|
|
 |
|
Feature: |
| |
| You are here:
Home > Features > Bill
C-13: Cloning and Bio-Ethics |
The Politics of Genetic and Reproductive Technologies
Canada’s efforts to legislate the AHR field date back to the late
1980s
In Canada, efforts to provide a legislative and regulatory framework for assisted human
reproductive technologies date back to the late 1980s:
- In 1989, the government set up the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies.
- In 1993, the Royal Commission released its report, “Proceed with Care,” criticizing
the state of reproductive technology in Canada. The report noted that some commercial
clinics were allowing parents to choose the sex of their child, and sperm donor clinics
were not always testing donors for diseases such as HIV.
- The report stressed the need for federal legislation to safeguard the interests
and protect the health of all the individuals involved in assisted human reproduction.
- Two important recommendations involved banning research in several new technologies
and establishing a regulatory agency
The Federal Government’s Response – Bill C-47
In 1995, the federal government imposed a voluntary moratorium on nine controversial
technologies, including the commercialization of eggs and sperm, stem cell research
on human embryos, and human cloning. Groups engaged in these activities wouldn’t receive
federal funding.
In 1996, Based on the Royal Commission’s report, the federal government introduced
Bill C-47, the Human Reproductive and Genetic Technologies Act. The legislation continued
the ban on nine technologies contained in the voluntary moratorium, and added others.
Bill C-47 made it through first reading, but died on the order paper after the Liberals
called a federal election in Spring 1997. Even so, it is not clear that the bill would
have otherwise passed. Stakeholders such as scientists and infertility clinic operators
found several flaws with the legislation:
- It took an overly negative view of reproductive technologies. The bill’s sole purpose
was to prohibit several procedures, not to indicate what should be allowed.
- It didn’t take into account new technologies – such as the ability to detect genetic
diseases at the embryonic stage - that were being developed. Modifying the bill at
a later date to take these new technologies into account would have been extremely
difficult.
- It made no effort to ensure activities that weren’t prohibited were carried out
under specific prescribed conditions.
- It made no effort to distinguish between offenses when assigning penalties.
Dolly the Sheep - A New Era in Genetic Research
In July 1996, Scottish scientists made headlines when they announced that they had
produced the world’s first cloned mammal, a sheep named Dolly. What made Dolly’s birth
significant is that she was cloned with DNA taken from an adult cell. Scientists predicted
that a similar method could soon be used to clone humans. (While receiving less publicity
at the time, the event also held enormous potential for farmers, since the possibility
now existed to clone adult animals whose characteristics - such as level of milk production
- were already known). Since 1996, dairy cows, goats, and pigs have been successfully
cloned.
Following Dolly’s birth, US President Clinton passed legislation banning the use of
federal funding for human cloning experiments. In Canada, Bloq Québécois
(BQ) MP Pauline Picard introduced a private member’s bill (Bill C-247) in 1999, criminalizing
all cloning of human embryos. Although the bill’s overriding intent was to prevent human
reproductive cloning, it would have also criminalized therapeutic cloning and genetic
manipulation of human cells.
Bill C-247 failed to get past first reading. The House of Commons Standing Committee
on Health decided more comprehensive legislation was required, and withdrew the bill.
Meanwhile, the government entered into discussions with the medical community to develop
legislation that would prohibit certain procedures, while remaining flexible enough
to assess newly developing technologies as they became available. The government also
wanted to establish a regulatory agency to monitor and enforce the Act.
|
