Stem-cell research: ‘Key principle’ at stake

Sydney
14 July 2002

School defies terrorism

Pope ‘force for freedom and good’

Vinnies reaches out: a new generation

Abuse allegations ‘devastating’

Caritas renews call for help as southern Africa faces food crisis

Jason scores with ‘no sex before marriage’

‘Return to the scapular’ call for feast day

Medjugorje visionary calls off visit

‘Boundless plains’ to share with refugees? - Spirituality in Pub

Health care ‘not a commodity’

Fr Pat goes back to St Pat’s for jubilee Mass

Queensland search for men to teach

St Vincent’s clocks up 1000

IVF baby farming banned - Govt ‘no’ to sale of eggs

Witchcraft move under fire

Editorial: Tangled web

Letters: Catholicism and the Royal Family

Conversation: Never say never - always hope - Larri Hayhurst, nurse educator

Reflections: Justice: what it means to me

Earthcare - a call to ‘expand our vision’

Opinion: Where young and old share the joy!

Comfort zone

Embryos used to find ‘morning after’ pill

Stem-cell research: Warning of embryo use in human tests

Stem-cell research: Legislation provides for ‘destruction of embryos’

Stem-cell research: ‘Key principle’ at stake

Stem-cell research: Risks to egg and sperm

Resurrection and ‘last things’ in Catechism series

Sing? Yes! Sing-along syndrome? No!

Inspirations: Joseph, 8, gives up toys for Cebu kids

Stem-cell research: ‘Key principle’ at stake

Catholic Health Australia’s chief executive officer, Francis Sullivan, called for a consistent ethic to be applied to complex issues involving the treatment of human life.

He said that when the Federal Parliament conducted a conscience vote on euthanasia, the key ethical principle at stake was to allow human life to take its natural course as opposed to directly destroying life.

He said the same principles should apply in the ethical treatment of spare IVF embryos, which can be either be allowed to succumb or actively destroyed.

Calling for a consistent approach to human life issues, Mr Sullivan warned that the bill creates a “dangerous legal precedent” which “permits the deliberate destruction of human life”.

“It discriminates against one form of human life over another,” he said. “It opens the door for more inconsistent approaches to the protection of human life and the preservation of human dignity.”