|
RIGHT TO LIFE NEW ZEALAND Submissions
SUBMISSION To
the
National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction On
Guidelines
for Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis On
the Consultation
Document September 2004 This
Submission is from
Right to Life New Zealand Inc.
We
wish to appear before the Committee and speak to our submission. Mr
Ken Orr Email:
rtl@right-to-life.org
General
summary: Right
to Life has grave concerns with the Guidelines within this document and
its proposals, as they threaten the life and safety of the most
vulnerable in our society from their very conception. We
view this proposal as a ‘search and destroy mission’. The
manipulation of conception and the eugenic selection of embryos to meet
a market of individual want over natural law; is to promote and develop
an uncivilized society. A
society, where no one is safe from legislation, that would desire to
remove from it, members that do not conform to the political mood of the
day or who threaten the comfort or lifestyle of others, in this case,
even before birth. True freedom of all the members of society is reduced
to an arbiter’s decision devoid of moral law. PGD
does not provide a cure but a selection process that parents may be
mandated to use in order to be considered responsible citizens. Not to
do so, could see the withdrawal of public funding and support for their
children. International
models demonstrate governments that choose to withdraw funding to
families with more than one child and there is no reason to suppose
similar restrains would not be applied to parents who have knowledge of
a pre-existing familial genetic disorder and refuse the new
technologies. Redefinition
of society’s view of conception, selection and the roll of family: PGD
encourages couples and society to perceive conception outside of the
womb, to be of greater value, as more power is given to ‘choice’ and
the control of the future composition of populations. A
utopian government’s dream: -‘total control of fertility’! This
redefines the natural boundaries that exist in the natural state,
through natural conception, undermining marriage and family. Marriage
and family provide natural, care and protection with safeguards that
support the life of the unborn child from conception. Artificial
fertility practises make available, technologies subject to, the chaos
that exists within human dealings, human error, and manipulates family
groupings and family bonds through flawed; ethics, laboratory practices
and the misuse of the power. Social
engineering is used to brake down the natural order of families
resulting in protection being diverted and applied inappropriately to
corruption and disorder. The
Scientific
considerations: Science
is not the highest value, that to which all other orders of values
should be subordinated and therefore has well-defined limits before
transgressing or violating higher moral laws. PGD
does not assist couples, not to have babies without a particular
disorder, as the human being exists, from the moment of conception, it
merely allows doctors and scientist to destroy those humans created that
are deemed unacceptable by a predetermined criteria.
The parents will be unaware of the number of embryos that have
been created and also unaware and uninformed of the number of human
lives that have been disposed of or experimented on. The
removal of two cells from the embryo for genetic testing prior to
transfer into a woman’s uterus indeed involves highly risky
manipulation for all parties. The low success rate of IVF would demand
several ‘cleared embryos’ be implanted to achieve the ‘take home
baby.’ Amniocentiesis
and chorionic villus sampling, both present risks to the developing
embryo and add emotion stress to a couple, who are then placed in the
difficult position of complying with others, to destroy this life;
whether at the embryonic or foetal stage, that life - the life of their
child or in most cases children. Promoted
to the parents is a mind set that to suffer is without merit and that
the removal of their child from society is beneficial to all parties.
Society is further encouraged to consider those less fortunate or less
capable as a burden and call for their removal regardless of age.
