 |
 |
Embryos and the law Thursday, October 30, 2003 - Page A22 The problem with the bill on assisted human reproduction adopted Tuesday by the Commons is not that it goes too far. It is that it does not go far enough. Its provision to create an agency to let researchers experiment on surplus embryos from fertility clinics ran into heavy opposition from a minority of Liberals and from Canadian Alliance MPs, who felt it morally wrong to use human embryos in this way. (The Bloc Québécois opposed the bill because, quelle surprise, it felt the federal agency would intrude on Quebec's jurisdiction.) The irony is that the federal Medical Research Council issued guidelines in 1987 permitting experiments on those embryos (as long as they were not kept alive past 14 days from conception) and that the bill would place new limits on that activity. So, if the bill dies on the order paper because of delays by the critics, the critics will actually have made it easier to experiment on the embryos. No, the real trouble with the bill is that it blocks a potentially crucial avenue of medical research that might alleviate the suffering of a great many people with degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. That avenue is somatic cell nuclear transfer, also known as human therapeutic cloning (to distinguish it from the reproductive kind that could theoretically lead to living human clones, and should be outlawed). It involves replacing the nucleus of a fertilized human egg with a donor's DNA, encouraging the resulting embryo to divide into at least 100 cells, and then removing the stem cells, a process that kills the embryo. Stem cells are building blocks with the potential to become any cell in the body: blood, bone, skin, the lot. The hope is that one day patients, having donated their DNA, would be treated with stem cells their bodies would be less likely to reject. It is not the only avenue of hope. There is a chance that adult stem cells, which can be extracted from the patient's own body, might make the embryonic process unnecessary. But it is as yet unclear whether the adult cells are up to the task. Certainly the creation and quick destruction of early human cells raises moral questions, which must be weighed against the good that could come of this research. For one thing, it would be essential to enforce the 1987 rule that no embryo could be allowed to survive past 14 days. Before that point, it has not begun to develop even a rudimentary nervous system. Given that protection, we would argue that human therapeutic cloning should be explicitly permitted in law, as it has been in Britain. The bill that was passed by the Commons yesterday -- which has yet to receive Senate approval, and will probably go into suspended animation when Jean Chrétien prorogues Parliament -- contains much that is admirable, including a long overdue move to regulate fertility clinics in this country. But it can't be accused of going too far on embryonic stem- cell research. It stops at the first hurdle. SOURCE: The Globe and Mail http://tinyurl.com/terr * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn