DATE: December 9, 2002
FROM: Prof. Dr. Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
5108 Randall Lane
Bethesda, MD 20816-1917
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]
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
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
-- 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.
Prof. Dr. Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC SECTIONS 1-14, CANADIAN BILL C-13: ASSISTED HUMAN REPRODUCTION ACT
THE MINISTER OF HEALTH
Second Session, Thirty-seventh Parliament,
51 Elizabeth II, 2002
HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA
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
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.
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."]
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."]
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
(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
(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
‘‘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.]
(b) an embryo embryo [IBID.] that consists of cells of
more than one embryo, foetus or human
‘‘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.]
(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
(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
‘‘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?].
4. This Act is binding on Her Majesty in
right of Canada or a province.
PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES ACTES INTERDITS
[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
(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
(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
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.]
(3) No person shall pay or offer to pay
consideration to any person for doing anything
prohibited by this section.
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]
(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
(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.
(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).]
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.
(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***.
(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
(4) In this section, ‘‘purchase’’ or ‘‘sell’’
includes to acquire or dispose of in exchange
for property or services.
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”.]
(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
(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.
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
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***.
Use of in vitro
(2) No person shall, except in accordance
with the regulations and a licence, alter,
manipulate, treat or make any use of an ***in vitro
(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.
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
‘‘human genome’’ means the totality of the
***deoxyribonucleic acid*** sequence of the human
‘‘species’’ means any taxonomic classification
of non-human life. [HOW ABOUT A TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION OF A HUMAN LIFE?]
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
(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
Receipts (2) No person shall reimburse an expenditure
referred to in subsection (1) unless a
receipt is provided to that person for the
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
PRIVACY AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION RENSEIGNEMENTS PERSONNELS ET ACCÈS À
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.]