2006
2006.1. Human Rights Charter for Victoria [2]
Submitted 20 January 2006 to the Human Rights Consultative Committee, Department of Justice, Victoria.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Feb. 2006: 4.
The Human Rights Consultative Committee asked the HSV to comment on their report to the Victorian Government. We made the following points in response:
* We find the report an impressive and informative document.
* Victorian Humanists are pleased by the inclusion of responsibilities in the Charter as we always supported a nexus between rights and responsibilities.
* We support most of the recommendations made and comment on some.
* Breaches of compliance with the Charter should incur a specified penalty.
* Old statutes as well as new legislation should be examined for compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
* We express our disappointment that the vital economic, social, and cultural rights will not be included in this Charter at present and hope that at the review of this Bill in four years these essential rights will be included.
[See also 2005.8]
––––––––––
2006.3. Use of Drug RU486
Submitted 20 January 2006 to federal Members of Parliament (by e-mail) before a conscience vote.
Published: Victorian Humanist, March 2006: 4.
Victorian Humanists support the medically supervised use of the drug RU486 [mifepristone] as an abortifacient for the following reasons:
* Women have a fundamental right to decide and make choices about their bodies.
* Every child should be a wanted child.
* Evidence shows that around 50 per cent of women seeking an abortion would prefer a chemical option to surgery.
* Medical bodies (W.H.O., A.M.A., Australian & NZ College of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Public Health Association of Australia) regard the use of RU486 as less likely to result in serious complications than abortion by surgical procedure.
* The continued use for several years in 33 countries (e.g. US, most of Europe, Russia, Israel, China) has established a strong case for the safe use of RU486 in Australia.
* It is an anomaly for a minister, with or without medical training, to decide on the safety of a drug, rather than the experts in the T.G.A.
* We deplore the use of political pressure exerted by sectarian bodies, intolerant of the rights of others to make different personal and social choices from the position they advocate so vociferously.
––––––––––
2006.5. Ethical Conduct in Human Research
Submitted 30 March 2006 to the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Published: Victorian Humanist, April 2006: 4.
Invited to comment on a revised National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, we made the following main points:
• The changes incorporated into the new statement meet complexities and current concerns in biotechnology.
• In addition to the basic ethical principles (respect for human beings, research merit and integrity, justice, beneficence) we would like to see more emphasis on other values such as altruism and social goals which are being eroded in the current climate of individualism and materialism.
• Collected data and specimens should be re-identifiable [sic: de- identifiable?] in the interest of increasing knowledge.
• Compliance with requests for anonymity or time embargo should be mandatory.
• We suggest that foetal tissue be included in the chapter on human tissues. Its use for transplantation or research falls into the category of organ donation.
• Inherent difficulties of research involving children are dealt with sensitively.
• We strongly support a national register for Advance Directives. The existing Organ Donor Register should be augmented to contain directives regarding medical treatment, artificial life supports in hopeless conditions and preference for burial or cremation. Directives of competent adults or their agents with power of attorney should be acted upon out of respect for a person’s autonomy and to prevent non-compliance by family members.
• Ethics Committees should have at least one member with a background of applied secular ethics to balance possible religious bias of other members.
[See also 2005:5]
––––––––––
2006.6. Ethics in Organ and Tissue Donation after Death
Submitted 18 April 2006 to the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Published: Victorian Humanist, May 2006: 4.
On Ethical Guidelines in Organ and Tissue Donations after Death we made the following points on the Consultation Draft:
• Humanists everywhere strongly support the altruistic act of organ donation.
• HSV commends the current review of ethics involved in this issue and hopes that the changes to the Australian Organ Donor Register will result in higher rates of donations here.
• We suggest that the Donor Register be updated periodically to note any changes in donors’ consent and in their health status as a safe organ donor.
• We support the proposed mutual consent register to deal with the sensitivities of contact between donor families and transplant recipients.
• This very complex but vital health service requires adequate funding, which is lacking at present. We see such funding as cost-effective in the long term.
• The needs of grieving family members are well considered and provided for.
• We strongly support the ethical guidelines underpinning the allocation process, which must be just, free from bias or discrimination on any but medical grounds.
• We state our firm belief that a person’s autonomy and clearly stated expression of altruism and responsibility should be respected at all times. Thus we cannot agree with a recommendation allowing family objection to donation to prevail over the known intention of the potential donor.
• To alleviate the distress felt by family members unable to accept the decision of the donor, we suggest a brochure on the relevant aspects of this problem, issued to the donor to aid in family discussion on the need to respect one’s wishes and autonomy.
––––––––––
2006.7. Equity in Access to Education
Submitted 2006 to the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, July 2006: 4.
To the Federal Minister of Education, the Hon. Julie Bishop, we made the following main points:
• We are concerned about the growing erosion of educational equality.
• Access to education is vital now when knowledge and expertise form the basis of national and personal prosperity.
• We urge increased public funding for all levels of schooling and regard this as a cost-effective investment in the nation’s human resources.
