Mr. Speaker, when the debate was interrupted, I was referring to a press release issued in January 2002 by the Quebec minister responsible for research, science and technology, which reads as follows:
In conclusion, minister Cliche reiterated his trust in Quebec's scientists and said, “Researchers are, just like me, convinced that research development must be conducted in a climate of trust and transparency. Research that affects these human embryos and the cells from these embryos involves the fundamental values of dignity and human integrity, while also raising many ethical issues. Quebecers must know that the Government of Quebec is fully aware of the issues raised by this research, and that it intends to ensure that ethical rules are followed to the letter.
Last May 14 an article appeared in the Montreal Gazette under the byline of Peter Hadekel. The article stated:
A small but vocal group of Liberal MPs wants a free vote on the controversial legislation, which would permit medical research on leftover embryos from fertility clinics, as long as donor consent is obtained.
The article went on to state:
Their views deserve respect. Like many Canadians, they're concerned that killing embryos for research purposes is morally wrong, no matter what the purported benefits of genetic manipulation might be in the search for cures to diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer or diabetes.
The article also cited the report of the Standing Committee on Health which states:
Therefore, we want to encourage research funding in the area of adult stem cells. We are concerned that embryonic stem-cell research commodifies the embryo.
Mr. Hadeker's article continued:
One looks in vain in the McLellan bill for the same spirit or some sign that the government would encourage adult-stem cell research wherever and whenever possible...for many Canadians concerned about this kind of research, a more troubling question is when human life really begins.
That is the issue. When there are alternatives, we must always choose the option for which there is the largest social consensus.
I realize that those who are opposed to research on embryonic cells may be a minority. I do not know what kind of minority. It may even be a small minority, but that is not important. What is important is the fact that there is a significant minority of people with fundamental rights who are saying that to tamper with embryos is to tamper with human life. There are certainly alternatives.
On January 30, 1999 the British Medical Journal stated that the use of embryonic stem cells “may soon be eclipsed by the more readily available and less controversial adult stem cells.”
On August 26, 2000 under the heading “Over excitement on embryo stem cells”, the prestigious medical journal The Lancet stated:
If stem cells do turn out to be a significant source of therapeutic agents they could come not from human embryos but from alternatives such as reprogrammed adult cells.
There is an increasing number of examples of projects which, one after the other, involve practical research, research that has proven successful with adult stem cells.
I will conclude by quoting an article by an eminent Canadian whom I know personally and whom I believe represents the best in what we call ethics. She is the head of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, Dr. Margaret A. Somerville. Her research, knowledge, balance, wisdom and judgment have been acclaimed by people not only in Canada but far and wide. In an article entitled “Life Itself in the Balance” which appeared in the April 4, 2001 edition of the National Post she concluded:
If we regard the human embryo as wondrous--because it represents the transmission of human life from one generation to the next, and because it is a genetically unique, living entity--we would not use it for research. Should we refrain from such research in order to maintain for ourselves, society and future generations a sense of profound respect for each human life, human life itself, and its transmission?
To conclude, we must carefully examine whether it is ethically acceptable to proceed with human embryo stem cell research and be aware that our decisions might be affected by a lack of courage to refuse the potential therapeutic benefits it promises. We are in a situation where it is far easier to say yes than no. However if we believe research on stem cells obtained from human embryos is inherently wrong or that its overall risks and harms to societal values and norms outweigh its potential benefits, difficult as it will be, we must have the courage to recognize that it cannot be ethically justified and should not proceed.
The minister would garner a tremendous amount of support in the House from all sides were she to admit that the whole question of the use of embryonic stem cells is not only complex in its scientific impacts but morally and ethically extremely delicate.
Some of us like myself strongly believe that human life starts at conception and that human embryos should not be used for research or in any other manner that detracts from the dignity and integrity of human life. The minister would gain a lot of kudos by recognizing that there are some of us, although perhaps a minority, who believe deeply and with great conviction that we should not use embryonic stem cells, especially when practical, successful alternatives such as adult stem cells are available. Adult stem cells are being used today and have been used for the last two decades in all kinds of successful medical and scientific research.
I ask the minister to reconsider. We should take the path Quebec has courageously adopted and refrain from research on embryonic stem cells. This shows that Quebec, a province where separation of church and state has been the case increasingly since the quiet revolution, is respectful of the ethical dilemma posed to many people who believe human life starts with embryos at conception.
This is a point of view I hold very deeply. I hope the minister will listen to those of us who think this is the right course to take.
