Public forum on Stem Cells in Brisbane on Monday night

A reminder for anyone in or near Brisbane tomorrow night (Monday) who is interested in the stem cell issue – there is a public forum being held at the University of Queensland’s St Lucia campus from 6.30pm to 9pm. There are three expert scientific speakers, including the current Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Frazer, and they will each bring different perspectives to the issue.

The forum has been organised by the Queensland Democrats and I’ll be chairing it. I’m aiming for the event to provide a chance for people to get their questions answered and explore the details, rather than be convinced of a particular position. Click on this link for the full details, (including a map).

I must say that so far I haven’t received anywhere near as much public interest on this issue as I’d expected, and I’ll be interested to see how many people take the chance to come along to the forum.

The Senate will be voting on this legislation by 10th November, so make sure you let me know of any views you have before then.

The full list of speakers are:

Prof Ian Frazer – Australian of the Year, Founder & Director of the UQ Centre for Immunology and Cancer Research

Prof Derek Morgan – Professor of Health Law & Biomedical Innovation at QUT

Dr Peter Silburn – Consultant Neurologist in cellular research, member of the NHMRC Gene & Related Therapies Research Advisory Panel

The venue is:
Room 388, Goddard Building (off the Great Court)
University of Queensland, St Lucia Campus

Starts at 6.30pm – Monday 25th September

Like & share:


  1. I have avoided this issue because I don’t understand it.

    I know the anti abortion mob are against it. I know superman and Michael J. Fox are for it.

    Tony Abbott is against it and for that, and no other reason, I am for it. But the truth is I do not understand the issues and I suspect I am not alone in that.

    I just had a quick look at your stem cells category on the right and it deals with the political machinations of the issues but not a clear picture of the issue itself. Is it possible to give a simplistic description of the issues for dummies like me? is there allready a link to such a thing?

    or is it simply a matter of medical research vs. the right to life? is it as basic as that? why is cloning an issue?

  2. It’s probably best to read the executive summary of the Lockhart Review if you want the details of the specific issues. It’s not overly long.

    In short, most anti-abortionists oppose embryonic stem cell research because it involves the destruction of embryos (at an extremely early stage – literally imcroscopic). However, it is already legal to do this, and has been since 2002.

    But, currently it is only legal to do this for embroys that are left over from IVF treatment (i.e. the ones that were not implanted in a woman).

    What the new legislation proposes is that embryos also be allowed to be created solely for research and using other techniques.

    The contentious technique is one called SCNT – also known somewhat misleadingly as therapuetic cloning. Read this piece for a short outline of what that involves.

    There a few ethical issues with SCNT, most notably the obtaining of donated eggs, plus ensuring no negative health impacts coming from using stem cells dervied from this particular technique (something I would assume they do in all cases). Beyond that, I’m not sure what the ethical difference is between destroying embroys created through SCNT and destroying surplus embryos from IVF which were created through normal fertilisation.

    There’s some suggestion that IVF embroys are OK because they aren’t deliberately created to be destroyed (unlike SCNT embryos), but that seems a long bow to me, as it is almost inevitable in IVF that this will happen.

    There’s a few other furphies being thrown around about human-animal hybrids being created and roaming the streets, but they’re basically either scare campaigns or major misunderstandings.

  3. I think the ethical difference between destroying embryos created through SCNT and destroying normal IVF embryos lies in the fact that IVF embryos belong to a couple.

    I wouldn’t agree that IVF embryos are deliberately created to be destroyed, or that it is almost inevitable.

    Most of the women on IVF aren’t all that young, and may be lucky to have any spare embryos at all.

    Doctors treating individual women also don’t know how they will respond to treatment initially. Some women will then unexpectedly produce large numbers of eggs for fertilisation.

    It is possible to donate spare embryos to other couples who aren’t able to produce any of their own.

    Some couples use up a lot of embryos without ever having a pregnancy success. Others might have a set of triplets or quads and then not want any more children.

    It’s a roll of the dice. No one really knows how it will go.

    The other consideration is that couples have very great difficulty in obtaining donor eggs as it is. Some women have genetic problems and can’t use their own.

    I don’t think they’re going to appreciate any competition for donor eggs from SCNT, especially when there are almost no children available for adoption, unless they go overseas.