Ultimately society will withdraw its support for these members of
society, while assisting their death, creating a self-serving,
self-seeking intolerant and prejudiced society. Dangerous
directives:
We
object to the statement in “What is PGD?” – 11: that
couples “will need to consider termination” the use of the word
“need” directs couples to consider a single option; death for their
child. The
comment is made that more screening would be required to assure the
absence of abnormalities. A natural progression must arise at some point
after all this screening, for the parent who then has a child damaged
during pregnancy or birth to consider the child ‘faulty’, as one
would, a purchased product. This naturally leads to the ‘faulty
product’ to be recalled or terminated i.e. infanticide. The
progression towards an uncivilized society is obvious. In
the Scientific Background notes -12 – “PGD can then be used to avoid
the condition in any subsequent children” is an inaccurate statement
as that child, still at the embryonic stage already exists, with the
condition, and it is what we do with that embryo that is of grave
concern. This
determined by the societal acceptance or rejection of personhood yet to
be debated, defined and legally protected or afforded inviolable
dignity. Ethical
Cultural and Religious issues associated with PGD:
While
it may be convenient for some to view PGD as ethically neutral, (Cameron
and Williamson) it is far from neutral, as each individual embryo is
unique and irreplaceable. That some children live does not negate the
responsibility we have as a society to those that are ‘discarded’
and changes the mindset of the society as to the need to protect those
who are unable to protect themselves. We all become possible victims of
the culture of death. The
deliberate taking of the life of a pre-born or pre-implanted embryo is
abortion. In
a society imbued with consumerism and money, the attitude of ‘give me
what I want’, regardless of need, will lead to the development of even
more socially and morally dangerous experimental techniques these being
used for wider trivial social reasons for the preferred child. Cultural
(Maori) and religious views will be upheld only when they are convenient
to the ‘Politically Correct’ lobby and repudiated at will if they
call into question the lack of moral base applied to the decisions and
outcomes announced by the financial providers, business or industrial
interests and government agencies. A ‘free society’ becomes a
euphemism. Tyranny comes through dictatorship, this time by those
without moral base or any definable culture beyond self gratification. PGD
and disability: PGD
definitely promotes the view that the birth of people with disabilities
should be prevented and will have negative repercussions on all in
society. The
‘better to be dead than suffer’ model does not acknowledge and
undermines the achievements, successes and dignity of the disabled and
their contribution to society. PGD would have us discard all at risk for
disability without recognition of the wide range of ability within the
continuum of any given condition. E.g. Cystic fibrosis may present
little manifestation of disability. Disability
helps humanise a society, as those with disability help us review our
perspective on life. They often inspire us, teach us patience, kindness,
goodness, compassion, self-sacrifice, how to reprioritise and how to
meet the challenges of our life while recognising that at anytime, we
may become one of the disabled. Equity
and access: As
with all these procedures the wealthy will have economic access to PGD
and other matters of concern arise. Does antidiscrimination require
those who are themselves disabled (adult Down syndrome women) be given
equal access to these procedures? Is
PGD to be made available to the single or lesbian woman? Are
we the tax payers, who do not agree with its use, again, being asked to
fund a procedure that we believe harms individuals, family and society? Conclusion:
Some
groups regard embryos only as ‘a potential’ for life, able to be manipulated
relying on a definition of human personhood that is still to be
recognised within the law. These
groups manipulate human genetics through Assisted Human Reproductive
Technologies presenting an argument that the conceptus will not become a
human person until somewhere further down the continuum of its natural
life. 1.
This
is where the debate needs to begin and the issues of personhood and the
legal status of the unborn child needs to be established.
The unborn need legal protection from amoral politicians,
doctors, scientists and commercial interests. It
can not be assumed that the National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human
Reproduction can protect society from unrestrained use of PGD. 2.
The
Government record of providing and upholding protection for the unborn
is poor and does not engender confidence in its ability to undertake the
task. We were assured that abortion would be infrequent and safe, but
are left with escalating abortion rates, unrecorded complications and
families denied information necessary to protect the mental, physical,
and spiritual health of women and their families. History has provided
the model. The Abortion Supervisory Committee is a farce; it operates
outside Government accountability or restrain. A PGD Supervisory
Committee or equivalent cannot be expected to perform any better while
using the same governance. 3.
Government
declarations and assurances of control over Assisted Human Reproductive
Technologies cannot be trusted and will lead to unrestricted industrial
driven activity and commercial killing with no means of control over
misconduct. 4.
Yet
again the tax payer will be asked to fund experimental procedures, aid
further government and world control of fertility, while coping with the
resulting negative complexities that will corrupt the fabric of society. We
wish to appear before the Committee and speak to our submission. Those
appearing will be Mr Ken Orr and Mrs Nancye Price Yours
sincerely, Ken
Orr For
Exceutive.
|