Bill
C-13: Cloning and Bio-ethics
Legislating the field of Assisted Human Reproduction
In the age of “rent a womb” contracts, fertilized egg sales on e-Bay, and Scotland’s world-famous Dolly the cloned sheep, many countries are attempting to legislate assisted human reproductive technologies. The purpose of legislation is not only to ban specific procedures, such as cloning humans, that many people find morally objectionable. It also attempts to regulate what happens at fertility clinics, and to provide ethical guidelines for scientists and researchers who work with genetic material.
The following feature explores the history of Assisted Human Reproduction (AHR) legislation in Canada:
Cloning consists of creating cells, tissues or entire organisms that are genetically identical to the original. Only a century ago, the idea of cloning humans seemed like science fiction. However, in the last half of the twentieth century, scientists have been cloning increasingly more complex forms of life, from tadpoles to mammals. To do so, they remove the nucleus from an egg and replace it with the nucleus from a cell from another organism. Since the resulting embryo has DNA from only one source, its genetic material is identical to that source (the body that supplied the nucleus).
Of all the reproductive and genetic technologies currently in use or being developed, human reproductive cloning is the most controversial. Still, it is only a matter of time before the technology exists to clone human beings. This raises several ethical questions:
While reproductive cloning receives the most publicity, another type is human therapeutic cloning, also called somatic cell nuclear transfer. Human therapeutic cloning uses a type of cell called stem cells. Stem cells have three distinguishing properties that make them valuable to researchers:
Scientists believe stem cell research has enormous potential in the treatment of age-related degenerative diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and congestive heart failure. For example, Parkinson’s disease is caused by the loss of neurons in the brain that produce dopamine. Scientists believe that stem cells taken from a patient could be differentiated to become dopamine-producing cells, which would then be injected into the patient. Stem cells could also be used to test the effectiveness of new drugs.
Many researchers believe that stem cells derived from an embryo – called embryonic stem cells - have more value than adult stem cells. The ethical dilemma lies in the fact that removing the stem cells from the original cell kills the embryo. Opponents of stem cell research believe this type of cloning is just an unethical as human reproductive cloning.
Surrogate motherhood happens when a couple hires a woman to bear the couple’s child. Informal surrogate arrangements have been occurring since ancient times; for example, a woman may agree to bear a child for her infertile sister. However, legislation covering surrogate arrangements was not implemented until the 1980s. Surrogate parenting has several advantages over traditional adoption:
Today, there are two types of surrogacy arrangements. Traditional surrogacy involves artificial insemination. The husband’s sperm is implanted into the surrogate’s womb and she carries the child to term. After the child’s birth, the husband acknowledges paternity and the couple legally adopts the child. Traditional surrogacy is always used in cases where the wife is unable to produce eggs.
Gestational surrogacy uses in vitro fertilization. An egg from the wife is fertilized with the husband’s sperm and implanted into the surrogate’s womb. This technique may be used in situations where the wife can produce eggs but for some reason cannot carry a child to term. While more expensive than traditional surrogacy, many couples prefer it because there is no biological link between the child and the surrogate.
The issue of surrogate motherhood brings up several ethical questions:
Selling sperm and eggs is legal in many countries. Infertile couples routinely pay up several thousand dollars for eggs, while sperm donors can make up to $200 per specimen.
Furthermore, infertile couples can now increase their chances of having babies with supermodel good looks or Mensa IQ’s, simply by picking and choosing between sperm or egg donors. For example, California’s Repository for Germinal Choice only accepts sperm donors with a record of achievement and high IQs (previous donors include three Nobel Prize winners). And there have been several reports of supermodels auctioning their eggs online for up to $50,000.
Most experts agree that children have a right to know any relevant medical information about their biological parents, including sperm donors and surrogate mothers. However, they disagree over whether these children have the right to know the identity of, and possibly meet, their biological parents.
In Canada, efforts to provide a legislative and regulatory framework for assisted human reproductive technologies date back to the late 1980s:
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:
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.
In May 2001, Health Minister Allan Rock presented the House of Common’s Standing Committee on Health with draft legislation on assisted human reproduction. “We want to make sure that reproductive technologies, which offer some women a better chance of having a child, are safe and that Canadians are able to make informed decisions about them," Minister Rock stated. The draft legislation had two overriding objectives:
The Minister asked the committee to report on the legislation by January 2002. On May 9, 2002, Bill C-56, an Act Respecting Assisted Human Reproduction, received first reading in the House of Commons. However, the bill died on the order paper after Parliament was prorogued (WHAT DOES THIS WORD MEAN?). In October 2002, the bill was reintroduced as Bill C-13. The Bill received first and second reading, and was then referred to Committee.
Led by Dr. Paul Szabo, a group of backbench Liberals are actively opposing passage of Bill C-13. Dubbed the “God Squad,” their legislation objections include the fact that it permits therapeutic cloning. Fears that the bill might not pass initially forced the government to withdraw it from the fall House schedule. It finally passed third reading in late October 2003, after the government struck a deal with the NDP to vote for the legislation. Bill C-13 is currently before the Senate.
| Political Party | Yes Votes | No Votes |
| Liberal | 133 | 16 |
| Canadian Alliance | 0 | 55 |
| New Democrat Party | 12 | 0 |
| Progressive Conservative | 4 | 5 |
| Bloq Québécois | 0 | 31 |
| Independant | 1 | 2 |
Total Number of Votes: 258
MP’s Not Voting: 44
Total Votes For: 149
Total Votes Against: 109
(Source: Parliament of Canada Website)
Currently, Canada has no federal legislation governing assisted human reproduction and genetic research using human reproductive materials. Scientists and researchers seeking federal funding follow guidelines set by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); a parliamentary body created in 2000 that is Canada’s primary federal funding agency for medical research. In 2002, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) issued a revised set of guidelines:
Despite the guidelines, groups argue that Canada needs comprehensive human reproductive legislation for several reasons:
Bill C-13 is consistent with the current (2002) guidelines developed by the CIHR, as both were based on extensive consultations between Health Canada, research scientists, and the medical community.
The legislation, an Act Respecting Assisted Human Reproduction, has several overriding goals:Activities prohibited under Bill C-13 include the following:
Performing prohibited activities is an indictable offence, punishable by fines up to $500,000, ten years imprisonment, or both.
The legislation allows certain activities to be carried out under regulated conditions. Controlled activities include the following:
Failure to follow the regulations for controlled activities can lead to fines up to $250,000, five years imprisonment, or both.
Bill C-13 would create the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada (the AHRAC) to oversee all activities related to assisted human reproduction:
The AHRAC’s governing structure is as follows:
Despite the AHRAC’s advisory role, the Health Minister has the power to issue policy directives to the agency, which must be followed. Ultimate responsibility for issues such as designating whether a particular activity should be controlled or prohibited remains with the federal government. Furthermore, the Minister must introduce any proposed changes to these areas in Parliament.
Licensees must provide the AHRAC with basic health reporting information collected from persons undergoing assisted reproductive procedures, persons conceived by means of these techniques, and donors of human reproductive material. This information includes the identity of these individuals, their genetic information, and medical history.
In the case of donors, the information must be kept confidential unless the donor consents to disclose it. There are exceptions, such as if two people believe they are genetically related as a result of an AHR procedure. But in most cases, the donor’s health information and their identity remains confidential. Unless the donor’s written consent is obtained, children born through the use of donated eggs or sperm do not have the right to know their biological parents' identity.
Criticism of Bill C-13 falls into three basic 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:
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.
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.
On November 12, 2003, outgoing Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced he would prorogue Parliament until January 12th. Normally, any legislation that hasn’t passed both Houses when Parliament is prorogued is killed. Under this rule, Bill C-13 would die on the order table, since it had only received second reading in the Senate before Parliament was prorogued.
However, the government can pass a motion resurrecting any piece of
legislation at exactly the same stage it was when Parliament was prorogued. It
is thought that Paul Martin will use this rule to resurrect several pieces of
legislation when Parliament reconvenes in early 2004. Bill C-13 may be one of
these.
The Senate has vowed not to “rubber stamp” any bill resurrected in this
manner, but to seriously consider each piece of legislation. Nonetheless, Bill
C-13 is expected to receive strong support. However, given that it must make it
through the Senate by the next federal election (which is expected to take place
in Spring 2004), Bill C-13 may still not become law.
If the bill dies, political analysts don’t expect the federal government to try again in the near future. It took ten years to pass AHR legislation through the House of Commons. Even then, a government with a comfortable majority needed to seek support from a minority party to pass the bill, due to opposition from its own backbenches. Instead of legislation and a regulatory agency, the field of AHR will continue to be governed by CIHR guidelines – which apply only to publicly funded projects, and can be changed at any time. It is ironic that, in opposing the legislation, religious organizations may only have succeeded in enabling scientists and researchers to perform embryonic and stem cell research in a more loosely regulated environment.