Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Inquiry into the Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of
Human Cloning
On behalf of The Anglican Church of Australia
By
The Revd Dr Bruce Kaye
General Secretary of the General Synod of
The Anglican Church of Australia
Anglican Moral Theology and Cloning
Anglican moral theology draws upon a variety of sources in grappling with the ethical issues
associated with cloning. There is no definitive statement in the Anglican Communion with
regard to cloning. However, there is well-established significant Anglican theology1
associated with various forms of modern reproductive technology. 2 This work of course
reflects a diversity of opinion within the church just as there is such diversity within society as
a whole as to the moral status of foetus, embryo and zygotes.3 Above all, however, Anglican
ethics upholds the dignity of the human person.4 Contemporary Anglican theology seeks to
be incarnational, that is testifying to the presence of God in the world and therefore as a
theology it seeks also to operate within the world, as opposed to seeking to cut itself off from
the world.5
Accordingly, we recognise the diversity of opinion in Australian society with regard to the
moral status of the embryo, foetus, zygotes and human body parts. We recognises that in a
plural society, regardless of our own beliefs God gives us free will and some choose not to
adopt a theological perspective in asking those fundamental ethical questions: “What should I
do, and how am I to live in society?”
The fact that there is so much debate about issues to do with genetics and cloning reflects the
importance we place on human life and human body parts, even if there is no consensus as to
their moral status. Recognising the secular nature of society6 we would recommend that the
1
For a useful summary of theological approaches by one of Australia’s foremost Anglican moral
theologians see: Morgan, J. “Theology, Medicine and Health” in Bryne, P & Houlden, L. (Eds)
Companion Encyclopedia of Theology, Routledge, London, 1995, pp 817-842. See also a helpful
commentary: Smith, D.H. Health and Medicine in the Anglican Tradition, Cross Road, New York,
1986.
2
For specifically Australian Anglican content, see especially: Nichols, A & Hogan, T. (Eds). Making
Babies: The Test Tube and Christian Ethics. Acorn Press, Canberra, 1984.
3
It is worth noting the diversity and richness of sources of Anglican theology. See for example: Evans,
G. R. & Wright, J. R., Ed. The Anglican Tradition: A Handbook of Sources. Fortress Press, London,
1991.
4
For specifically Anglican contributions regarding this important concept and the notion of the human
person, see Rodgers, M. & Thomas, M. ( Eds). A Theology of the Human Person, Collins Dove, North
Blackburn, 1992. See also its discussion in a General Synod Social Responsibilities Commission
endorsed publication: Newell, C. & Pullin, C. Death, Dying and Euthanasia: An Anglican Resource,
General Synod Social Responsibilities Commission, Sydney, 1998. ISBN 1-86459-043-2.
5
For a discussion of this and the role and future of Anglicanism in Australia, see for example: Kaye, B.
A Church Without Walls: Being Anglican in Australia. Dove, North Blackburn, 1995.
6
Operating within an Anglican tradition, Newell has recently proposed that it is possible to engage in
ethics and public policy despite difference in approaches. See Newell, C. “Whose Community: Which
Values?” in Davies, L. & Sullivan, F. (Eds) Civilising Community for us all, Australian Theological
Forum, Adelaide, 1999.His approach proposes shared spirituality and humanness as the starting point
for our discussions rather than religious difference.
2
Committee recognises the reverence in which the human person and the human body as
constituent parts are held from a variety of religious and secular perspectives and adopts
social policy and legislation which reflects the sacredness and inviolability of the human
person. The Anglican Church also recommends that the relevant United Nations declarations
and instruments be referred to, which again recognise diversity but also the inalienable dignity
to be accorded to the human person. We are special, and indeed sacred, and this should be
recognised in social policy and legislation.
It is also recommended that the Committee consider the spiritual concerns of people regarding
cloning. Spirituality7 is after all central to religious expression.8 For Christians, we are made
in God's image, upholding a holistic notion of being, in which inter -relationship with others
is vital. People are sacred and have a spiritual dimension. Evelyn Crotty talks of spirituality in
terms of “What it means to live, feel, see, experience and touch more authentically the sacred
around me.”9
This submission is made by The Revd Dr Bruce Kaye, General Secretary, on behalf of the
General Synod of The Anglican Church of Australia. It is recognised however that various
Anglican dioceses around the country may choose to make submissions. For example, this
submission is written in recognition of the fact that the Diocese of Melbourne’s Social
Responsibilities Commission is making a substantial submission. That submission will attend
to the biological facts confronting the Committee in far greater detail, whereas this
submission will focus on issues of regulation in the area of bioethics.
The Bible provides important images with regard to the utilisation of technological power and
especially in terms of the adoption of a Christian ethic of cloning. In particular this will be
seen with regard to the images of Eden and Babel. In the Book of Genesis (1: 26, 2: 15) the
human creature is not just given “dominion” over the garden but a responsibility “to till and to
keep it”. This is not a boundless dominion and does not extend to the Pleiades and Orion
(Amos 5: 8) and likewise the Book of Job (39: 41) places other limitation on dominion by
human kind. These are important reminders that while this world was not created for us or by
us, we do have a sacred responsibility within it. Likewise, within Genesis chapter 11, we
encounter the image of Babel where the desire to be god-like and the use of technological
power brought about chaos. 10 Quite clearly these two images are not about the right use of
genetics but they do help us to seek balance in undertaking the work of caring, nurturing and
healing creation.
7
There is of course an issue here. For example in a recent ABC TV “Compass” Program ( 21 February,
1999 “The S-Word”), Phillip Adams argues that “If I were spiritual, and this may happen even during
the course of this program, I’ d want to shout it from the rooftops. I’d want to in fact aspire to
sainthood. But those of spiritual persuasion or at least religious credentials hush it up…” In this
program he uses the words “spiritual” and “religious” interchangeably, failing to acknowledge that they
are markedly different concepts. Certainly based on the definitions of spiritual I embrace, Adams may
be seen to reflect a spiritual dimension in his life. Interestingly, he also makes the astute observation
later in this program that “I rarely conclude a long interview without asking whoever it is their attitudes
to life and to death. I usually ask them directly what their cosmology, their theology, is, because I find
that everyone is interested and the fact that this is concealed in our public life I think demeans and
diminishes it.”
8
The Anglican theologian John Macquarrie is cited by Cecilia Francis thus: “fundamentally spirituality
has to do with becoming a person in the fullest sense … Spirit is the active, formative, lifegiving
power … shared by (humankind) with the Spirit of God’. The Trinity is inseparable from such thinking
– and for me a formative model of interdependence – of identity and of activity; no one has fullness of
being without the others.” Francis, C. “Spirituality and Leadership”, Ministry, Society & Theology,
Vol. 12, No. 2, November, 1998, p.79.
9
Crotty, E., “Spirituality and Justice”, Ministry, Society & Theology, Vol. 12, No. 2, November, 1998,
p.65.
10
This section is inspired by Cole-Turner, R. Ed. Human Cloning: Religious Responses, Westminster
John Knox Press, Louisville, 1997, p 117.
3
Likewise the New Testament upholds similar points to such images with its expectation of a
new creation. We shoould not that this new creation is the work of God not auntonomous or
unbridled “science” or “technology”. If anything the insights from the Bible show the
importance of due care, the importance of exercising responsibility, and a reminder that we
are not to seek to be god-like. On the other hand it is quite clear that entailed in the notion of
responsibility is the idea that we would nurture and promote the health of creatures within
God’s dominion.11
In this way we can see that the Bible and the Christian ethics derived from it can have
applicability to all social and ethical issues. Indeed, it is noteworthy that many of the insights
of secular humanism can be seen to be derived from Judeo-Christian principles.
The Australian Health Ethics Committee Report
The Anglican Church wishes to provide broad support for the recommendations of the Report
of the Australian Health Ethics Committee on “Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory
Considerations relevant to Cloning of Human Beings”. In particular, this is a matter which
requires explicit regulation as opposed to just guidelines. For example, whilst NHMRC
guidelines have some moral pressure and are required to be adhered to by bodies receiving
NHMRC funding, it is quite clear that there are significant issues associated with privately
funded researchers/bodies who are not in receipt of NHMRC funding.
Legislation in this area should seek to serve the common good and must of course seek to
achieve the balance affirmed by Anglican theology. That balance in this issue is to be found
in the middle ground between the extremes of neo-Luddism and technological determinism.
Accordingly, it is important that the Committee recognises the fact that this country has not
responded well to the challenges of uniform regulation with regard to reproductive
technology. For example, the Australian Health Ethics Committee, motivated again by issues
of concern with regard to the welfare of all human beings in the Commonwealth of Australia,
recommended uniform legislation with regard to reproductive technology in its 1997 report. 12
Complimentary legislation has not eventuated.
The Anglican Church also supports the prohibition on the cloning of human beings and
embryos found in the above-mentioned guidelines as well as the prohibition of
experimentation with the intent to produce two or more genetically identical individuals,
including development of human embryonal stem cell lines with the aim of producing a clone
of individuals.
The clear intent of the above cited NHMRC guidelines and relevant state legislation has been
circumvented by the well-known practice of border-hopping, including not just moving from
one state to another to undertake particular practices. It is also well known that at least one
Australian scientist and associated team is now undertaking work outside of Australia, so as
to avoid restrictions in Australia associated with reproductive technology and cloning.
11
It is worthwhile noting that the Committee on Medical Ethics of the Episcopal [ie Anglican]Diocese
of Washington recently published a book on genetic testing that addresses some issues associated with
cloning and genetic engineering. It is entitled, Wrestling with the Future: Our Genes and Our Choices,
and is published by Morehouse Publishing, Harrisburg, PA , 1999. We had not yet received a copy of
this document when making this submission.
12
National Health and Medical Research Council. Ethical Guidelines on Assisted Reproductive
Technology. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1996.
4
It is noteworthy that since the Australian Health Ethics Committee report there has been a
significant amount of attention in the press to the issue of cloning and a significant number of
Australian perspectives from a variety of scientific interests favouring development of human
cloning. One of the dominant messages which has been forthcoming has been that there is a
clear difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning and that therapeutic cloning
(aimed at therapy) should be allowed. In many respects this can be likened to earlier debates
to do with reproductive technology and the false distinction made between embryo and preembryo in some literature. Clearly this sought to address particular moral issues but served
only to fudge rather than to facilitate clear understanding and ethical guidelines. Of course,
the problem with the notion of so-called “therapeutic cloning” is “therapeutic from whose
perspective?”
It is also recommended that the Committee gives some substantial consideration to the issue
of intent in its discussion of regulation. Of course, Christian theology has always placed great
weight upon intent. Whilst there have been differences of emphasis, a fundamental focus on
intent has also led to a rejection of consequentalist ethics, and especially those which are
geared towards utilising people as a means to an end rather than as end in themselves. (It is
also worth noting that such a religious ethic has also been formulated by such philosophers as
Kant.)
One of the significant gaps in the AHEC Report is that there certainly would appear to be
potential for cloning in the future without the use of embryos or foetus to be achievable.
Whilst supporting a ban on the cloning of people, there is no doubt that the issue is more
complex when addressing issues to do with cloning human parts. However, it would appear
that this is more an area of science fantasy than science fact at this stage. Likewise, there is
little discussion of the cloning of body parts/organs, although this still seems to be a projected
rather than a present reality, and is likely to involve tissues with significant moral status in the
community.
Accordingly, as these possibilities have not been widely discussed by the broader
community, and in the light of the major ethical questions raised by cloning of body
parts/organs there should be a moratorium on the cloning of human body parts and
tissues and the use of human embryonic stem cells, to be reviewed in five years following
extensive public discussion. Science operates in our community, not apart from it.
In addition to supporting the NHMRC guidelines with regard to reproductive technology, we
would also make some comment with regard to the idea of there being spare embryos and
foetuses and their use in experimentation. It is here that we would refer to issues of reverence
for the human person at various stages of development. It is perhaps helpful here to refer to
the fact that when someone has died we still have a reverence for his/her body and Christians
attach significance to the reverent disposal of the body which remains after life. The notion
of reverence should also be attached to foetuses and embryos. It is quite clear that for many
people with a variety of religious views an aborted foetus, for example, has a status of
reverence associated with it and is not to be used as a means to an end. Likewise, embryos
are clearly seen as having moral significance in our society, and should not be freely utilised,
even though many reproductive technology programs have so-called “spares”.
The number of failures prior to the so-called “successful” cloning of Dolly should lead us to
be careful of any form of cloning, whether for whole persons or even body parts. Likewise,
the sheer number of failures prior to Dolly also leads one to express concern at the significant
potential harm to animals associated with experimentation in cloning. There should be clear
benefit and minimal harm, from a variety of perspectives, associated with any form of
biotechnology rather than the technological imperative driving technology.
5
It is quite apparent that there are particular restrictions placed upon the Commonwealth with
regard to legislation. However, it would be fortunate if your legal advice does suggest that
there is the power for the Commonwealth to legislate in this area and/or there is sufficient
agreement possible between the states/territories. Certainly, this is in an area which is
important with regard to the welfare of Australia’s citizens and where there are relevant
international instruments called into play safeguarding the dignity of the human person. It is
also apparent that this is an area which cannot be left merely to self-regulation or to NHMRC
guidelines. Utilising the USA as a good example, it is quite clear that privately financed
interests are quite capable of undertaking research in Australia, including states/territories
where there is no legislative prohibition.
Legislation can take the form of prohibition of particular actions, which is easy with regard to
many practices associated with cloning. Although with technological developments it may
well be that any legislation would be out of date almost as quickly as legislation is passed.