    I’m also wondering if their future access to donor embryos might be compromised if this legislation goes through.

    The Lockhart link has yet to be activated. Thanks.

  4. Also, John, check out a bio on Joseph Mengele for deep background on the utilitarian quest for perfection that actuates this initiative. The question of animal-human hybrids is far from being a furphy. In a few years time, scientists will be telling us it’s absolutely necessary, it will help the crippled walk again – the usual propaganda. Then politicians will hold another Parliamentary inquiry and make fun of Tony Abbott for opposing it.

  5. Link to Lockhart should be fixed now.

    And CL, not content with continuing to push the animal-human hybrid furphy (which is currently illegal and will continue to be illegal under the proposed new laws), goes that extra step further by bringing in a Nazi analogy too.

    Yep, doing research trying to cure diabetes, alzheimers and all those other diseases – all just propaganda for the “utilitarian quest for perfection.”

    I should note that I haven’t decided whether I will vote for all of the new law, or perhaps just parts of it, but I will do so on the basis of reason and facts.

    If someone wants to pursuade me to take a particular position, then using uninformed scare tactics and ludicrous and offensive analogies are likely to hinder rather than help.

  6. I have avoided this issue because I don’t understand it.

    …Tony Abbott is against it and for that, and no other reason, I am for it.

    This is hardly a good reason to be in favour of something you admittedly don’t understand, John.

    Senator, I’m in Adelaide, so obviously I am not someone you particularly need to pay any attention to. However, for what it’s worth, I am opposed to embryonic stemcell research, not stemcell research per se.

    Embryonic stemcell research has been far less successful (possibly not successful at all so far) compared with stem cells from adults.

    Some people seem to be saying that we need to keep up with new science etc. But this is not a good argument if the research is unethical.

    The ethics are what we need to look at and I must say I’m very surprised that so many parliamentarians have done a complete turn around on this issue since 2002, when most or all voted against this research on the basis that it was morally wrong to crate new life, merely for the purpose of experimentation.

    Why has something morally wrong changed to being morally right merely over the passage of four years?

    Even if embryonic research was successful – which it isn’t – there is nothing which can justify the lives of people being enhanced by the deliberate creation and destruction of new human life.

    Sounds pretty utilitarian to me.

    And I’m pretty familiar with CL’s views on things (not all of which I agree with). I don’t think his positions are ever uninformed, lacking in facts or reason.

  7. Thanks Louise – I’m happy to listen to argument from anywhere, despite naturally being partisan to Queenslanders.

    I’ve seen a fair bit of CL’s stuff over time. I won’t go into my assessment here, but on this particular issue, any suggestion that the proposed legislation will allow the creation of human-animal hybrid creatures is simply not correct. To continue to insist on this just because it has good scare value does no credit to his preparedness to make reasoned argument.

    I won’t address every point you raise now, as I’m still considering my views on some matters and I expect I’ll do further posts on the topic later, so just a couple more comments for now:

    I don’t support research for the sake of scientific discovery. That’s why the legislation continues to ban a wide range of activities which are scientifically feasible to attempt but which are felt to be unethical or unwise at present.

    As for the ‘turnaround since 2002’ comment, I’ve seen in a number of places. I voted to ban cloning in 2002, but I don’t see the prospect of allowing SCNT as a ‘turnaround’. From memory (although I stand to be corrected), prior to the 2002 laws, cloning wasn’t actually illegal – it was a legislative void. In any case, the 2002 laws set in place a number of clear prohibitions, plus a regulatory regime to oversee permitted types of research.

    This set the initial benchmark and framework, with a specific requirement to review the law’s operation to see if any refinements were desirable. The Lockhart Review came from that, and the new legislation flows out of that.

    That is quite different (at least in my mind as someone who voted for it) from saying something was morally wrong in 2002 but it’s morally fine now. I didn’t speak to the legislation in the Senate in 2002, so people will just have to take my word for it, but banning a bunch of things in 2002 didn’t mean to me that every bit of it was morally wrong, it meant we shouldn’t do this at this time.

  8. Louise,
    the Abbott comment was a joke, admitting my ignorance of the issue.

    It is hard when democracy involves choosing between spin doctors, but it seems to me that that is the nature of this and many other high tech debates.

    That is why I have not stated a position beyond a disinclination to Abbott.

