 |
 |
The Globe & Mail A reproduction law of lengthy gestation UPDATED AT 10:14 AM EDT Friday, Apr. 18, 2003 The gestation period has been far too long, but the House of Commons is finally preparing to give birth to important legislation on the business and science of making babies. When MPs return from their Easter break, they are expected to pass the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. It has been a decade in the making, 14 years if you include the four years that a royal commission spent researching a rapidly evolving field before recommending in 1993 that the federal government swiftly pass a strong law. The Liberal government's first response was particularly weak. In 1995, health minister Diane Marleau enacted a voluntary moratorium on nine practices, including selling human eggs and embryos. It couldn't be enforced, and even prestigious medical institutions didn't comply. The next attempt was better, but still fell short. In 1996, health minister David Dingwall introduced legislation prohibiting 13 practices, including paying a woman to be a surrogate mother. It died on the order paper when an election was called in 1997. The next health minister, Allan Rock, began working on more ambitious legislation that would not only ban practices such as human cloning and selling eggs, but would attempt for the first time to offer some protection to consumers. Fertility clinics are now largely unregulated and difficult to assess. Clinics refuse to release data on their success rates for in vitro fertilization and other procedures to help women get pregnant. Mr. Rock was working on a licensing and regulatory package when he was shuffled to Industry Canada. He handed a draft bill over to Anne McLellan, who last spring finally introduced legislation that will create a $10-million-a-year regulatory agency to license and monitor anyone who manipulates human reproductive materials to make embryos, and who obtains, stores, exports or imports sperm, eggs and in vitro embryos. Ms. McLellan is known for moving warily on controversial issues, for trying to find middle ground. One of the weaknesses of the bill is the unnecessary compromise it strikes on embryo research. It bans the creation of embryos for experiments, but allows researchers to use leftover embryos created at fertility clinics. This won't satisfy those who argue that an embryo is a human being and should never be the subject of experiments. More importantly, though, it limits the work of researchers investigating the promise of stem cells. Stem cells are the blank slates of the human body. They can become any kind of cell. One day, researchers believe they may be used to grow new kidneys or hearts for transplant and to treat Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes and spinal injuries. But stem cells are controversial because they are found in the greatest quantities in embryos. Great Britain has allowed researchers to create embryos specifically for stem cell research. Canada should do the same, rather than forcing researchers to line up for the very few embryos that fertility clinics don't use. There is another potential problem with the bill. It will prohibit payments to egg and sperm donors, a move sperm banks say could drastically reduce the supply of semen. Ms. McLellan says she will review the payment ban after three years. Advocates of infertile couples point out that three years is a long time for a woman who is 38 or 40 and may have a limited time to get pregnant. Still, the legislation is a significant improvement over the current vacuum. It is expected to clear the Commons easily when MPs return the week of April 28, although a dozen Liberal MPs may oppose it on moral grounds. Then it is on to the Senate, where it is expected to pass. Once it becomes law, it could make a positive difference in the lives of thousands of Canadians who can't produce children without medical assistance. They spend huge sums of money and endure invasive procedures, and they deserve some protection. SOURCE: The Globe & Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPPrint/LAC/2003041 8/EPROD/TPHealth/ NOTE: Bill C-13 will also ban and indeed "criminalize" all forms of Therapeutic Cloning". Are we going to collectively sit on our hands while this takes place? Are we relying on the Senate to correct this? - murray * * * Murray Charters <[log in to unmask]> Parkinson's Resources on the WWWeb http://www.geocities.com/murraycharters/ Therapeutic Cloning http://www.therapeuticcloning.ca/ * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn