treatments used for xenotransplantation. If xenotransplantation were simply a risky trial treatment it might be that an individual’s consent would be sufficient to justify that risk. However possible risk to human health cannot be justified merely on the grounds of an individual’s consent. If that were the case we would have a set of techniques that potentially could help a large number of people who are badly off but there is also the potential for the health of a very large number of people to be threatened. 
The Bioethics Council has completed its first round of public meetings. A report is to be presented to the Government in I understand August. The council is made up of people who have been given the responsibility for making some initial recommendations about this particular matter. Not one of us in this House is an expert on xenotransplantation and we need to read the report that is currently being written after the recent round of discussions. I have no doubt that we will be very keen to see the report when it is finally produced. It was very interesting to read that since the council released its xenotransplantation discussion paper in February public interest in xenotransplantation and the work of the council has become greater than ever. There was strong participation in the online forum with submissions and in the dialogue event with registrations which shows the interest here in New Zealand. 
When we look at other countries we see that in 2004 Australia announced a 5-year moratorium on clinical trials. In the UK no clinical trials are under way. In Canada clinical trials cannot proceed without the approval of Health Canada. That will be the case here in New Zealand also. We are basically following the line our nearest neighbours are following and that is what we should do. We know that China and Mexico carry out xenotransplantation on a relatively large scale. Those countries do not have the appropriate regulatory authorities to develop guidelines that would safeguard patients and the people with whom they come into contact so of course it is far easier for testing to be carried out in those countries. The risks can be regarded as manageable only if proper monitoring of recipients and family contacts can be undertaken on a long-term basis. 
The last hundred years have witnessed many attempts to carry out animal to human organ transplants. At this point in time all of them have failed. We know that all transplanted organs are liable to rejection. There are no guarantees for anyone. Xenotransplants must also bring about that response perhaps even more so. Significantly we know too that pigs appear to have been the source of deadly new epidemics. The human Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918 which killed between 20 million and 50 million people across the globe was it is believed a mutation of a pig influenza virus that was spread from American pigs by US troops during World War I. We know that some of the viruses carried by pigs are difficult to eradicate. We also know of examples of diseases crossing between species such as the bird flu epidemic in Asia. We have not even found a cure for those diseases. The evidence at this point in time appears to indicate that xenotransplantation carries that risk so we need to take a prudent approach. 
With 30 new diseases having been discovered over the last 20 years most of which have been transmitted from non-humans to humans some scientific commentators have been led to assert that newly emerging viruses are now the biggest threat to mankind. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: Ministry of Health officials advised us during the Health Committee briefing that the human immune system rapidly attacks and rejects tissue from animals meaning that most xenotransplants fail rapidly. We were also advised that scientists are exploring options to try to solve those particular problems. So the technique is still only experimental. Although we acknowledge that infections may be minimised in the same way as for human infections science does not know of all the infectious organisms that may infect humans and definitely what can infect source animals and here we are looking at pigs in particular. Dr Boyd Chief Adviser Ministry of Health said that substantially more informed debate needs to take place than to date and it should involve views wider than those who stand to benefit. 
Although we want to provide lifesaving solutions for New Zealanders we want to be sure that medical procedures provide the best possible medical outcomes for everyone. New Zealand First supports this legislation.