Turner Judy: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Turner Judy: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15902] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I have to state upfront that United Future will from here on be registering a split vote. As the member for United Future who is on the Health Committee I have faced some issues and some struggles. There are some conscience issues that crop up in this bill that I have a personal problem with. But I have tried to separate those issues from the need to look at the regulatory framework that is being proposed here to see regardless of whether I like which category everything has been placed in whether the system for regulating this technology is appropriate. But at that level I again have had some problems. 
I take some time now to thank Dianne Yates. I think there is probably no one else in this House who has shown such a commitment to getting a system to regulate this technology. The work she has done the trips she has taken and the research she has done have been quite phenomenal. If this bill reflected her original bill then my position at the end of this process would be quite different. None of us wants to see medical science held back from making breakthroughs that alleviate suffering but my concern is that we are straying into areas where the very nature of what it means to be human is put up for grabs and we need to be very careful in the way we allow this to advance. 
What I am saying is that the means by which we achieve good outcomes in health are as important ethically as the outcomes themselves. I have some real concerns. There was a joke in the House earlier about the fact we should not worry because the market will determine the outcomes and that is my very real fear. 
Simon Power 
: That wasn’t a joke. I was serious. 
JUDY TURNER 
: Was it not? I thank Mr Power. I want to cite a story that I have read about and told members before. In the United States a drug a growth hormone was developed by drug companies to treat dwarfism. It was given orphan drug status by the American Government because the expected uptake of the drug was quite small. What actually happened was that the uptake was phenomenal. It was way outside expectations. It had never been expected that lots of mums and dads would rush out and procure it for their short children to see whether they could up the ante and improve their height. In Western society where we are very consumer driven we have to understand that technologies like the ones we are regulating here will have a demand on them that is beyond just the demand that people with critical health problems or fertility problems will require—hence my feeling that the real need here is for caution. 
 I proposed a couple of amendments in Part 1; one is to the definition of an embryo. The current definition in the bill talks about an embryo then excludes from the definition embryonic stem cells. I feel that in a warped sort of way this definition says that one is an embryo unless it does not suit our purposes and then one is not an embryo. I believe that the reason for this wording is that we want to keep the door wide open for future stem cell legislation. 
I also want to make it clear that I am not against the use of stem cells or stem cell research. I do have some ethical problems with where we get stem cells from. Certainly I have real reservations about embryonic stem cells being used particularly when we have seen some fabulous advances and medical breakthroughs as we find the very good use we can make of adult stem cells and that would certainly be my preference. 
As we go through the bill and in particular in Part 2 there are some areas that I have a huge concern about and I want to leave some of my comments until then.