  9. Andrew:

    I think it is important that you find out how they are going to get sufficient eggs to do this. As I mentioned before, egg donors are mighty hard to get.

    I think we will find that scientists have been working on embryonic stem cell research for years. If they weren’t getting anywhere with it, it would have been abandoned by now.

    They were using blood from human umbilical cords stored in a cord bank at least 15 years ago. I think foetal calf blood was in use even before that.

    In 1991, two of my own eggs were “disposed of” without my consent or knowledge. I was told there were too few spare eggs to fertilise and freeze. While I’m not disputing this at all, it stands to reason that the eggs could have been put to some other use, couldn’t they?

    I have found through personal experience that researchers basically do anything they want behind closed doors.

    Having said this, apart from trying to make a name for themselves, I have found that the research groups I have worked with, along with those I have encountered in a fertility clinic, do their work for the benefit of the patients.

    But I sure would like to know where those eggs are going to come from.

    I have no particular concern about scientists creating human/animal hybrids. I am still trying to think of a reason that anyone would want to do that.

    Whoops, I think I just thought of one.

  10. John, I apologise. I didn’t pick up your irony.

    Senator, thanks for your reply. You said:

    but on this particular issue, any suggestion that the proposed legislation will allow the creation of human-animal hybrid creatures is simply not correct.

    Please, so that I may be properly informed, has the proposed legislation come from Senator Stott-Despoja? (I merely wish to get my facts straight).

    To continue to insist on this just because it has good scare value does no credit to his preparedness to make reasoned argument.

    Because I am pro-life, I am often dismayed at the frequency with which one’s opponents on these issues use the “scare tactics” label.

    Almost any time pro-life people wish to bring forth information which supports our position, but is not popularly accepted or widely known, opponents are quick label the information as “scare tactics.”

    So then, what safeguards are there in this proposed legislation to ensure that hybrid cloning does not eventuate?

    Even more importantly, how do we know that in another four years, politicians won’t introduce new legislation expanding the scope of scientific research to include such things?

    In other words, which version of morality are we using here? Because I have good reason to believe that 21st Century Australia simply has no moral boundaries which are capable of standing up over time.

    When people are so fond of pointing out that “there are no certainties” and ridiculing people who do have believe in some certainty – some absolutes – then, I cannot believe that there is any reason for the bulk of parliamentarians sticking to *any* moral position.

    What is abhorrent today, will be widely accepted tomorrow.

    Can you tell me, then, why it is okay (whether or not it was okay in 2002) to deliberately create tiny human beings for use by others?

    Thanks for your time.

  11. By the way, I’m all for the advance and science and technology, provided it respects all human life.

    I’m really keen to see our scientists lead the world in stem cell research – based on adult stem cells.

    There is nothing reprehensible about this science, and it has apparently been far more effective than embryonic stemcell research.

  12. Louise:

    Research scientists will do anything they want, regardless of legislation.

    Based on my experience with them, they could easily have been working on hybrids for years.

    I am anti-abortion (deliberate murder of a growing foetus), but I’m not completely against scientific technology which might help the sick and disabled.

    I’d like to hear more from C.L. in relation to human/animal hybrids, specifically the purpose for which he/she thinks they might be created.

  13. Just had a look at Kay Patterson’s new embryo cloning bill. The explanatory memorandum says “In summary, a person may apply for a licence to … create hybrid embryos by introducing the nucleus of a human cell into an animal egg, and use of such embryos.” See:
    That’s cloning a human embryo to create the animal human hybrids people are concerned about. No one’s talking about them roaming the streets, but don’t deny the agenda.

  14. Susan, I suggest you take a closer look.

    A reading of pages 2 & 3 of the explanatory memorandum suggests that it is currently legal to create hybrid embryos on the condition that they do not develop beyond 14 days. The new bill seeks to regulate this activity through the NHMRC Licensing Committee, and maintains the prohibition on development beyond 14 days.

    Also see the explanatory notes on Clauses 17 & 18 (p 11), & 23b on p 15-16.

