DATE:  December 9, 2002

 

FROM:  Prof. Dr. Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

 5108 Randall Lane

Bethesda, MD  20816-1917

301-229-4176

FAX 301-229-8748

DNIrving@aol.com

Former bench research biochemist (NIH/NCI)

Professor of Philosophy and Medical Ethics

Currently teaching in The School of Philosophy, The Catholic University of America

Washington, D.C., USA]

 

TO:  José Cadorette
Greffier, Comité permanent de la santé
Clerk, Standing Committee on Health
Direction des comités / Committees Directorate
Chambre des communes / House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0A6

cadorj@parl.gc.ca

 

RE:  REQUESTED INDIVIDUAL TESTIMONY ON CANADIAN BILL C-13 ("Assisted Human Reproduction Act")

 

 

Dear Mr. Cadorette:

 

Thank you once again for conveying to me the kind invitation of the Committee on Health, House of Commons, to present an individual testimony on the currently pending Bill C-13 ("Assisted Human Reproduction Act";  formerly Bill C-56).  Although I was unable to travel to Ottawa on such short notice, I am very grateful to the Committee for allowing me to respond via written testimony.  I especially appreciate the opportunity the Committee has afforded me to comment on some of the scientific definitions and elements of informed consent in the Bill that are of special concern to me.

 

As I mentioned to you before, in addition to this individual testimony, I am also sending to you three other documents which contain the extensive scientific and ethics references relating to my testimony:

 

--  Article #1:  D. N. Irving, "When do human beings begin? 'Scientific' myths and scientific facts, Journal

of Sociology and Social Policy, 1999, 19:3/4:22-47.

 

-- Article #2:  D. N. Irving, "Legally valid informed consent: Individual testimony before the New Jersey State Senate Health and Human Services Committee on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Cloning, Ethical and Public Policy Considerations, New Jersey State Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Trenton, New Jersey (November 4, 2002).

 

--  Article #3:  D. N. Irving, "The impact of international bioethics on the 'sanctity of life ethic', and the ability of ObGyn's to practice according to conscience";  presented at the international conference, "The Future of

Obstetrics and Gynaecology:  The Fundamental Human Right to Practice and Be Trained According to

Conscience";   sponsored by the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC), Rome,

Italy, June 18, 2001, Proceedings of the Conference (in press);  also in, Journal:  Canadian Chapter,

Fellowship of Catholic Scholars (Autumn 2002), pp. 7-32.

 

I also appreciate and accept your kind offer to have this testimony, as well as these three documents I am sending by separate e-mail, translated into French and then distributed to all of the members of the Committee for their kind consideration.

 

 

BRIEF SUMMARY OF MY CONCLUSIONS:

copyright December 9, 2002

 

Having reviewed this Bill thoroughly, it is clear to me that it is identical to the former Bill C-56.  I will list here only the major concerns and problems I have with this Bill.  More detailed comments on specific sections of the Bill can be found below.  In short, my immediate concerns with Bill C-13, and several suggestions for changes to the Bill, are included in the following:

 

1.  Rename the Bill:  Because of the scientific and linguistic problems identified below (a partial list only), it is my recommendation that this Bill should not be passed, even with amendments.  In fact, the Bill actually “restricts”, "regulates", or "bans" very few research activities that have been found formally unacceptable by almost all international bodies that have deliberated on these same difficult issues.  Indeed, this Bill would allow most of them to be performed.  Even the title of this Bill should be changed to reflect more accurately the very broad and highly debatable issues which the Bill addresses.  I would respectfully suggest that the title of the Bill should be changed to read:  "Sexual and A-Sexual Human Reproduction and Research Act".

 

2.  Use Only Internationally Approved Scientific Terms and Definitions:  Scientific definitions used in this Bill that are relevant to, e.g., the field of human embryology, should be obtained only from academically credentialed human embryologists and/or established human embryology textbooks, and those terms themselves are professionally required be in concert with the terms approved of by the International Nomina Embryologica Committee.  These are not scientific terms which are subjective, or that scientists or legislators may use arbitrarily.  All scientific terms and definitions which I submit as corrections to many of the erroneous "scientific" terms used in this Bill are taken directly from current and accurate human embryology texts, all of which are 100% in concert with the International Nomina Embryologica Committee.

 

3. No bill is Better Than a Flawed Bill (Stare Decisis):  I would respectfully submit that a word of caution is in order concerning the deliberate use of erroneous and politically correct "science" in legislation.  Aside from the obvious concerns about scientific integrity and reliability of research data, it is well established that once such erroneous "science" becomes embedded into laws or regulations, it ceases to be "science" per se, but becomes simply "stare decisis" instead -- i.e., "legal precedent".  This in turn corrupts the Courts themselves.  The Courts have no legal duty to go back and correct erroneous "science" that has crept into the laws or regulations;  indeed, they have a legal duty to apply such erroneous "science" to all future related cases that come before it.  Thus I do not agree with certain sentiments that "a flawed bill is better than no bill at all", and I think such rationalizations are naive at best.  One would think that it is indeed possible to pass reasonable and intellectually honest laws and regulations without politicizing and thereby jeopardizing the very health and safety of the members of society for generations to come.

 

4.  Legally Valid Informed Consent Is Impossible:  When erroneous science is used in legal definitions, definitions which in turn will be required to be used by all parties involved in these research activities, it is literally impossible for anyone to give legally valid informed consent.  This is true especially for women who are donating their oocytes, embryos, or any other biological materials relevant to the Bill.  The "informed consent" passages in this Bill refer only to procedural issues, and utterly fail to provide to those who are legally required to give their "informed consent" with the most basic, correct and accurate biological facts needed to be truly "informed" before "consenting".  Indeed, many of the "scientific" embryological and genetic facts provided in this Bill are erroneous and very misleading.  This precludes especially women from being both "informed", and therefore able to freely "consent" to the donation of their "biological materials".  It also precludes legislators and other interested parties from partaking in meaningful and legitimate debates and deliberations pertaining to this Bill, thus preempting the democratic process per se.

 

5.  Non-neutral "Ethics" is Presumed:  This Bill also presumes a currently fashionable and very non-neutral, normative school of "ethics", i.e., "bioethics", as the basis for its ethical perspectives and for several of its definitions.  There are many different kinds of ethics, and "bioethics" is only one of them.  "Bioethics" was formally "born" in 1978 in the Belmont Report of the National Commission -- by mandate of the 1974 National Research Act (USA).  This 11-member appointed National Commission identified the three basic ethical principles of "bioethics", i.e., autonomy, justice and beneficence -- and defined those terms in quite unusual ways, to say the least.  Bioethics defines itself as normative, i.e., it takes a stand on what is right or wrong.  That is, it is not neutral.  The question that must then be addressed by this Committee is why any normative non-neutral brand of "ethics" should be used in any regulations or laws in any multicultural, pluralistic, democratic form of government, including that of Canada.

 

6.  Morally Licit Means Must Be Used To Limit Evil:  It is also claimed by some that, regardless of the scientific and other flaws in this Bill, at least it is an attempt to limit some of the "evil", and Evangelium vitae 79 is often cited as authority.  However, Evangelium vitae 58-78 expressly states that not just any "means" may be used to limit "evil", but rather only those "means" that are in accord with and which do not violate the natural law.

 

Because of the erroneous science and linguistic loopholes in this Bill (as detailed below), this Bill would, by default, allow (1) the direct and intentional death and destruction of living innocent human beings, and (2) preclude all concerned from not only providing legally and ethically valid informed consent, but also preclude them from forming their consciences correctly on these issues.  Both of these factors are direct violations of the natural law and thus render this Bill as a morally unacceptable "means" by which to try to limit "evil".

 

7.  By Default, This Bill Would Allow Most Unethical Research Addressed:  Particularly because of the use of contradictory “scientific” definitions, the use of erroneous “scientific” definitions (Section 3), the absence of necessary and relevant accurate scientific definitions, the application of those erroneous “scientific” definitions to both “Prohibited” (Section 5 - 9) and “Controlled” activities (Section 10 – 13), and the various linguistic loopholes which advance these problems and inadequacies, this Bill would in fact allow:

 

1.  In vitro fertilization (IVF)

2.  Almost all forms of human embryo research, including:

(a)  IVF research

(b)  Human embryonic stem cell research

(c)  Both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" cloning of human beings by means of all cloning techniques, including the following cloning techniques:

--  Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)

--  Germ line cell nuclear transfer (GLCNT)

--  “Twinning”, or "embryo multiplication" (e.g., blastomere separation and blastocyst splitting)

--  Mitochondrial transfer

--  Pronuclei  transfer

--  Parthenogenesis

--  Formation of chimeras, mosaics, hybrids

--  Any “demethylation” research involving the production of a human embryo (properly defined)

--  “Cloning through the generations”, i.e., the use of DNA-recombinant gene transfer with pronuclei, germ line cells, gametes, embryos, etc. (eugenics)

--  Prenatal “selection” (eugenics)

 

I would like to thank the Committee once again for allowing me to present a few of my observations and concerns about Bill C-13 for your kind consideration.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Prof. Dr. Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

 

COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC SECTIONS 1-14, CANADIAN BILL C-13:  ASSISTED HUMAN REPRODUCTION ACT

 

http://www.parl.gc.ca/PDF/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-13_1.pdf

 

 

90187

THE MINISTER OF HEALTH

C-13

Second Session, Thirty-seventh Parliament,

51 Elizabeth II, 2002

 

HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA

 

BILL C-13

 

An Act respecting assisted human reproduction

[THIS ACT APPLIES TO FAR MORE THAN JUST “ASSISTED REPRODUCTION”, IN THE SENSE COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD AS CLINICAL IN VITRO FERTILIZATION.  FOR THAT REASON IT IS VERY MISLEADING, ESPECIALLY TO THOSE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE SCIENCE INVOLVED.  THIS ACT ADDRESSES BOTH SEXUAL AND A-SEXUAL (E.G., HUMAN CLONING) IN VITRO HUMAN REPRODUCTION, AS WELL AS PURE EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH -- AND THE TITLE OF THIS BILL OUGHT TO REFLECT ACCURATELY AND HONESTLY THE TRUE CONTENT OF THE BILL.  FOR EXAMPLE, THIS SENTENCE SHOULD READ, "AN ACT RESPECTING SEXUAL AND A-SEXUAL HUMAN REPRODUCTION AND RESEARCH."]

 

First reading, October 9, 2002

 

NOTE

Printed, pursuant to Order made October 7, 2002, in the same

form as Bill C-56 of the First Session of the Thirty-seventh

Parliament, at date of prorogation.

 

RECOMMENDATION

Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of

Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances,

in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled ‘‘An Act

respecting assisted human reproduction’’.   [SHOULD READ, "AN ACT RESPECTING SEXUAL AND A-SEXUAL HUMAN REPRODUCTION AND RESEARCH."]

 

SUMMARY SOMMAIRE

This enactment prohibits assisted reproduction procedures that are

considered to be ethically [DEPENDS ON WHICH “ETHICS” ONE IS USING.]

 unacceptable. Other types of assisted

reproduction procedures are prohibited unless carried out in accordance

with a licence and the regulations, which will address health and

safety concerns. The creation and use of embryos for research purposes

is also addressed. A privacy regime governs the collection, use and

disclosure of health reporting information.

 

The enactment creates the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of

Canada.   [SHOULD READ, " ... THE SEXUAL AND A-SEXUAL HUMAN REPRODUCTION AND RESEARCH AGENCY."]  The Agency will provide advice to the Minister of Health on

the matters governed by the enactment. It will also be responsible for the

issuance and review of licences, the collection and analysis of health

reporting information, inspections and the enforcement of the enactment.

 

The enactment creates offences for contravention of the provisions

of the enactment, the regulations made under it or the terms and

conditions of a licence.

 

 

BILL C-13 PROJET DE LOI C-13

An Act respecting assisted human

reproduction  [SHOULD READ, "AN ACT RESPECTING SEXUAL AND A-SEXUAL HUMAN REPRODUCTION AND RESEARCH."]

 

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and

consent of the Senate and House of Commons

of Canada, enacts as follows:

 

Short title 1. This Act may be cited as the Assisted

Human Reproduction Act. [SHOULD READ, "AN ACT RESPECTING SEXUAL AND A-SEXUAL HUMAN REPRODUCTION AND RESEARCH."]

 

PRINCIPLES PRINCIPES

 

Declaration 2. The Parliament of Canada recognizes

and declares that

 

(a) the benefits [USE OF RISK/BENEFIT ANALYSIS = BIOETHICS UTILITARIANISM] of assisted human reproductive

technologies [SHOULD READ, " ... OF SEXUAL AND A-SEXUAL HUMAN REPRODUCTION] and related research for

individuals and for society in general can be

most effectively secured by taking appropriate

measures for the protection and

(a)    promotion of human  [“HUMAN” MUST INCLUDE THE HUMAN EMBRYO, DEFINED AS BEGINNING TO EXIST FROM PENETRATION OF OOCYTE BY SPERM (SEXUAL REPRODUCTION) OR AS THE IMMEDIATE PRODUCT OF A-SEXUAL REPRODUCTION.

 

--  THE BILL DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SEXUAL REPRODUCTION (E.G., NORMAL IN VIVO AND ARTIFICIAL IN VITRO FERTILIZATION), AND A-SEXUAL REPRODUCTION [E.G., ALL CLONING TECHNIQUES – “TWINNING” OR FISSION (I.E., BLASOMERE SEPARATION AND BLASTOCYST SPLITTING), SOMATIC CELL NUCLEAR TRANSFER (SCNT), GERM LINE NUCLEAR TRANSFER (GLNT), PARTHENOGENESIS, USE OF PRONUCLEI, ALL DE-METHYLATION EXPERIMENTS THAT COULD RESULT IN A VIABLE HUMAN ZYGOTE OR OLDER EMBRYO, DNA-RECOMBINANT GENE RESEARCH OR “THERAPY”, MITOCHONDRIAL CLONING, ETC.

 

--  ALL PROBLEMATIC TERMS IN THE ENGLISH VERSION SHOULD BE CAREFULLY CHECKED IN THE FRENCH VERSION.] health, safety, dignity

and rights in the use of these technologies

and in related research;

 

(b) the health and well-being of children

born [THIS BILL WOULD NOT PROTECT UNBORN CHILDREN]  through the application of these

technologies must be given priority in all

decisions respecting their use;

 

(c) while all persons  [THE DEFINITION OF “PERSON” SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED.  THE WRONG DEFINITION OF “PERSON” COULD NOW OR LATER EXCLUDE ANY AND ALL STAGES OF THE UNBORN HUMAN, YOUNG HUMAN CHILDREN, AND ADULT HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE NOT ACTIVELY EXERCISING “RATIONAL ATTRIBUTES” AND/OR “SENTIENCE”.  IT COULD INCLUDE AS "PERSONS" NON-HUMAN ANIMALS, E.G., APES, DOGS, THE HIGHER PRIMATES, ETC., PACE PETER SINGER ET AL.]  are affected by these

technologies, women more than men are

directly and significantly affected by their

application;

 

(d) the principle of free and informed

consent [ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL RESPONSES TO THIS BILL WOULD BE TO CLEARLY INDICATE HOW WOMEN (AND MEN) ARE PRECLUDED FROM GIVING TRULY LEGALLY VALID “INFORMED AND FREE CONSENT” IF THEY ARE NOT PROVIDED THE ACCURATE SCIENTIFIC FACTS – AND THAT WOULD INLCUDE THE SCIENTIFICALLY ERRONEOUS “DEFINITIONS” USED IN THIS BILL, AS WELL AS THOSE ITEMS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE BILL BUT WERE NOT.]   must be promoted and applied as a

fundamental condition of the use of human

reproductive technologies;

 

(e) trade in the reproductive capacities of

women and men and the exploitation of

children, women and men for commercial

ends raise health and ethical  [ “ETHICS” IS DEFINED IN TERMS OF BIOETHICS PRINCIPLISM (I.E., AUTONOMY, JUSTICE AND BENEFICENCE – EVEN AS THOSE TERMS ARE MIS-DEFINED IN THE BELMONT REPORT!]  concerns that

justify their prohibition; and

 

 (f) human individuality  [MANY “DELAYED PERSONHOOD” ARGUMENTS CLAIM THAT BEFORE “X” BIOLOGICAL MARKER EVENT THERE IS NO HUMAN “INDIVIDUAL” – AND THEREFORE THE HUMAN EMBRYO OR FETUS HAS A “REDUCED MORAL STATUS”, E.G., THE "PRE-EMBRYO" OF McCORMICK, GROBSTEIN, WARNOCK, FORD, ETC.  NONE OF THESE CLAIMS FOR "DELAYED PERSONHOOD" USE CORRECT AND ACCURATE SCIENCE OR ACADEMICALLY DEFENSIBLE "PHILOSOPHY"]  and diversity, and

the integrity of the human genome, must be

preserved and protected.

 

3. The following definitions apply in this

Act.  [--   NOTE:  THERE IS NO DEFINITION FOR A “HUMAN BEING” GIVEN, YET THE TERM IS USED THROUGHOUT THE BILL IN SELECTIVE WAYS.  THIS BILL DOES ERRONEOUSLY DEFINE WHEN A "HUMAN EMBRYO" BEGINS, I.E., AFTER FERTILIZATION.  THIS WOULD THUS ALLOW RESEARCH ON THE EMBRYO BEFORE THE FORMATION OF THE ZYGOTE (DISCUSSED BELOW).

 

--  THERE IS ALSO NO DEFINITION OF THE TECHNIQUE OF “CLONING” THAT THIS BILL IS SUPPOSED TO COVER.  THIS IS A SERIOUS OMMISSION.  THE DEBATES HAVE BEEN FALSELY FRAMED ONLY IN TERMS OF:  (a) A DISTINCTION BETWEEN “THERAPEUTIC” AND “REPRODUCTIVE” CLONING;  AND,  (b) THE USE OF SOMATIC CELL NUCLEAR TRANSFER (SCNT) TECHNIQUE ONLY.

                 (a)  WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE  DISTINCTION BETWEEN “THERAPEUTIC” AND “REPRODUCTIVE” CLONING  IS A FALSE DISTINCTION -- I.E., ONLY A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PURPOSES OR  INTENTIONS OF THE RESEARCHERS WHO ARE PRODUCING THESE EMBRYOS --  THAT IS NOT THE REALLY CRITICAL  ISSUE.

                       (b)  THE REALLY CRITICAL ISSUE IS THAT THERE ARE MANY FORMS OR TECHNIQUES OF CLONING – NOT JUST THE SCNT CLONING TECHNIQUE.  ALL OF THESE CLONING TECHNIQUES COULD PRODUCE  NEW GENETICALLY UNIQUE  LIVING HUMAN BEINGS.   ALL OF THESE CLONING TECHNIQUES  SHOULD BE BANNED AND PROHIBITED.  THAT IS, SCNT IS ONLY ONE “FORM” OR TECHNIQUE OF HUMAN CLONING THAT SHOULD BE BANNED.  IF A BILL DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL THE OTHER FORMS OF CLONING, THEN THE BILL DOES NOT APPLY TO IT.                      

 

--  EXAMPLES OF OTHER FORMS OF CLONING INCLUDE:  NUCLEAR TRANSFER USING DIPLOID PRIMITIVE OR IMMATURE GERM LINE CELLS (CALLED GERM LINE CELL NUCLEAR TRANSFER, OR GLCNT);   “TWINNING” (EMBRYO MULTIPLICATION)  WHICH IS CALLED “FISSION” (E.G., BLASOMERE SEPARATION AND BLASTOCYST SPLITTING – MUCH DESIRED WITHIN THE IVF INDUSTRY;  PARTENOGENSIS;   ANY DE-METHYLATION (DE-DIFFERENTIATION) EXPERIMENTS IN WHICH A NEW HUMAN EMBRYO IS FORMED;  THE LATEST INTEREST IN USING INDIVIDUAL MALE AND/OR FEMALE PRONUCLEI (HUMAN OR NON-HUMAN) TO CLONE;   DNA-RECOMBINANT GERM LINE GENE TRANSFER (AND PERHAPS SOMATIC CELL GENE TRANSFER IF THE GERM LINE CELLS BECOME TRANSFECTED TOO);   AND MITOCHONDRIAL CLONING.  ALL THESE FORMS OR TECHNIQUES OF CLONING SHOULD BE BANNED IF IT INVOLES THE DESTRUCTION OF A LIVING HUMAN EMBRYO, OR IF IT INVOLVES EUGENICS.  NONE OF THESE CLONING TECHNIQUES ARE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THIS BILL, AND THUS THEY WOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED BY IT. ]

 

--  AS DISCUSSED BELOW, IF SCNT IS MISDEFINED IN THIS OR ANY OTHER BILL OR REGULATION, THEN EVEN THE REAL SCNT CLONING TECHNIQUE WOULD NOT BE BANNED OR PROHIBITED.