Accordingly, in addition to legislation which prohibits particular practices it is worthwhile
exploring the benefits associated with either having an opportunity for a body such as the
Australian Health Ethics Committee to consider and make decisions regarding some future
issues not totally prohibited or covered by cloning regulation, or allowing particular
sites/laboratories to operate in areas not adequately dealt with via any legislation. Such sites
could be subject to close regulation by such a body as the Australian Health Ethics
Committee. Clearly this Committee would need to be given some formal capacity to enforce
the results of its deliberations, and to ensure eventual accountability to the Parliament, given
the clear intention of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992, and the
debate regarding its functions in Hansard.
It is also quite clear that there is a need for more than the action taken by the Australian
Health Ethics Committee pending state and territory legislation. In particular, whilst the
Anglican Church would welcome the notion of an Expert Advisory Committee to assist
Human Research Ethics Committees regarding scientific issues in cloning, much more is
needed. The expertise of such an Expert Advisory Committee should reflect the skills and
expertise associated with a Human Research Ethics Committee, as detailed in the recent
National Statement on Research Involving Human Beings. As we discovered in seeking to
research this submission, there has been less than adequate consideration of the ethical and
scientific issues from religious, legal, ethical and social perspectives. For example, we affirm
the importance of having these areas of expertise represented, perhaps through a minister of
religion or a similarly qualified person on a human research ethics committee. It seems likely
that other categories of expertise affirmed in the composition of human research ethics
committees would also have similar problems.
We ask the Committee to consider why we would wish to invest resources in various
forms of cloning, given that disease and death will still occur for people and that there
are significant issues associated with who will be able to afford to gain routine access to
the increasing hi-tech technologies associated with cloning. In particular we would point
to the importance of funding less popularised but vital primary health care measures.
Such measures, from clean drinking water to addressing social and spiritual issues
associated with indigenous health, have less of the technological imperative associated
with them. Yet they are likely to provide more benefit to the health of millions of people
around the world than some of the exotic promises of cloning some time in the future.
Likewise there are real issues of unmet need in aged and disability support.
It is quite clear that a lot more research on animals is necessary prior to any form of cloning
on human beings being defensible scientifically, let alone ethically. Current debate in the
media regarding cloning seems to be driven by technologically optimistic futurism, with
many vested interests being prominent in promoting particular forms of cloning technology.
There is no doubt that when we discuss cloning we are talking about the origins and
6
sacredness associated with the human person. This is very properly within the domain of
parliaments and of legislation. Such legislation should affirm the principle of reverence and
respect for the human person as unique, and not to be treated as a means to an end. It is also
worth reflecting that despite the glossy promises of certain forms of genetic and cloning
technology it will not lead to eternal life and that we still have to face the spiritual issues
associated with our common humanness, frailty, mortality and relationship with God. These
are really the questions we all face as individuals and as a community.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Committee recognises the reverence in which the human person and the human
body as constituent parts are held from a variety of religious and secular perspectives, and
adopts social policy and legislation which reflects the sacredness and inviolability of the
human person.
2. That the relevant United Nations declarations and instruments be referred to, which again
recognise diversity but also the inalienable dignity to be accorded to the human person.
3. That the recommendations of the Report of the Australian Health Ethics Committee on
“Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Considerations relevant to Cloning of Human Beings”
be supported but complimented with suggestions made elsewhere in this submission.
4. That the significant issues associated with privately funded operators/bodies who are not
in receipt of NHMRC funding and required to be in adherence with Guidelines from this
body be addressed.
5. That legislation regarding cloning should seek to serve the common good, and this good
includes the value commitments of the religious traditions in Australia.
6. That the Committee seek to address the importance and challenges of uniform Australian
regulation via legislation.
7. That the cloning of human beings and embryos be prohibited as well as experimentation
with the intent to produce two or more genetically identical individuals, including
development of human embryonal stem cell lines with the aim of producing a clone of
individuals.
8. That the practice of avoiding NHMRC guidelines and relevant state legislation by the
practice of “border-hopping” be addressed.
9. That in its discussion of regulation, the Committee reject the false distinction between socalled therapeutic and reproductive cloning.
10. That in light of the major ethical questions raised by cloning of body parts there should be
a moratorium on the cloning of human body parts and tissues and the use of human
embryonic stem cells, and that this be reviewed in five years following extensive public
discussion.
11. That foetuses and embryos should be treated with reverence. For example, an aborted
foetus is not to be used as a means to an end.
12. That the Committee move beyond the formulation of an Expert Advisory Committee to
assist Human Research Ethics Committees regarding scientific issues in cloning. The
expertise of such an Expert Advisory Committee should reflect the skills and expertise
7
associated with a human research ethics committee as detailed in the recent National
Statement on Research Involving Human Beings.
13. That the Committee give due consideration to issues of resources allocation, considering
issues of distributive justice, and unmet need in many areas including primary health care
and aged and disability support.
14. That the Committee address the spiritual issues associated with cloning identified in this
submission.
The Reverend Dr Bruce N Kaye
1 November 1999