  15. Susan, if you read the Lockhart Review and the reasons behind the recommendation regarding use of animal eggs, you will see that there is no “agenda”. It is quite clear what the rationale is, which is basically to reduce the need for human eggs to use in some aspects of the research. (and some people quite clearly are trying to create the impression that it will allow chimeric creatures to be created) (not that I’m saying you are)

    (I’d also say I haven’t decided whether I support this aspect yet)

    Louise, I am not saying talking about human-animal hybrid creatures being created is ‘scare tactics’ because it is pro-life, I am saying it because it is wrong – and obviously wrong.

    “So then, what safeguards are there in this proposed legislation to ensure that hybrid cloning does not eventuate?”

    The safeguards against a creature being produced is that it is illegal to do so – in the prohibition against both implanting any such embryo, and against such an embryo being allowed to develop beyond 14 days.

    “how do we know that in another four years, politicians won’t introduce new legislation expanding the scope of scientific research to include such things?”

    No one can guarantee the actions of a future Parliament (although I’d be willing to lay a very large bet against it happening). But that’s why community debate is important, as it gives both politicians and scientists a better idea of just what that loosely defined notion of “community standards” might be on the issue. It’s also why informed debate is desirable – standards derived from inaccuarate information are less than ideal.

    “Can you tell me, then, why it is okay (whether or not it was okay in 2002) to deliberately create tiny human beings for use by others?”

    They are not human beings, they are blastocysts consisting of less than 200 cells, still at pre-implanation stage. That does not mean they are nothing ‘special’, but they are not human beings.

  16. Research scientists will do anything they want, regardless of legislation.

    I dare say that’s true, Coral. That doesn’t necessarily mean we shouldn’t legislate about these matters. If scientists are breaking the law, then at least theoretically, they can be prosecuted.

    Senator, I’m afraid I must disagree with you; human life begins at conception. There is no other point at which it “becomes” human.

    No one can guarantee the actions of a future Parliament (although I’d be willing to lay a very large bet against it happening)

    Perhaps we should make that bet then, because I’m willing to wager a large one that it will!

  17. I haven’t read the Lockhart Review, but it does stand to reason that scientists would be looking to use animal eggs as a substitute for human eggs, because they are very much harder to come by. This makes absolute sense to me.

    It might also ensure that there are still human eggs available to women who can’t have their own children for genetic reasons.

    Blastocysts are the beginning of human life, and to say otherwise is completely inaccurate.

    The use of animal eggs in stem cell research ought to allay the concerns of anti-abortionists. This idea gets an absolute tick of approval from me.

    If “sickos” or “weirdos” are doing strange things behind closed doors, no amount of legislation is likely to stop them – although I agree that legislation should be put in place.

  18. Whats wrong with creating hybrids anyway. We created trains to move goods and services, planes for the same erason, hybrid foods will be the only hope for the futre feed needs of the works, particuallry with climate chnages and water challenges.

    A large amount of life saving medication is synthetic, as will be fuels, in the future.

    The options for hybrids to do mans work in the future are limitless.

  19. Just the way of the future, you can’t stop progress or evolution.

    The hybrid may be the common species in a future world. Hybrids may not need as much water to survive.

  20. Feral Abacus should check the legislation – creating human animal hybrid embryos is illegal, whatever the explanatory memorandum “suggests”.

    The Prohibition of Human Cloning Act says:

    20 Offence—creating a chimeric or hybrid embryo
    (1) A person commits an offence if the person intentionally creates a
    chimeric embryo.
    Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.
    (2) A person commits an offence if the person intentionally creates a
    hybrid embryo.
    Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.

    chimeric embryo means:
    (a) a human embryo into which a cell, or any component part of
    a cell, of an animal has been introduced; or
    (b) a thing declared by the regulations to be a chimeric embryo.

    hybrid embryo means:
    (a) an embryo created by the fertilisation of a human egg by
    animal sperm; or
    (b) an embryo created by the fertilisation of an animal egg by
    human sperm; or
    (c) a human egg into which the nucleus of an animal cell has
    been introduced; or
    (d) an animal egg into which the nucleus of a human cell has
    been introduced; or
    (e) a thing declared by the regulations to be a hybrid embryo.

  21. A question for Andrew. If blastocysts are not human beings, what are they? I know philosophers sometimes debate whether a human being has the characteristics to qualify as a person – something I think is quite arbitrary – but I don’t think you could say an embryo with human DNA etc is not a human being.

