Canada needs ruling on technologically assisted reproduction
OTTAWA, ON—The most fundamental human right is the right to come from natural human origins, says Margaret Somerville, founding director of McGill's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.
Somerville defines "natural human origins" as a natural ovum from one identified, living, adult woman and a natural sperm from one identified, living, adult man.
This fundamental human right that Somerville describes is not protected in Canada.
Reproductive technologies make it possible to involve up to five or more people in the parenting equation. Theoretically, an embryo could be created using the reproductive material from two men and two women, carried by a surrogate mother, and then raised by other "parents."
A year ago, in a 4-4-1 split decision, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down sections of a federal law that regulated reproductive technologies. The court partially accepted the argument of the government of Quebec that many sections in the federal law fell under provincial rather than federal jurisdiction and therefore certain practices could not be regulated at a national level. Left in a regulatory void are the creation and destruction of human embryos, human and animal genetic combinations, and the collection of information on sperm and egg donors.
"Rather than maintaining a strong national standard for reproductive and genetic technology practices across the country, the court struck down many of the provisions, leaving the provinces to determine whether they wanted to draft legislation to fill in the gaps or not," says Faye Sonier, Legal Counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, explaining her disappointment with the decision. "Some provinces have decided to regulate these areas, such as Quebec, some, like Alberta, have adopted a "wait and see" approach, and others made clear that they have no intention of wading into these complex and sometimes murky waters."
These issues are complex, but have profound implications for Canadian society.
"Every generation faces unique moral issues," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote in the Supreme Court of Canada decision. "And historically, every generation has turned to the criminal law to address them. Among the most important moral issues faced by this generation are questions arising from technologically assisted reproduction—the artificial creation of human life."
The artificial creation and destruction of human life, conceptions of family and identity are all part of the discussion of reproductive technology. Somerville urges careful thought on these issues because they reflect our fundamental societal values.
"The transmission of human life other than naturally that technology allows is one of the most profound changes. It means that we are able to change the essence of human life. Whether we allow this is not just a discretionary medical decision, it's one of social and public policy and will establish and reflect what are our shared societal values."
Sonier points out the current legal vacuum and encourages Canadians to become engaged. "As pro-lifers, we believe that life starts at conception and it is shocking to discover that embryo research and destruction has been left in a state of legal uncertainty. These are lives we're talking about. Lives we're going to experiment with in labs. And human-animal genome experimentation? Canadians need to know how the court ruled and urge the government to act. Otherwise, we're left with a checkerboard of provincial regulation, where some provinces regulate and others do not."
As Somerville notes, "We must hold the future on trust for coming generations. We are responsible for the future values, attitudes and beliefs that we hand on to future generations, not just the physical environment we leave for them."
Dear Readers:
ChristianWeek relies on your generous support. please take a minute and donate to help give voice to stories that inform, encourage and inspire.
Donations of $20 or more will receive a charitable receipt.Thank you, from Christianweek.
