|
|
 |
|
Feature: |
| |
| You are here:
Home > Features > Bill
C-13: Cloning and Bio-Ethics |
Reaction to Bill C-13
Both religious organizations and the medical research community
criticize the legislation’s “middle ground” approach
Criticism of Bill C-13 falls into three basic categories:
- Disagreement over whether the legislation should include both controlled and prohibited
categories
- Disagreement over whether a specific activity should be placed in the controlled
or prohibited category
- Disagreement with specific wording in the legislation
Prohibited and Controlled Categories
In the area of reproductive research, critics of the legislation are split between
those who believe it goes too far in permitting reproductive research, and those who
believe it doesn’t go far enough.
Some scientists do not believe any activities should be prohibited outright. Instead,
all activities should be classified as controlled and subject to regulation.
In particular, they object to the ban on all types of cloning. To maximize the benefits
of research into degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer's, scientists
want to create embryos cloned from a patient’s own cells. For example, in the near future
it may be possible to treat diabetes by taking undifferentiated stem cells and coaxing
them into becoming insulin-producing pancreatic cells, which would then be injected
into the diabetic patient.
This treatment has the greatest chance of success if the stem cells are created from
an embryo cloned from the patient’s own skin or bone marrow cells. Using stem cells
created from surplus fertility clinic embryos – instead of the diabetic’s own genetic
material - greatly increases the chances of rejection, where the body’s immune system
attacks the transplanted material. Scientists argue this type of cloning should be permitted,
and that an embryo cloned for research purposes should not be considered to have the
same rights as an embryo created by fertilizing an egg with sperm.
On the other hand, religious organizations and groups such as the Campaign Life Coalition
believe that more activities should be prohibited. They believe there should not be
any research on in vitro embryos, even surplus embryos from fertility clinics. Their
reasons include the following:
- Performing research on a human embryo is treating it as a commodity
- Therapeutic cloning is just as unethical as reproductive cloning, since creating
and removing stem cells from the embryo results in the death of the embryo
- Certain studies indicate that research on adult stem cells (cells not taken from
egg, sperm, zygote and early embryonic cells) could be just as productive as embryonic
stem cell research. Therefore, embryonic stem cell research isn’t necessary.
- Canada’s legislation is more liberal than the United States, where federally funded
scientists cannot create new stem cell lines, but must use stem cells taken from destroyed
embryos
Donor Anonymity
This issue of donor anonymity is very controversial. Groups such as the Adoption Council
of Canada argue that permitting donors of eggs or sperm to remain anonymous is not in
the best interests of children born through AHR procedures. In 2001, the Standing Committee
on Health recommended limiting egg and sperm donations to individuals willing to disclose
their identity (source: the Parliamentary Research Library Website). However, due to
Charter considerations, this recommendation did not make it into the final legislation.
When the legislation (as Bill C-56) came up for third reading in April 2003, a Canadian
Alliance (CA) motion that the legislation be referred back to committee to reconsider
donor anonymity was defeated in a House of Commons vote.
Critics argue that, by permitting donor anonymity, the legislation isn’t following
its stated goal of placing the rights of children born through AHR procedures above
other interests. However, supporters of donor anonymity point out that, in countries
where donors are required to disclose their identity, clinics have had trouble recruiting
gamete (egg and sperm) donors. One example is Sweden, where 1985 legislation giving
children access to the identity of their biological parents resulted in a sharp decline
in sperm donors. In Australia, an infertility clinic recently took out an advertisement
in the University of Calgary student newspaper, offering healthy young men an all expenses
paid two week trip to New South Wales, provided they underwent testing and donated sperm.
The clinic was forced to recruit internationally after New South Wales introduced legislation
ending anonymity for egg and sperm donors.
Compensating Surrogates
The issue of whether and how to compensate surrogate mothers is also controversial.
The Standing Committee on Health’s 2001 report rejected any payment for individuals
involved in AHR procedures, believing it commercializes the process. On the other hand,
donors often have real expenses, such as loss of income for surrogate mothers unable
to work due to the pregnancy. The bill was modified in committee stage to allow donors
and surrogates to be compensated if they could provide a receipt. Nonetheless, critics
of Bill C-13 argue that this will simply drive the process underground. Without compensation,
women will be reluctant to become surrogates, and childless couples will wind up heading
to the United States or searching for surrogates on the Internet.
|
