Written by Stephen A. Chavura
Lecturer in Political Thought at the University of Western Sydney
The Lockhart Report (December 2005) is a 183 page Legislation Review of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. Essentially it recommends the creation of human life and human cloning for the purpose of destructive research.
The report lowers the status of human life to the level of a commodity. What makes the report shocking is that there is hardly any attempt to conceal the humanity of the embryos. Their human status is admitted, but this counts for nothing:
The Committee agreed that human embryo clones are human embryos and that, given the right environment for development, could develop into a human being. Furthermore, if such an embryo were implanted into the body of a woman to achieve a pregnancy, this entity would certainly have the same status as any other human embryo, and were this pregnancy to result in a live birth, that child would enjoy the same rights and protection as any other child (p.170)
Embryos artificially created for the purpose of medial experimentation suddenly lose any right to life:
However, a human embryo clone created to extract stem cells is not intended to be implanted, but is created as a cellular extension of the original subject. The committee therefore agreed with the many respondents who thought that the moral significance of cloned embryos that are not implanted is linked more closely to their potential for research developments…than to their potential as a human life (p.170)
In the end, as the report candidly admits, social utility takes priority over human life. The moral significance of the embryo is related to the purpose with which it was created.
The Report admits that research with embryonic stem cells has not been all that productive. In fact it affirms that “there has been substantial progress in adult stem cell research in the past few years”, yet it is said that this does not removed the need to carry out experimental research on embryonic stem cells (p.166). Later it says at length:
The Committee acknowledges the advances that have been made in research into adult stem cells, and that adult stem cells have been used successfully in the treatment of some human diseases, especially bone marrow transplantation. However, to date, the potentiality of adult stem cells, in terms of the number of cell types that can be generated, is still unclear and certainly less than for embryonic stem cells (p.170).
In other words, though stem cells can be taken from consenting adults to great benefit, the possibilities of embryonic stem cells are too tempting to resist, despite the fact that an innocent non-consenting human being must be destroyed in the process. The report then goes on to recommend that “creation of human embryos and human embryo clones by means other than fertilisation of an egg by a sperm…should be permitted…for research, training and clinical applications…” (p.172). Furthermore, it is not as though the Lockhart report holds that artificially produced embryos are not human. On the contrary, it goes out of its way to affirm a human embryo as “something that is able to continue development in an integrated way to become a fetus and a live baby” (p.98), which an artificially created embryo could do.
The problem with embryonic stem cell research is that a human is being destroyed in the process of trying to advance medical science. The very practice of destroying a human life completely undermines the purpose of medical science – the preservation of human life. The whole exercise is irrational and unethical.
Interestingly rights are mentioned in the Lockhart Report – not the rights of the embryonic human but those of the person willing to donate their embryos for destructive research! Consideration is given to the idea that donors be informed regarding the type of research their embryos will be used for (p.174). Furthermore, consent on the part of the donors is essential before any experiments are done on the embryo (pp.175-6). Let’s get this straight! The embryos that are destroyed for medical science cannot, by definition, consent to their destruction, but all the care in the world must be taken to secure the consent of the donor, who suffers no loss in the process!
The Lockhart Report goes on to recommend any international trade in embryonic stem cells to facilitate research. It also raises and dismisses the possibility of people being paid for their embryos. The benefits are considered – namely that there would suddenly be an abundance of embryos for experimentation. Yet the report rejects the wholesale trade in embryos (p.180). No good reason is given and at no stage does the issue of human dignity enter into the discussion. Perhaps even the Committee behind the Lockhart Report felt uncomfortable with trading human beings for money. But this sits uneasily with its willingness to have them destroyed to facilitate medical research. Surely if selling a human is an affront to human dignity, how much more is destroying one for the benefit of others? Finally the Lockhart Report recommends that a national stem cell bank be established to create an easy and well stocked supply of stem cells for researchers (p.181).
In brief the Lockhart Report recommends things such as destructive embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, commercialisation of stem cells, and the establishment of a national stem cell bank in Australia. The Lockhard Report may be significant for candidly admitting that it has little interest in human dignity or morality. The shocking thing is that we have created a society where such disinterest in human dignity can emerge from a government document without so much as a blush.
See Dr. Lachlan Dunjey’s excellent critique of the Lockhart Report at medicinewithmorality.org.au