 

‘‘Agency’’ means the Assisted Human Reproduction

Agency of Canada established by

subsection 21(1).

 

‘‘assisted reproduction procedure’’ means any

controlled activity referred to in section 10 [IF LANGUAGE OF A BILL DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE CERTAIN ITEMS, THEN THOSE ITEMS AND THE ACTIVITIES TO WHICH THEY REFER ARE NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT COVERED BY THE BILL.  SIMILARLY, IF A TERM IS MISDEFINED IN A BILL, THEN THE REAL ACTIVITY AS ACCURATELY DEFINED IS ALSO NOT COVERED. 

 

EXAMPLE:  IF SOMATIC CELL NUCLEAR TRANSFER (SCNT) IS MISDEFINED IN THE BILL AS “PRODUCING AN EXACT GENETIC COPY OF THE DONOR”, THEN THE BILL WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE REAL ACTIVITY OF SOMATIC CELL NUCLEAR TRANSFER.  (THE PRODUCT OF SCNT IS NOT GENETICALLY IDENTIAL BECAUSE IT CONTAINS FOREIGN MITOCHONDRIAL DNA FROM THE ENUCLEATED OOCYTE, AND BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE MITOCHONDRIAL DNA FROM THE DONOR CELL).]

that is performed for the purpose of creating

a human being.  [WHAT IF THERE IS SOME OTHER “PURPOSE”?  IT WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THIS BILL.]

 

‘‘chimera’’ means  [THE DEFINITION USED HERE IS A VERY RESTRICTED DEFINITION OF “CHIMERA”, AND THUS OTHER KINDS OF HUMAN CHIMERA RESEARCH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THIS BILL.

 

--  ALSO, THE BILL DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY DEFINITION OF A “MOSAIC”, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM A “CHIMERA”, THUS MOSAIC RESEARCH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THIS BILL.

 

--  AND THE DEFINITION USED HERE OF A “CHIMERA” DOES NOT ACCURATELY OR ADEQUATELY DISTINGUISH A CHIMERA FROM A HYBRID.  THESE “ENTITIES” ARE OFTEN USED IN TRANSGENIC RESEARCH, USUALLY INVOLVING DNA-RECOMBINANT GENE TECHNIQUES – WHICH ARE USED FOR EUGENIC PURPOSES, ESPECIALLY IF THEY INVOLVE PRIMITIVE GERM LINE CELLS, MATURE GAMETES, OR EARLY EMBRYOS.]

(a) an embryo  [QUESTIONABLE DEFINITION OF “EMBRYO” BELOW, AS IT IMPLIES A MULTI-CELLURLAR ORGANISM.  THUS IT WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE SINGLE-CELL HUMAN ZYGOTE/EMBRYO.

--  ESPECIALLY NOTE THE “EXCEPTION”, I.E., EMBRYOS IN A DEVELOPMENTALLY SUSPENDED STATE.

--  ALSO, DOES NOT SEEM TO INCLUDE THE EMBRYO  BEFORE THE FORMATION OF THE SINGLE-CELL EMBRYO/ZYGOTE.  A GREAT DEAL OF RESEARCH TAKES PLACE ON THE SINGLE-CELL EMBRYO BEFORE SYNGAMY, ESPECIALLY WITH THE MALE AND FEMALE PRONUCLEI.  SUCH RESEARCH WOULD THEREFORE NOT BE EXCLUDED BY THIS BILL.  NOR, IT SEEMS WOULD RESEARCH USING THE SINGLE-CELL EMBRYO/ZYGOTE.]  into which a cell of any

non-human life form has been introduced; [THIS WOULD NOT INCLUDE AN EMBRYO INTO WHICH A CELL OF A HUMAN LIFE FORM HAS BEEN INTRODUCED, THEREFORE SUCH RESEARCH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THIS BILL.]

or

(b) an embryo  embryo [IBID.]  that consists of cells of

more than one embryo, foetus or human

being.

 

‘‘consent’’ means fully informed informed [THIS IS ONE ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE EMPHASIZED TO THE PUBLIC, ESPECIALLY WOMEN.  IF THE DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS BILL, OR IN ANY LITERATURE/PRESENTATIONS GIVEN TO THE DONORS, ARE ERRONEOUS, OR DEFICIENT, THEN THIS PRECLUDES ANYONE FROM BEING “FULLY INFORMED”, AND THUS THEIR “INFORMED CONSENT” IS INVALID.]  and freely

given [THE OBVIOUS ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER CHILDREN, TEENAGERS, OR THE MENTALLY/PHYSICALLY INCOMPETENT CAN REALLY GIVE LEGALLY VALID INFORMED CONSENT IF THEY ARE SO COMPROMISED – I.E., THEY WOULD NOT BE TRULY “FREE” TO GIVE "CONSENT".  THE ELEMENTS OF BOTH “INFORMATION” AND “FREE CONSENT” WOULD BE VERY SIGNIFICANTLY MISSING IN SOME ISSUES NOTED IN THIS BILL BELOW, E.G., OBTAINING “REPRODUCTIVE MATERIALS” FROM DONORS.]  consent that is given in accordance

with the applicable law governing consent.

 

‘‘controlled activity’’ means an activity that

may not be undertaken except in accordance

with sections 10 to 12.  [AS ALWAYS, IF SOMETHING IS NOT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN SECTIONS 10 TO 12, THEN THIS BILL DOES NOT APPLY TO IT.]

 

‘‘donor’’ means

(a) in relation to human reproductive

material, the individual [ONE WOULD HOPE THAT THE TERM “INDIVIDUAL” USED HERE INCLUDES THE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN EMBRYO – PRODUCED SEXUALLY OR A-SEXUALLY -- FROM WHICH STEM CELLS OR OTHER MOLECULES ARE DERIVED!] from whose body

it was obtained, whether for consideration

or not; and

(b) in relation to an in vitro embryo, [THIS TERM “IN VITRO EMBRYO” WOULD PROBABLY NOT INCLUDE AN EMBRYO THAT IS STILL IN THE FROZEN STATE!  NOTE AGAIN THE DEFINITION BELOW OF “EMBRYO”, WHICH WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE ORGANISM BEFORE THE FORMATION OF THE ZYGOTE.]  a

donor as defined in the regulations.  [JUST HOW IS AN “IN VITRO EMBRYO” DEFINED IN THE REGULATIONS?]

‘‘embryo’’ means a human organism during

the first 56 days of its development following

fertilization  [NOTE THAT THIS DEFINITION WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE EMBRYO PRODUCED FROM THE TIME OF PENETRATION UNTIL AFTER THE FORMATION OF THE ZYGOTE, AND THUS THESE EMBRYOS COULD BE USED IN ANY RESEARCH.    O’RAHILLY DEFINES THE “EMBRYO” AS BEGINNING BEFORE SYNGAMY (SYNGAMY REFERS TO THE CROSSING-OVER OF THE MATERNAL AND PATERNAL CHROMOSOMES), I.E., WITH THE FORMATION OF THE TWO PRONUCLEI.  CARLSON DEFINES THE “EMBRYO” AS BEGINNING AT THE FUSION OF THE SPERM AND OOCYTE (OR, PENETRATION).] or creation, [CAUTION AS TO JUST HOW LONG AFTER THE “CREATION”  OF THE ZYGOTE IS MEANT HERE FOR A-SEXUAL REPRODUCTION, I.E., HOW LONG A TIME PERIOD IS “FOLLOWING” CREATION?  AND THE TERM “CREATION” ITSELF SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE USED HERE.],excluding  [ALWAYS CHECK THE “EXCLUSIONS” AND “EXCEPTIONS”.  HERE, THE BILL EXCLUDES PROTECTION FOR THE EMBRYO DURING ANY SUSPENSION OF ITS GROWTH – WHICH COULD REFER TO THE EMBRYO IN A FROZEN STATE, OR ALSO TO AN EMBRYO IN AN  IN VITRO MEDIUM CONTAINING INGREDIENTS WHICH WOULD SUSPEND GROWTH.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THIS BILL WOULD NOT APPLY TO THAT RESEARCH.]    any

time during which its development has been

suspended, and includes any cell derived

from such an organism  [THIS IS SCIENTIFICALLY ERRONEOUS.  A TOTIPOTENT CELL OF AN EARLY EMBRYO IS NOT AN EMBRYO!  IT IS A CELL.  PERIOD.  IT MIGHT COULD POSSIBLY PERHAPS MAYBE BE REVERTED TO A NEW HUMAN EMBRYO IF IF IF IF IF REGULATION KICKS IN AND IF IF IF IF REGULATION IS SUCCESSFUL.  BUT FOR THEM TO DEFINE A TOTIPOTENT CELL OF AN EMBRYO AS AN EMBRYO IS RIDICULOUS.  CAN’T IMAGINE WHAT THEY MEAN OR WHY THEY ARE DOING THIS.]  that is used for the

purpose of creating a human being.  . [WHAT IF THERE ARE OTHER PURPOSES?  THEY WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THIS BILL.]

 

‘‘foetus’’ means a human organism during the

period of its development beginning on the

fifty-seventh day following fertilization or

creation, excluding any time during which

its development has been suspended, and

ending at birth.  [NO, BECAUSE OF “FOLLOWING FERTILIZATION”.]

 

‘‘gene’’ includes a nucleotide sequence, and

an artificially created gene or nucleotide sequence.  [THERE ARE RNA NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCES, AND DNA NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCES – BOTH ARE DEFINED AS “GENETIC MATERIAL”!  MANY OF THE VIRUS THEY USE IN DNA-RECOMBINANT RESEARCH ARE RNA VIRUSES, AND IF THEIR “GENOME” IS INCORPORATED INTO A HUMAN SPERM, OOCYTE OR EMBRYO, THAT RNA GENETIC MATERIAL WILL THUS BE INCORPORATED INTO THE EMBRYO’S OWN PRIMITIVE GERM LINE CELLS, AND PASSED DOWN THROUGH THE GENERATIONS (EUGENICS).  SO NEED TO BE AWARE OF BOTH RNA AND DNA AS “GENETIC MATERIAL”.  REMEMBER TOO THAT “GENETIC MATERIAL” APPLIES TO DNA OR RNA INSIDE THE NUCLEUS IN THE CHROMOSOMES, AS WELL AS TO DNA OR RNA OUTSIDE THE NUCLEUS IN THE CYTOPLASM, ESPECIALLY MITOCHONDRIAL DNA.  THERE IS GREAT INTEREST IN DOING MITOCHONDRIAL DNA RESEARCH NOW, AS THERE ARE MANY DEADLY HUMAN DISEASES WHICH ARE CAUSED BY ERRORS IN THE MITOCHONDRIAL DNA.  MANY INTERNATIONAL WEB SITES CAN BE FOUND ON MITOCHONDRIAL DNA-CAUSED DISEASES IN HUMANS.]

 

‘‘genome’’ means the totality of the deoxyribonucleic

acid sequence of a particular cell.  [THIS SHOULD INCLUDE BOTH NUCLEAR AND MITOCHONDRIAL DNA.  AS DEFINED HERE, IT WOULD NOT INCLUDE ANY RNA, ESPECIALLY THAT OF NON-HUMAN ENTITIES IN WHICH RNA IS THEIR ONLY KIND OF GENETIC MATERIAL.  NOTE TOO THAT THE GENOME PROJECT DID NOT INCLUDE MAPPING OF MITOCHONDRIAL DNA, NOR OF THE “NONSENSE” DNA FOUND IN THE INTRON SECTION OF A CHROMOSOME.  IT ONLY MAPPED DNA IN THE "EXTRONS", AND THE SAMPLE USED WAS A MIXED SOURCE OF HUMAN DNA.  IS THIS INTRON-DNA INCLUDED IN THIS DEFINITION?]

 

‘‘health reporting information’’ means information

provided under this Act respecting  respecting [I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT GIVING THE GOVERNMENT AND UNKNOWN OTHERS ALL OF THIS GENETIC AND REPRODUCTIVE INFORMATION.  ASSURANCES MADE TODAY CAN CHANGE DRASTICALLY TOMORROW (NOTE THE PRIVACY CHANGES HERE IN THE U.S. AFTER SEPT. 11;  QUITE DRASTIC CHANGES.]

 

(a) the identity, personal characteristics,

genetic information and medical history

of donors of human reproductive material

and in vitro embryos, persons who

have undergone assisted reproduction

procedures and persons who were conceived

by means of those procedures; and

(b) the custody of donated human reproductive

materials and in vitro embryos

and the uses that are made of them.

