The Saturday Headline
A response to http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908911785.html
The
Saturday headline of the front page article announces that a decision from the
Federal Government to allow scientific research on human embryos is immanent.
But in this article The Age avoids important historical issues. The
article is misleading. It reports on a proposed scientific development as if that
is something which is fated. The Age should be informing its readers of
the public-legal background and the disturbing facts are not difficult to
uncover.
It is false
to interpret the immanent decision solely in terms of it being a flow-on from the
Federal legislation that was passed after a contentious Parliamentary debate. For
some time prior to the Beattie/Bracks/Carr/Howard COAG pact of 2002, human
embryos had been exported from this country for research overseas. Thus the legislation
actually brings the law into line with practices that have pre-dated it - namely
the export of human embryos from this country in order that this kind of
research could be undertaken by research collaborators overseas. The impending
decision is therefore the latest step in a series of steps that attempt to
legitimate such research, and some of this research has already relied upon
embryo export from Australia. This is the matter which the above foursome were
careful not to mention when they presumed to lecture the nation about the moral
rectitude of their COAG resolution.
The lack of
import and export controls for human embryos means there was already an in-principle
acceptance of this research within the public-legal framework of this country,
whatever the legal impediments to local research may have been. The fact is
that research was already under way overseas on embryos imported from Australia
and this was well established before the COAG resolution, and it
was also publicly known overseas at least by 29th November 2001 when
it was mentioned in a Dutch newspaper interview. So, the first step should have
been to bring in import and export controls and only then to argue whatever other
cases there may have been, and not before. But if that procedure had been
followed the debate would have taken an altogether different route. It would have
challenged politicians on both sides, whose parties are strongly committed to
the free market ideology, to address the global trade in human embryos.
Instead Howard,
Bracks, Beattie and Carr took the Parliaments of the land, and therefore the
rest of us, down a path of a nation-splitting debate. They presumed to do so as
if we had no choice. But by avoiding the import/export control issue they formed
an agenda for that debate which sidestepped the crucial question of the limits
of free trade.
The Age readers should think very carefully
about this because it reminds us that an in principle commitment to the
institution of human slavery is not far away, no matter how many inspectors may
now be employed to keep a watch over this research. Why shouldn't this be seen
as an in principle accommodation to slavery?
When the
COAG agreement of 2002 is viewed alongside the lack of import and export
controls, the Howard/Beattie/Carr/Bracks resolution is seen as a reflexive bow
at the free market shrine. As a matter of fact this explosive matter could have
been uncovered earlier if prominent "No" Ministers, the deputy Prime
Minister and the Minister of State among them, had voiced dissent by pointing
publicly to the scientific work done overseas with embryos from Australia. They
knew about this long before the vote was finally taken. They knew about the
public boast of a Dutch researcher that "Australian imports" were a
well-established part of that research. These politicians knew that but their
dissent was not explained in those terms. Their quietness on the "free
market in human embryos" issue served to protect themselves as
representatives of a free market party, but also shielded the PM, and the State
Labor Premiers. It also seems to have transformed a Parliamentary
"conscience vote" into something else. There seem to be many implications
flowing from this episode and as this country continues down this treacherous
path we should probably expect more surprises.
How long is
conscience to be enslaved to this fated free market ideology? The Saturday
article convinces me that The Age has a bit of work to do to give up its
childish compliance with the fate of "market trends" and instead
gives us a newspaper that attempts to fulfil its historic investigative
vocation.
January 2004 © Christian
Radical Reflections, is written by Bruce C Wearne (PhD), 29 Lawrence
Rd., Point Lonsdale Vic 3225 AUSTRALIA, 61-3-5258-3913. Each edition
may be photocopied or retransmitted in its entirety but not otherwise
reprinted or transmitted without permission. This personal project
aims to encourage positive Christian citizenship, the development of
policies and political attitudes that better express our love for God and our
neighbour. Your comments are welcome. Email can be sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au . http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bcwearne/index.html