  22. Here is the absolute and infallible truth of the matter.

    Personally, I see no use in defining human-ness or life by arbitrary lines such as conception, viability or birth. There is no rational argument to say life starts at any of these. Rationally, the hard line Catholic fundamentalist “every sperm is sacred” doctrine is the only one that is consistent. Masturbation (for men) is a missed conception and therefore the same as abortion. I have met such folk, this is not a characature. I don’t know what they say about women masturbating, I guess that must be O.K. as long as they try and get pregnant a.s.a.p. so as not to waste eggs during menstruation.

    This is how I see it. Life is spiritual and eternal (but not rational). We are life long before we are born and remain so long after we die. We are also many other things, essentially subatomic, atomic and molecular substance constantly metamorphasizing. Today we are human, tomorrow we are compost, the day after we are grass, the day after that we are the animal that ate the grass, then we are the animal that ate the animal. Then we get hit by a comet and splatter into outer space where we begin to reform as another planet or a comet’s tail.
    and so on and so forth.

    As to the morality of stem cell research, I can only rely on the bible for direction…..

    Ecclesiastes 3
    1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven:

    2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

    3 a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

  23. Personally I have decided I am against it although I think it is going to happen / is already happening. China and other technologically advanced countries don’t have to have ethical debates. Economically we are all going to be forced to follow or lose out on the huge revenue that will result.

  24. Susan, I stand corrected. As you state, the current Act of 2002 does not permit hybrid embryos.

    Nonetheless, you neglected to mention the proviso – clearly stated in several places in both the memorandum and the Patterson Bill – that any hybrid embryos are not to be permitted to develop beyond the 14 day stage. From the bottom of p 3 of the memorandum (with the original emphases)

    Unless a shorter time is specified, the uses of embryos that may be authorised by a licence may only be authorised for development up to 14 days (excluding any period during which development is suspended). In no circumstances can any embryo be developed, outside the body of a woman, beyond 14 days.

    Which is rather different from the picture you painted in #15.

  25. Is a blastocyst human? Or, in a closely analogous context, is a seed a tree?

    While recognising the potential of a seed to develop into a fully grown plant, I don’t know that many people would answer ‘yes’ to the second question. And this is despite a seed being far more highly developed than a blastocyst – its more akin to an 8- or 9-month old human foetus in terms of being a functioning organism.

    Personally, I have no difficulty in acknowledging that the blasotcyst constitutes the first tentative step of life. And I think in that regard it is due greater care and respect than some inaminate object. But I’m hesitant to see it as human per se.

  26. There is undoubtably life and there is undoubtably doubt. One of the foundations of law is innocence until PROVEN guilty. Human beings in progress do not suit a pragmatic approach …. but they will. may as well cut out all the money that will go to lawyers and committees in the meanwhile.

  27. Fat chance of that of course. It is the gravy train of ‘experts’ and ‘specialists’. A group of which no doubt were paid handsomely for making the cane toad an icon. What’s next guys/girls, aboriginal jokes; obesity, amphetamines?

    This is not off the subject. It is an illustration of democracy in action and agrees totally with JT’s astute comment which bares repeating:

    “It is hard when democracy involves choosing between spin doctors, but it seems to me that that is the nature of this and many other high tech debates.”

  28. Human consciousness, is created by connections between the thalamus and the cerebral cortex inside the baby’s brain.

    “These connections are not usually apparent until the 23rd week of pregnancy and may not begin to be made until the 30th week (JAMA)

    There is no pain without consciousness and if you don’t have consciousness, you do not know existence.

    A blastocyte is so far removed from a 25-30 week foetus, it would be laughable to suggest that a baby or viable human being will be killed in the process of SCNT.

    I note also that those proponents of SCNT, do not have the same moral objection to IVF, which if they did, would at least be consistent with their arguments.

  29. Deborah, your opinion together with those on committees to oversee Australia’s technological edge in the world will prevail.

    People are innately selfish and would happily sacrifice blastocytes for a chance to extend their existence.

    Probably going too far, but the analogy between this and capital rich parents sending their children to war (but never themselves) has slight relevance. There are certain undeveloped consciousnesses that make them pliable cannon fodder.

  30. Deborah:

    A proponent is someone for something, not against it. Therefore your comment:

    “I note also that those proponents of SCNT, do not have the same moral objection to IVF, which if they did, would at least be consistent with their arguments,”

    does not make any sense. I guess you must have meant “opponents”.

