The bill has passed the senate (the hard part) and will pass in the Reps soon.

Maybe Dr David can now go back to curing homosexuals of their disease as he often expouses.

Note to editors of OLO Dr David is much more than a Toowoomba Family Doctor maybe this could be amended.

Big Al -

I couldn't agree more, that the wording of these polls is crucial. I've yet to be convinced in my daily travels that most people are genuinely opposed to SCNT research.

The fact that the results of the poll also changed when certain questions were clarified indicates that additional information was conveyed during the course of the poll.

I don't argue that this is bad, rather, I wonder whether information could have been selectively conveyed. Presenting a reasonable argument is notoriously difficult.

The Morgan poll may well have been flawed, but my point was simply that there are a wide variety of polls out there purporting to represent the majority, but how can you accurately gauge public opinion when so many are misinformed?

Elka - "Were they told that adult stem cells have had many success’s and are already treating diseases that the pro-cloning lobby can only dream about? Probably not."

Dunno. My point is there is many a poll out there. Perhaps the SCNT folk will have more success in the wake of this senate decision. The fact that another branch of stem cell research has had more success is hardly a compelling argument for stifling another.

TurnRightthenLeft - yes, there are many polls. Accurate community opinion means that the wording has to be clear not full of euphemisms. The average person would not understand "SCNT" but they would probably be able to understand the implications of "Cloning."

Either way, human rights should never be removed with an opinion poll.

What's wrong this picture?

Through my website (www.casehealth.com.au) collection of health success stories I've become aware of a treatment that is helping slow disease progression for sufferers of Multiple Sclerosis, ALS, Cancer, HIV, RA, Crohn's and other autoimmune related conditions - and in a high percentage of cases sufferer's have tried all mainstream medical treatments first.

The treatment is based on a old, safe, well-known drug that's approved by the TGA for use at more than 10 times the dose being used successfully in the treatment of a broad spectrum of autoimmune related disorders - however, the drug has not been clinically trialled for these conditions which means doctors are highly reluctant to prescribe the drug for this 'off label' use.

I've disseminated information directly to the Multiple Sclerosis Society (National & Qld), national and state government departments, media, national and state politicians, universities, etc, etc, etc - zero interest, zero response. Who's in charge of this engine room?

Here's a cheap, effective treatment - available right now - working for sufferers right now - could be saving Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and patients big $ right now - but no-one is interested because the evidence is contained in patient anecdotes - and patient anecdotes are not afforded any value - are not officially recognized as evidence - regardless of the number of corroborating anecdotes.

Not surprisingly, it's very difficult for me to believe embryonic stem cell research proponents are genuine in their desire to help Australians suffering with chronic, life threatening, life changing diseases.

Where's the genuine compassion for these sufferers?

If proponents are genuine in their desire to help sufferers of chronic disease, shouldn't they at the very least be curious about the potential for this treatment?

Shouldn't they be researching its possibilities, and perhaps even lobbying for the National Health & Medical Research Council to fund clinical trials?

Instead, proponents are investing an incredible amount of money, time and energy into something that MIGHT provide solutions in 10 years, and zero time and energy into investigating something that's helping sufferers right now.

What's wrong this picture?

At the heart of these issues lies the fundamental question;

At which point in the reproductive process do we become a human?

eg:
1) Before conception (every sperm is sacred)
2) At conception (au naturale or in the lab)
3) The fertilized egg clinging to the womb (until we get artificial wombs).
4) The foetus can feel or think (how do we measure this?)
5) At birth
6) At birth and the baby has prospects of some quality of life (Groningen Protocol)
7) A point in time such as x weeks into the pregnancy.
8) At a religious event, eg when the soul is inserted into the body.

Reaching consensus on this question is unlikely but as laws need to be black and white these topics will remain controversial.

No one really knows where science will take us. For those interested Margaret Atwood's "Oryx and Crake" explores what may happen is we have a bio-boom like the dot com boom. It is a satire so don't take it too seriously.

When I was a child I went "fishing" for tadpoles in the water trough for the cows. With a small net,not much bigger then a tea strainer, I scooped out the tadpoles.

I learnt about the beginnings of life.

I would study the small creatures then toss food scraps in the trough and let them swim free.

Those small delicate creatures had a right to life, just as much then, as they would soon after when they grew to be the most beautiful, nearly emerald green, terrestrials frogs that would make music and song in the drain pipes around our house.