Phil Prendergast (Labour)

The Bill addresses a complex and evolving area of medicine that can have great benefits for humankind. However, stem-cell research also raises moral questions, as has been evidenced by the contributors to the debate thus far. The Bill seeks to address these questions from a particular religious standpoint. While it is perfectly legitimate for this approach to be taken, those of us who would take a moral view must be responsible about bringing to bear our personal beliefs in society at large. We must be conscious and respectful of the other side of the argument — as Senator Mullen is on record as saying.

There are medical, financial and legal issues which must be considered. For instance, the Bill takes a clear legal position on the status of the embryo at a time when a Supreme Court ruling is due on this matter. Some scientists regard embryonic stem-cell research to be a moral obligation because their work can have genuine therapeutic benefits for people suffering from appalling ailments. The Bill does not oppose adult stem-cell research and Senator Mullen has argued that this work has great potential and his position generally has support from some scientists, as has been evidenced in e-mails I have received in recent days.

However, other scientists say restricting the research to adult stem cells could limit the potential of this field of bioengineering. We have the typical stance of opposing views on what is a very delicate subject. We must be particularly careful not to overstep our mark. It is not the role of the Legislature to make decisions on what medical research will and will not work. On the other hand, it is within our mandate to take moral positions about what happens within our borders. The choice we make concerning this complex development in medicine is one we must make carefully.