    There are significant differences between IVF and SCNT. The aim of IVF is to create embryos to help couples have children. With SCNT, the embryos are created and altered for medical use, and then destroyed.

    There is no disputing that a blastocyst is the beginning of human life (as opposed to animal life or plant life). It is a growing organism, not a dead inanimate object. If it continues to grow, it will become a human baby.

  31. Senator,

    With respect, I find it difficult to believe that you haven’t made up your mind on this issue yet. The Democrats have convincingly displayed that they will examine each case solely on its merits, except when it comes to the ‘life’ issues where a libertarian ideology kicks in. It happened with RU486, it will happen with embryonic stem cell research. I’d like to see one Democrat prove me wrong.

    More specifically on this issue, I think it’s worth noting that the Lockhart committee report that every pro-cloning MP refers to based its decision in part on Prof Hwang’s faked research in South Korea. At the time the Lockhart committee reported, this research was widely believed to be true, but has since been shown to be a total fabrication. Surely that’s got to lead to some significant downweighting of the Lockharte report’s recommendations.


  32. Coral, It doesn’t matter what the reasons and purpose are (both IVF and SCNT are beneficial in my opinion). Leftover embryos are destroyed in IVF and denucleated egg cells are destroyed in SCNT.

    There is no sperm or egg used in SCNT either, so technically, it cannot really be called human fertilization.

    So, to be consistent in your objection – if you can’t bear to have an embryo destroyed because of potentiality, then it logically follows, that you should be raising your objections to all and sundry about IVF.

    If you want to argue potentiality, I think IVF should be worse in your eyes because there is no potential for a baby with SCNT, that is not the purpose of it, it will not be allowed to continue to grow. However, the purpose of IVF embryos, is always intended primarily, for the potential of human life.

    You should even be concerned about the destruction of animals worldwide due to animal husbandry techniques. After all, humans are just primates.

    Can’t have it both ways.

  33. TB – you can believe what you want. I don’t know how you define ‘life’ issues, but it is a bit hard for me to any more open than I already am on this.

    As to the fraudulent research in South Korea, that shows again the propensity of some scientists in a very competitive environment to cheat to get ahead. I’m not sure how it affects the current argument about possible legislative changes though. If you were going to prevent all research that hasn’t yet shown categorical gains, you wouldn’t get much research done.

    The issue is whether or not such research should be allowed. It will be up to the competitive research environment to determine whether or not funding is made available. People will always try to cheat to get funding, but broadly speaking governments or industry aren’t to fund research unless there’s at least some prospect of it leading somewhere – certainly not in Australia.

  34. Andrew:

    I agree with what you are saying, based on personal experience in a workplace with several researchers working in different disciplines. The competition for personal acclaim and research funding is incredible, and has been for decades.

    Scientists can’t get a single buck unless they have something very worthwhile in the pipeline. I think we will probably find that “categorical gains” have already been demonstrated.


    I’m not trying to “have it both ways”. When people have argued over what a blastocyst is, for example, I have tried to give a scientific explanation.

    I have also tried to clarify some differences between SCNT and IVF, as far as I am capable, for the benefit of anyone interested.

    I agree that both IVF and SCNT may be beneficial.

    I don’t see my own species as “only primates”, nor do I agree with black-and-white thinkers from either the pro-abortion or anti-abortion lobbies.

    I have also never been in favour of cruelty to animals.

    I think some people need to think a bit more about what others are saying, instead of taking a narrow reactionary stance, making assumptions, jumping to conclusions or telling others what should be of concern.


  36. Justine

    It’s hard to give a simple answer to that question, but basically it may be possible to use your own cells to grow some body parts. People can already do that through skin grafts, and adult stem cells have shown some potential for this in some areas. The theory behind SCNT is aimed at the same thing, with a possibility that it will be more flexible than adult cells – although it may be that SCNT and other embryonic stem cell research just increases knowledge about how to get cells to do what we want, and once we know that, it may then be possible to use adult stem cells.

    In most respects this sort of treatment is decades away, but in a few specific areas it may be closer.

  37. Justine:

    If you are asking about fallopian tubes, I suggest you contact the Queensland Fertility Group in Brisbane.

Comments are closed.