Tricky Debates

The Australian Senate this week passed a bill to relax restrictions on therapeutic cloning for stem cell research in Australia.

Understandably the debate that preceded the vote was full of passion, principle and anger. The result has upset some segments of the community and been celebrated by others. I personally can see both sides of this argument and do not begrudge anyone for their views on these very sensitive issues but I do think it is worth keeping a few things in perspective.

We have seen these moral arguments before. Issues such as legalised abortion, euthanasia and even IVF have split political parties and the community. Whatever the particular battle, the argument against these sorts of procedures and research are usually based on the notion that scientists should not ‘play God’.

It is worth remembering at this point that ‘man’ (read: humans, people or whatever word you prefer) has been playing God for a very long time. Since the earliest days of medical experimentation people have been altering nature through the use of drugs and surgery in an attempt to prolong life and improve health. This is effectively ‘playing God’ and was often labelled as such. The truth is that we love ‘playing God’. We do it when we clear-fell forests, when we create pollution, when we divert and dam rivers and especially when we go to war and decide that thousands of innocent people should be killed for the perceived benefit of others. I find it curious that it is often those that condone these sorts of actions who will then argue against ‘playing God’ when it comes to science.

I therefore think that ‘playing God’ should be struck off the ‘valid argument’ list and instead politicians should evaluate issues based on the real or potential damage or benefits that can be gained or lost by new developments in the scientific arena.

Of course there are very strong arguments against the ‘killing’ of embryos for research. It is virtually impossible for consensus to be reached about when life begins and whether that life can be justifiably terminated, but it is pure hypocrisy for a Senator or anyone else to stand up and say that a two week old embryo has a right to life when they themselves have probably eaten meat for lunch. I’m not a vegetarian but I would still find it difficult to morally defend the argument that a human embryo has more right to life than a fully grown cow, fish, chicken or pig.

As humans in the First World we are doomed to hypocrisy. Our moral radars are constantly being recalibrated. Ethics are quickly abandoned in pursuit of a few dollars and we are very good at justifying to ourselves anything that we do.

Our decision makers should be using their consciences to navigate difficult issues but they must be consistent in this. To find a conscience only when it is politically expedient is possibly the most immoral thing a politician can do. I think God would agree.

Sorry for the lack of humour this week. God, embryos, politicians and science should really be a lot funnier. I’ll try harder next time.

Stay tuned.