• When left to market forces, society and education lose much of its human potential.
• The very high cost of tertiary education — prohibitive for many — creates a divide between the educational haves and have-nots, leading to an upstairs-downstairs society. Egalitarianism, an attractive Australian value, is thus violated.
• Globally there is an increasing trend to invest in education. This is not evident in Australia. Our schools and universities have to rely on fund raising.
• Decreasing funding and legislation shift the cost of education on to our students, who already meet a greater share of cost of their studies than students in other countries.
• Discounts on up-front payments favour the more affluent; this discrimination should be removed by granting Austudy payments to those who find the fees beyond their means.
• Public funding is needed to protect universities from commercial pressures, which erode the pursuit of excellence.
There is a widening disparity in the provision of resources in our secondary education system, evident in the two-tiered private-public school divide. Thus it is difficult for government school students to gain admission to universities, while the resource-rich private schools produce a much higher proportion of such students. Clearly parental wealth and not academic merit is the determinant here.
We oppose the notion of élite schools. It is important that society’s future leaders, be they judges, public servants, educators, scientists, artists or medicos should come from all social levels, not only the privileged. It is beneficial for such future leaders to have interaction and experience with a wide cross-section of the community.
––––––––––
2006.9. Stem Cell Research
Submitted 1 October 2006 to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Oct. 2006: 4.
In response to an invitation to comment on the Lockhart Review of stem cell research, we made the following main points to the Senate Community Affairs Committee:
• We support all recommendations of the Lockhart Committee and are impressed by the quality of their deliberations.
• Humanists believe that the ethical problems arising from modern biotechnology should be resolved on the basis of secular morality where the benefits of sentient beings are paramount.
• There is a moral and societal obligation to use research that has the potential to ease suffering.
• We strongly support the present ban on reproductive cloning of humans.
• We strongly support therapeutic cloning for its ability to provide multipotent stem cells genetically compatible with the recipient. This avoids the serious problem of organ or tissue rejection.
• We are encouraged in our attitude by the significant and widespread support for this research: AMA, Australian Academy of Science, (+ a list of 12 countries where it is legally carried out.)
• A strict regulatory system to license and monitor this research is crucial in this area.
• Our restrictive laws in this research have already caused a steady loss of Australian experts in stem cells to centres overseas.
• On the moral status of an embryo: in our view only an implanted, visible embryo has moral status. We point out a marked difference between an embryo created by the fusion of a sperm and an ovum and one that arises from a somatic cell nuclear transfer (as in therapeutic cloning). The latter is a single adult cell without the prospect of implantation and should have the status of that cell. An adult cell is not a moral agent.
• We find it difficult to reconcile the notion held by some of our legislators that [an] “embryo” arising from a single adult cell has a moral status and the right to the rule of sanctity of life, and the fact that our laws require the destruction of unused embryos in fertility programs.
• We are concerned about the gross misinformation about this research spread by its opponents, and we suggest a widespread public education campaign on this subject.
• The informed and carefully substantiated recommendations of the Lockhart Committee should be implemented in national legislation to ensure uniform research practices throughout all States.
––––––––––
2006.10. Chaplains in State Schools
Submitted 2 October 2006 to the Department of Science, Education and Training.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Nov. 2006: 4.
To the Federal Minister for Education we made the following main points re[garding] the proposal to install Christian chaplains in government schools:
• This political initiative violates the separation of State and religion.
• It is based on the stated belief that schools are “anti-religious” and that the Commonwealth must intervene to close the “gaping hole in religious education”. This violates the law by which State schools must provide only secular education.
• The Chaplains are to act as counsellors and crisis managers. While some chaplains may help in the absence of school Welfare Officers, this very important role demands professional impartiality and should be performed by qualified specialists.
• The Council for Christian Education in Schools, which trains chaplains, states: “A school chaplain in a state school operates as a Christian in public ministry on behalf of the Christian Community” and “it is understood that the chaplain represents the body of Christ on earth, the Church.”
• In our multicultural, multifaith society such a chaplain may not gain the necessary trust of students who follow another belief system or are secular.
• The proposal assumes that, (a) teachers in State schools are incapable of imparting ethical values and standards, and (b) that Christianity has a monopoly on proper values. We dispute both assumptions.
• Humanists advocate the teaching of comparative belief systems to engender understanding and tolerance of diversity and to prepare students for a harmonious interaction in our multicultural society. (We quoted a similar view expressed by the Rev. Dr. Bob Fraser – letter to The Age editor.)
• We submit that secular education of morals and ethics should be part of personal and social relationships classes as a core subject. Young people should learn to bear responsibility for their own actions rather than passing it on to a higher authority. They should learn to give meaning to their own life. Universal human values of liberty, equality, tolerance and respect for others should be taught along with personal and social obligations. Clear critical thinking should be encouraged and practiced in discussions.
This important subject should be taught by a specially trained and independent teacher and be free from sectarian dogma.
––––––––––
[End 2006]