 

‘‘human clone’’ means an embryo  [NOTE  PROBLEM WITH THIS DEFINITION, ABOVE.] that, as a result

of the manipulation of human reproductive

material or an in vitro embryo  [NOTE PROBLEM WITH THIS DEFINITION, BELOW.], contains

the same nuclear deoxyribonucleic

acid sequence as is found in the cell of a living

or deceased human being, foetus or other

embryo.  . [THEY HAVE RESTRICTED THIS DEFINITION TO AN EMBRYO CONTAINING “THE SAME NUCLEAR DNA”.  THIS IS AN INCOMPLETE AND ERRONEOUS DEFINITION OF “SCNT”.  WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT IN SCNT THE PRODUCT CONTAINS THE “SAME NUCLEAR DNA” AS THE DONOR, THE PRODUCT ALSO CONTAINS THE MITOCHONDRIAL DNA OF THE ENUCLEATED OOCYTE AND DOES NOT CONTAIN THE MITOCHONDRIAL DNA OF THE DONOR.  THEREFORE, THE PRODUCT OF SCNT WOULD NOT BE "VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL" TO THE GENETIC MATERIAL IN THE DONOR.  THIS BILL WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW THE CLONING OF HUMAN BEINGS USING REAL SCNT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCLUDE IN ITS DEFINITION THE PRESENCE OR LACK OF MITOCHONDRIAL DNA IN THE PRODUCT OF SCNT.

-- IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE HUMAN EMBRYOS PRODUCED BY MOST OF THE OTHER CLONING TECHNIQUES LISTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS COMMENTARY.

--  IT WOULD ALSO NOT INCLUDE A HUMAN EMBRYO PRODUCED BY DNA-RECOMBINANT GENE TECHNIQUES IN WHICH FOREIGN RNA GENETIC MATERIAL IS INTRODUCED INTO THE EMBRYO CLONED.

--  TO WHAT DOES “OR OTHER EMBRYO” REFER?  DOES IT REFER TO A NON-HUMAN EMBRYO, OR TO A CHIMERA OR MOSAIC, ETC.?]

 

‘‘human reproductive material’’ means a

sperm, ovum or other human cell or a human

gene, and includes a part of any of

them.  . [I THINK THIS DOES APPLY TO PRONUCLEI.]

 

‘‘hybrid’’ means  [SOME OF THESE DEFINITIONS OVERLAP WITH THE DEFINITION OF A CHIMERA (ABOVE);  NO DEFINITION OR DISCUSSION OF HUMAN  “MOSAICS”.]

(a) a human ovum that has been fertilized

by a sperm of a non-human life form;

(b) an ovum of a non-human life form

that has been fertilized by a human

sperm;  [ THIS WOULD PRECLUDE THE USE OF THE “HAMSTER TEST”, ONE OF THE MOST COMMON TESTS FOR MALE INFERTILITY.  IN THIS TEST, A HAMSTER OOCYTE IS FERTILIZED BY A HUMAN SPERM – THUS CREATING A HUMAN/ANIMAL CHIMERA.  THIS MALE INFERTILITY TEST IS USUALLY STATED AS AN “EXCEPTION” IN MANY INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH.]

(c) a human ovum into which the nucleus

of a cell of a non-human life form has

been introduced;

(d) an ovum of a non-human life form

into which the nucleus of a human cell

has been introduced; or

(e) a human ovum or an ovum of a

non-human life form that otherwise contains

haploid sets of chromosomes from

both a human being and a non-human life

form.  . [WOULD NOT INCLUDE DIPLOID SETS OF CHROMOSOMES FROM BOTH A HUMAN BEING OR FROM A NON-HUMAN LIFE FORM.  WOULD ALSO NOT INCLUDE HAPLOID OR DIPLOID SETS OF CHROMOSOMES FROM TWO DIFFERENT HUMAN BEINGS.]

 

 

‘‘in vitro embryo’’ means an embryo that exists

outside the body of a human being.  . [WOULD NOT INCLUDE IVF-PRODUCED OR CLONED HUMAN EMBRYOS IMPLANTED IN THE BODY OF NON-HUMAN SURROGATES (E.G., APES).

 

‘‘licence’’ means a licence issued in respect of

a controlled activity or premises under section

40.

 

‘‘Minister’’ means the Minister of Health.

 

‘‘ovum’’ means a human ovum, whether mature

or not.  . [SHOULD STATE, “WHETHER DIPLOID OR HAPLOID”.  NOTE:  THERE IS REALLY NO SUCH THING AS A HAPLOID OVUM, BECAUSE THE SECONDARY OOCYTE REMAINS DIPLOID UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS FERTILIZED BY A SPERM!  THAT IS, UNLESS THE SECONDARY OOCYTE IS FERTILIZED, IT REMAINS DIPLOID, AND THEREFORE COULD BE CLONED.]

 

‘‘sperm’’ means a human sperm, whether mature

or not.  [SHOULD STATE, “WHETHER DIPLOID OR HAPLOID”, RATHER THAN “WHETHER MATURE OR NOT”.  SPERM REMAIN DIPLOID UNTIL AFTER PUBERTY AND BEYOND.  BEFORE PUBERTY THESE GERM CELLS ARE STILL DIPLOID (AND THEREFORE CAN BE CLONED).]

 

‘‘surrogate mother’’ means a female person  [THE SUDDEN USE OF THE TERM “PERSON” HERE SHOULD BE CLARIFIED.  E.G., SINGER ET AL DEFINE THE HIGHER PRIMATES, INCLUDING APES, ORANGUTANGS, ETC., AS “PERSONS”, AND THERE HAS BEEN  CONCERN FOR MANY YEARS ABOUT RESEARCH IN WHICH THESE NON-HUMANS COULD BE USED AS “SURROGATES” FOR INCUBATING HUMAN EMBRYOS, OR HUMAN/ANIMAL CHIMERAS, ETC.  A REPORT OF SUCH RESEARCH BY THE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATOR CAN BE FOUND IN JAY KATZ’S CLASSIC 1972 TEXT, HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION.]

who carries an embryo or foetus derived

from the genes of a donor or donors with the

intention of surrendering the child at birth

to a donor or another person.  [SO, HOW IS THIS “PERSON” DEFINED, TOO?].

 

 

Her Majesty

bound

4. This Act is binding on Her Majesty in

right of Canada or a province.

 

Obligation de

Sa Majesté

 

PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES ACTES INTERDITS

Prohibited

procedures

[ALL OF THE PROBLEMATIC TERMS ABOVE MUST NOW BE TRACED THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THIS BILL, AS WELL AS IN THEIR REGULATIONS, ETC. – AND SUCH ERRONEOUS TERMS MUST BE CHANGED WHEREEVER THEY ARE USED.  I WILL NOT REPEAT MY COMMENTS FROM ABOVE, BUT SIMPLY MARK PLACES WHICH NEED ATTENTION WITH A TRIPLE ASTERIK ***, INDICATING THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED ABOVE (ESPECIALLY IN THE “DEFINITIONS” SECTION).]

 

 

5. (1) No person shall knowingly

 

(a) create a *** human*** clone [USING ANY CLONING TECHNIQUE!], or transplant a

human clone [WHAT ABOUT TRANSPLATING A NON-HUMAN CLONE?]  into a human being; [WHAT ABOUT INTO A NON-HUMAN ANIMAL?]

 

(b) create an *** in vitro*** embryo for any

purpose other than creating a human being [SO, IT IS PERMITTED TO CLONE HUMAN EMBRYOS FOR “THERAPEUTIC” AND “REPRODUCTIVE”  PURPOSES, AND USE ANY AND ALL CLONING TECHNIQUES]

or improving or providing instruction in

assisted reproduction procedures; [SO, HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH, HUMAN CLONING RESEARCH, AND IVF RESEARCH – IN WHICH LIVING HUMAN BEINGS ARE DESTROYED – IS PERMITTED.]

 

(c) for the purpose of creating a human

being [I.E., FOR USE IN BOTH “THERAPEUTIC” AND “REPRODUCTIVE” RESEARCH?], create an ***embryo*** from a cell or part

of a cell taken from an ***embryo*** or foetus or

transplant an embryo so created into a

human being;

 

(d) maintain an ***embryo*** outside the body of

a woman after the fourteenth day of its

development [TOTALLY ARBITRARY MARKER THAT OUGHT NOT TO BE ALLOWED] following ***fertilization or creation***,

excluding any time during which its

development has been ***suspended***;

 

(e) for the ***purpose of creating a human

being*** , perform any procedure or provide,

prescribe or administer any thing that

would ensure or increase the probability

that an embryo will be of a particular sex, or

that would identify the sex of an  ***in vitro

embryo***, except to prevent [I.E., KILL?], diagnose or treat

a sex-linked disorder or disease;

 

(f) alter the ***genome*** of a cell of a human

being or ***in vitro embryo*** such that the

alteration is capable of being transmitted to

descendants; ; [ESPECIALLY RELEVANT FOR DNA-RECOMBINANT GENE TRANSFER TECHNIQUES, AND “TRANSGENIC” EXPERIMENTS USING HUMANS.

               IT IS ASSUMED THAT SOMATIC CELL GENE THERAPY (USING RECOMBINANT TECHNIQUES) INSERTS THE FOREIGN GENE (WHICH COULD BE DNA OR RNA) ONLY INTO SOMATIC CELLS, AND THAT GERM LINE CELLS ARE NOT AFFECTED.  HOWEVER, THIS HAS NOT BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AND IT IS STILL POSSIBLE THAT SOME FOREIGN GENETIC MATERIAL COULD FIND ITS WAY TO A PATIENT’S GERM LINE CELLS.  IF THIS DOES HAPPEN, THEN WE ARE ALSO REALLY TALKING ABOUT GERM LINE GENE THERAPY AS WELL.

                GERM LINE GENE THERAPY IS DEFINITELY, BY DEFINITION, EUGENIC, AND SO         DEFINED AS EUGENIC IN THE CURRENT HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS

                TEXTBOOKS.  THIS IS WHAT I CALL “CLONING THROUGH THE GENERATIONS”,

                BECAUSE ANY FOREIGN MATERIALS CAN BE PASSED DOWN THROUGH THE

                GENERATIONS IF HUMAN GERM CELLS, EARLY HUMAN EMBRYOS OR EVEN

                HUMAN SOMATIC CELLS (IN VIVO TREATMENTS GONE BAD) ARE TRANSFIXED.

                THIS IS WHY GENE “THERAPY” SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A CLONING

                TECHNIQUE.]

 

(g) transplant a sperm, ovum, embryo or

foetus of a non-human life form into a

human being; [WOULD NOT INCLUDE TRANSPLANTING HUMAN OR NON-HUMAN PRONUCLEI INTO A HUMAN BEING – AND ONE EXAMPLE OF A HUMAN BEING IS THE SINGLE-CELL HUMAN ZYGOTE, OR EVEN THE EMBRYO BEFORE THE FORMATION OF THE ZYGOTE.]

 

(h) for the ***purpose of creating a human

being***, make use of any human reproductive

material or an ***in vitro embryo*** that is or was

transplanted into a non-human life form; [YES, E.G., AN APE.]

 

(i) create a ***chimera***, or transplant a chimera

into either a human being or a non-human

life form; or [WHAT ABOUT USING A MOSAIC, ONE THAT IS HUMAN/HUMAN, OR HUMAN/ANIMAL?]

 

(j) create a ***hybrid*** for the purpose of

reproduction [BUT IT’S OK TO CREATE A HYBRID FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESEARCH?], or transplant a hybrid into

either a human being or a non-human life

form.

 

 

Offers (2) No person shall offer to do, or advertise

the doing of, anything prohibited by this

section. [BUT IT’S OK IF NOT EXPLICITLY STATED IN HIS BILL.  THIS IS WHERE THE “ERRORS” ABOVE SLIP IN.]

 

Payment for

prohibited act

(3) No person shall pay or offer to pay

consideration to any person for doing anything

prohibited by this section.

 

Payment for

surrogacy

6. (1) No person shall pay consideration to

a female person to become a surrogate mother,

offer to pay such consideration or advertise

that it will be paid. [COULD REFER TO A FEMALE APE]

 

Acting as

intermediary

(2) No person shall accept consideration for

arranging for the services of a surrogate

mother, offer to make such an arrangement for

consideration or advertise the arranging of

such services.

 

Payment to

intermediaries

(3) No person shall pay consideration to

another person to arrange for the services of a

surrogate mother, offer to pay such consideration

or advertise the payment of it.

 

Minors as

surrogates

(4) No person shall counsel or induce a

female person to become a surrogate mother,

or perform any medical procedure to assist a

female person to become a surrogate mother,

knowing or having reason to believe that the

female person is under 18 years of age. [IMPORTANT ISSUE HERE IS ABILITY TO GIVE INFORMED CONSENT, OR FOR FAMILY/FRIENDS, ETC. TO GIVE PROXY CONSENT, OR FOR CHILD TO GIVE “ASSENT” (A DUBIOUS TERM).]

 

Purchase of

gametes

7. (1) No person shall purchase, offer to

purchase or advertise for the purchase of

sperm or ova from a donor or a person acting

on behalf of a donor.

 

Purchase or

sale of

embryos

(2) No person shall

(a) purchase, offer to purchase or advertise

for the purchase of an ***in vitro embryo***; or

(b) sell, offer for sale or advertise for sale an

***in vitro embryo***.

Achat et

 

Purchase of

other

reproductive

material

(3) No person shall purchase, offer to

purchase or advertise for the purchase of a

human cell or gene from a donor or a person

acting on behalf of a donor, with the intention

of using the gene or cell to create a human

being or of making it available for that

purpose.

 

Exchanges

included

(4) In this section, ‘‘purchase’’ or ‘‘sell’’

includes to acquire or dispose of in exchange

for property or services.

 

reproductive

material

without

consent

8. (1) No person shall make use of ***human

reproductive material*** for the purpose of

creating an embryo unless the donor of the

material has given written consent [ASSUMING THAT THIS “CONSENT” IS “INFORMED” PROPERLY], in accordance

with the regulations, to its use for that

purpose. [I DON’T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING  IN THIS BILL THAT ADDRESSES THE ISSUE RAISED CONCERNING THE PATENTING OF HUMAN CHIMERAS, MOLECULES, ETC.  PERHAPS THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING STATED ABOUT PATENTS IN THIS BILL, AND IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE SECTIONS DEALING WITH “INFORMED CONSENT”.]

 

Posthumous

use without

consent

(2) No person shall remove ***human reproductive

material*** from a donor’s body after the

donor’s death for the ***purpose of creating an

embryo*** unless the donor of the material has

given written [“INFORMED”?] consent, in accordance with the

regulations, to its removal for that purpose. [ALSO, SAME ISSUE ABOUT PATENTING.]

 

Use of  *** in vitro

embryo***

without

consent

(3) No person shall make use of an *** in vitro

embryo***  for any purpose unless the donor has

given written [“INFORMED”?] consent, in accordance with the

regulations, to its use for that purpose.

 

Gametes

obtained from

minor

9. No person shall obtain any sperm or

ovum from a donor under 18 years of age [NOTE:  THE PRIMITIVE GERM LINE CELLS BEGIN TO BE FORMED IN THE EARLY EMBRYO ABOUT 2 ½ - 3 WEEKS AFTER FERTILIZATION(LATE BLASTOCYST – EARLY TRILAMINAR STAGE EMBRYO).   SO ONE COULD CONCEIVABLY RETRIEVE THEM FROM LATE HUMAN BLASTOCYSTS (E.G., IVF OR CLONED HUMAN EMBRYOS) AND EMBRYOS/FETUSES (E.G., ABORTED).  ONE COULE CLONE THESE EARLY GERM LINE CELLS BECAUSE THEY ARE DIPLOID;  OR ONE COULD  MATURE THEM TO THE HAPLOID STATE AND USE THEM IN FERTILIZATION (ESPECIALLY OF CONCERN IS THEIR USE IN RECOMBINANT “THERAPY” AND “RESEARCH”.], or

use any sperm or ovum so obtained [OF SERIOUS CONCERN IS THE HARVESTING OF GERM LINE CELLS, SPERM, AND OOCYTES FROM DECEASED HUMAN BEINGS (OF ALL AGES AND OF BOTH SEXES), AND ALSO FROM HOSPITAL PATIENTS (OF ALL AGES AND OF BOTH SEXES).  IN THE 1994 NIH HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH REPORT AND MINUTES, THE RESEARCHERS ON THE PANEL WERE QUITE EXPLICIT ABOUT HOW DIFFICULT THESE “BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS” WERE TO OBTAIN, AND THEY PESENTED A LONG INTERESTING LIST OF POSSIBLE SOURCES.  THIS INCLUDED, E.G., USING THE OOCYTES FROM OVARIES REMOVED FROM FEMALE PATIENTS UNDERGOING HYSTERECTOMIES, MEN UNDERGOING VASECTOMIES, CHILDREN UNDERGOING SURGERY, ETC.  I KNOW OF WOMEN WHO WERE ASKED TO SIGN CONSENT FORMS FOR THE “EXPERIMENTAL USE” OF THEIR “DISCARDED ORGANS AND TISSUES” (WHICH COULD INCLUDE OVARIES), AND ASKED TO SIGN WHILE UNDER SEDATION.  IF THEY HAD KNOWN THAT THEIR OOCYTES WOULD BE CLONED, OR MATURED FOR USE IN IVF TO CREATE RESEARCH EMBRYOS, ETC., THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE SIGNED THOSE “CONSENT” FORMS.  THIS NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED.  THIS IS A GROSS VIOLATION OF TRUE “INFORMED CONSENT”.  THE SAME NIH REPORT ALSO MENTIONED THE HARVESTING OF ALL THESE “REPRODUCTIVE MATERIALS” FROM DEAD HUMAN CADAVERS OBTAINED FROM THIS COUNTRY AND ABROAD.], except for

the purpose of preserving the sperm or ovum

or for the ***purpose of creating a human being***

that the person reasonably believes will be

raised by the donor.

 

CONTROLLED ACTIVITIES ACTIVITÉS RÉGLEMENTÉES

Use of human

reproductive

material

10. (1) No person shall, except in accordance

with the regulations and a licence, alter,

manipulate or treat any ***human reproductive

material*** for the ***purpose of creating an embryo***.

Utilisation du

 

Use of in vitro

embryo

(2) No person shall, except in accordance

with the regulations and a licence, alter,

manipulate, treat or make any use of an ***in vitro

embryo***.

 

Keeping and

handling

gametes and

embryos

(3) No person shall, except in accordance

with the regulations and a licence, obtain,

store, transfer, destroy, import or export

(a) a sperm or ovum, or any part of one, for

the purpose of creating an ***embryo***; or

(b) an ***in vitro embryo***, for any purpose.

 

Conservation,

cession, etc.

 

Transgenics [NOTE: THIS INVOLVES DNA-RECOMBINANT GENE TRANSFER = EUGENICS]

 11. (1) No person shall, ***except*** in accordance

with the regulations and a licence,

combine any part or any proportion of the

***human genome*** specified in the regulations

with any part of the ***genome*** of a species

***specified*** in the regulations.

 

 

(2) The following definitions apply in this

section.

‘‘human genome’’ means the totality of the

***deoxyribonucleic acid*** sequence of the human

species.

 

‘‘species’’ means any taxonomic classification

of non-human life. [HOW ABOUT A TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION OF A HUMAN LIFE?]

 

Reimbursement

of expenditures

12. (1) No person shall, except in accordance

with the regulations and a licence,

(a) reimburse a donor for an expenditure

incurred in the course of donating sperm or

an ***ovum***;

(b) reimburse any person for an expenditure

incurred in the maintenance or transport of

an ***in vitro embryo***; or

(c) reimburse a surrogate mother for an

expenditure incurred by her in relation to

her surrogacy.

 

Receipts (2) No person shall reimburse an expenditure

referred to in subsection (1) unless a

receipt is provided to that person for the

expenditure.

 

Use of

premises

13. No person who is licensed to undertake

a controlled activity shall undertake it in any

premises except in accordance with a licence

permitting the use of the premises for that

controlled activity.

 

PRIVACY AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION RENSEIGNEMENTS PERSONNELS ET ACCÈS À

L’INFORMATION

Information to

be collected

by licensees

Section14 - 19

[THIS ENTIRE SECTION SHOULD BE SCRUTINIZED FOR POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF “INFORMED” AND “FREE CONSENT”.  THIS ISSUE IS BEING PRESSED IN THE COURTS NOW IN CASES INVOLVING ABORTION PROCEDURES AND ABORTIFACIENTS.  IT SHOULD ALSO BE PRESSED IN CASES INVOLVING LACK OF VALID INFORMED CONSENT IN THESE RESEARCH ISSUES, ESPECIALLY RE DONATIONS OF “REPRODUCTIVE MATERIALS, AND PATENTS.]