Assisted human reproduction is an area of law that I really need to beef up on when my calendar clears. I think the pro-life movement and others interested in ethical quandaries should be doing some additional thinking and writing on the issue. As noted in yesterday’s Ottawa Citizen:
“There is no ethical framework for assisted reproduction. There is no guidance for practitioners or for the public as to what should or shouldn’t be allowed, and how it should be conducted,” says Dr. Arthur Leader, a physician and co-founder of the Ottawa Fertility Clinic, the only place in Ottawa to offer third-party reproductive assistance services.
If you’re someone who has an expertise in this area and want to chat about it, please drop me a line. It can be done in confidence, if you’d like.
photo credit: Etolane via photopin cc
by 
Isn’t there a (very, very basic) legal framework for assisted reproduction in Canada? I thought Chrétien’s government passed legislation in the mid-to-late 90s that, for example, prevented the selling and buying of eggs and sperm, and prohibited women from being paid to perform as surrogates.
I agree that there needs to be a discussion held around these issues. But, just where would such a discussion take place? Parliament? The mainstream media? The universities? Where are the places that a viewpoint arising out of traditional Judeo-Christianity would be welcome and listened to? Strangely enough, the most vigorous debates and discussions I have ever entered into took place either in private homes, or within churches. However, in modern Canadian society, which our top court has determined to be a secular society, anything arising out of a religious institution is almost immediately dismissed as irrelevant.
As noted in the article, much of the law was struck down by the SCC in the Reference re: AHRA. This is another area of public policy where there is large legislative void.
Raising awareness of the issue is a start. I have a student doing some research and he wrote me a quick note commenting that looking into some Canadian practices was like reading about science fiction. There is a lot of stuff happening domestically and internationally that most people don’t know about.
I’m reminded of this scene from A Man For All Seasons:
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
You know, I’ve often wondered why Parliament is so unwilling to tackle the hard issues, but I think that what happened wih the AHRA is quite instructive. Our legislative bodies worked for FIFTEEN YEARS to arrive at a consensus about what was and was not acceptable regarding assisted reproduction, and then five people threw that consensus in the garbage.
What is the point of working together to create rules for us all to live by if there are a few people in positions of high power that have the ultimate say? It is really starting to become every man for himself in this country.
My research project for my MA was focused on sperm, ova and embryo donation in Canada. The most frustrating part about the government’s stance (or lack thereof) is that the Asisted Human Reproduction Act (1994) very clearly states: “the health and well-being of children born through the application of assisted human reproductive technologies must be given priority in all decisions respecting their use” – a principle that Canada has largely ignored.
A very interesting case (that the Supreme Court refused to hear) was presented by Olivia Pratten, a young women conceived with donor sperm who fought for the rights of donor offspring. It may be helpful to look up her case.
*sorry the AHRA was 2004, not 1994
Mary, why on earth would Olivia Pratten take on the whole legal system? Why wouldn’t she simply go after the doctor who destroyed her records, and do what she could to financially destroy his practice? Seems to me a civil lawsuit would be a better way to go here. If we end up seeing a whole pile of donor-conceived people who are angry about the circumstances in which hey were conceived start going after the doctors who helped conceive them, maybe the Canadian Medical Association will start to take notice and put some regulations in place over what is and what is not acceptable.
Hi Melissa, I’m really not sure why Olivia Pratten’s legal team went the direction that they did. I always assumed it was because the doctor did not destroy HER records – she was not created at the time the records were made, so they cannot be hers. However, I could be wrong about that. There is a coalition of donor conceived adults who work with Ms. Pratten, their website is here: http://www.canadiandonoroffspring.ca/index.html
I must confess, I’m a philosopher not lawyer. I can tell you that what the government is doing is unjust, but I know very little about getting them to amend this injustice. Several European governments have banned anonymous donation, but it seems we are a long way from that here in Canada. I wrote an article on this subject for the January 2011 edition of Science et Esprit, but unfotunately it is not available online.