When is a human embryo not a human embryo? That is the question following the removal of a ban on therapeutic cloning. RAY CAMPBELL explores the issue
THE passing of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill is indeed a sad day for Australia.
Do not be fooled by the title. This bill is not about what it prohibits. It is about what it permits.
The Federal Parliament has taken Australia further down the spiral of lack of respect for human life.
It will now be lawful in Australia to create a human life for the sole purpose of using that life for someone else’s purpose and in the process destroying it.
Just how distorted our thinking has become is illustrated by the fact that some supporters of the bill emphasise that the bill prohibits the implantation of the embryo into the womb of a woman.
We are supposed to be thankful that a human life will not be allowed to survive!
This bill has created a class of human beings for whom it is illegal that they survive more than 14 days and that is portrayed as progressive science and morality!
The passing of this bill led me to reflect upon the “status” of embryos as reflected by how we treat them in Australia.
The status of the embryo varies considerably in practice depending on the circumstances. I have arrived at the following.
I do not claim that this is an exhaustive list, but it does indicate some of the inconsistency in our thinking.
The highest status is reserved for the wanted embryo in the womb.
This embryo is highly regarded by most. The mother usually does all she can to protect the embryo. People rejoice at the pregnancy and are sorrowful if some accident should end the pregnancy.
The Criminal Code in some states still holds that it is an offence to terminate the life of this child except in case of danger to the life or health of the mother.
The unwanted embryo in the womb is regarded as having a different status.
As it is unwanted one begins to think about how to get rid of it.
In times past the “acceptable” way of doing this was to put the child up for adoption.
In that era the “unwantedness” of the child was accepted but its life was also held to be valuable.
Owing to various court decisions this status of the embryo has been undermined.
The “unwantedness” of the embryo now takes precedence so that this embryo enjoys virtually no status at all and its life can be terminated by the choice of the mother.
The wanted unfrozen embryo outside of the womb is the embryo produced by IVF and is wanted by at least the mother.
A very high value tends to be attached to this embryo because the parents have done so much in order to have it.
But the status is still ambiguous because we are willing to submit this embryo to a precarious environment and it depends upon further external manipulation to transfer it to the womb.
The unwanted unfrozen embryo outside of the womb is nearly at the bottom of the tree as far as status goes.
Once the embryo is judged to be unwanted for any reason at all its life can be ended with no questions asked. It is the most unprotected of embryos.
The wanted frozen embryo enjoys a mixed status. It is wanted and so no one will seek to destroy it without permission.
But it is not wanted yet, and so it is subjected to the dehumanising procedure of cryopreservation, a procedure which entails great risk to the embryo.
The unwanted frozen embryo has a certain status as a potential object for donation to others or for research.
If the parents agree its status can even change from being unwanted (by them) to being wanted by others.
If not then it appears to have little status and can be destroyed with the permission of the parents.
It is at this point that some parents suddenly realise the real status of their embryos.
Although they are still unwilling or unable to nurture their embryos to life they realise that it is their child that is going to be allowed to die.
This can become a traumatic event for the parents as the true status of the child dawns upon them.
Some will even ask for baptism for their embryos.
Over the last couple of years the Queensland Bioethics Centre has received several calls from parents caught in this tragic situation.
The new legislation has now allowed the possibility for a new status – the cloned embryo for research purposes.
This embryo has a certain status – it is wanted. But it is wanted as a thing to be used by others, and its destruction is guaranteed.
The legislation also creates the possibility of the cloned embryo for reproductive purposes.
This embryo might be regarded as being at the bottom of the status tree. It is illegal and must be destroyed before it reaches 14 days.
Finally there is the single cell embryo (the embryo in the first hours of its existence).
This embryo is not at the bottom of the tree. It has simply been defined out of existence.
By decision of the Australian Parliament, this embryo is no longer an embryo.
When embryologists write their books on embryology in the future stating that the embryo begins its life as a single cell organism, they will have to put in a footnote declaring that this is not the case in Australia by virtue of the mandate of Australian politicians!
So there we have a range of “status” for the human embryo.
The fact is though that biologically and ontologically they are all the same kind of being – they are all members of the species homo sapiens.
How is it that they can have such different statuses? Why do we so easily forget that each of us was once an embryo? The Church is being absolutely consistent when it calls us to respect all embryos as having the same status.
When both moral principles and science become matters of mere subjective opinion, society is losing its foundations.
Ray Campbell is the director of the Catholic Church’s Queensland Bioethics Centre.
[divider]
