The Panther Prints 6

March 25,

bee

Canada still without regulations for genetic and reproductive technologies

By RACHEL FUREY

(CUP) — If Canadian scien- tists wanted to, they could le- gally clone animals, alter the genetic make-up of humans or even implant an animal em- bryo into a woman’s womb.

Genetic engineering is no longer confined to the pages of science fiction novels and Hollywood movies. It is being practised in laboratories across the country with few federal restrictions or monitoring pro- cedures in place.

Even the cloning of hu- man beings could be a reality in one or two years, predict the researchers who recently cre- ated Dolly the sheep, the world’s first adult animal clone.

As genetic and repro- ductive technologies rapidly advance, governments around the world are left scrambling to design policies for proce- dures that few people, includ- ing medical professionals, un- derstand.

The Canadian govern- ment’s solution was to create aroyal commission to look into the ethical, social and political implications embedded the re- productive technology debate. It recommended the banning of several controversial as- pects of new reproductive technologies, and the estab- lishment of a national regula- tory and licensing body to over- see the development of ge- netic technologies in Canada.That was in 1993.

Four years and $28 mil- lion later, the government still hasn’t passed legislation to ban procedures like cloning and sex-selection, let alone set up the regulatory body.

Even the legislation the government has prepared is in serious jeopardy of failing to become law.

Bill C-47, known as the Human Reproductive and Ge- netic Technologies Act, which would ban 13 controversial practices, has been introduced in the House of Commons, but is to ing the

current session of parliament.

Besides prohibiting what many see as gross experimen- tation, the bill also tackles the clinical aspect of reproductive technologies by banning the sale of human embryos, eggs and sperm and disallowing sur- rogate mothers to accept money for their service.

Violators could face fines of up to $500,000 and prison terms of up to 10 years. This prohibition concerns members of Canada’s medical commu- nity, who want financial com- pensation for sperm and egg donors and surrogate moth- ers.

Currently, Canadians can make anywhere from $40 for donating sperm, to $20,000 for carrying the embryo of an- other person.

“We feel it’s ridiculous [to ban compensation],” says Clifford Librach, head of the infertility division at the To- ronto Women’s College Hos- pital. “This law is so constrain- ing that it’s going to hurt alot of people’s ability to have chil- dren.” ;

Librach says separate attention needs to be given to the research and clinical ele- ments of the bill.

“Most people don’tthink it’s good legislation but there’ s not as much controversy on the research part. [The two elements] deserve separate at- tention instead of being lumped into a big hodgepodge.”

But even within the pro- fessional community there is disagreement.

Tim Caulfield, research director of the Health Law Institute at the University of Alberta, is concerned some of the banned research practices could be useful in the future.

“My fear is that this [leg- islation] creates a chill over useful genetic and reproduc- tive research,” says Caulfield. He points to the ban on using embryos for research as hin- dering researchers’ ability to make advances in the area of in vitro ferti a

whereby women are surgically implanted with fertilized eggs.

However, Canada is guilty of failing to implement the regulatory body to monitor new genetic and reproductive technologies which was rec- ommended by the royal com- mission.

Doris Cook, a policy ana- lyst for Health Canada, says the government is committed to passing a second set of leg- islation which would create the regulatory body, even though they have yet to introduce any such legislation in parliament.

According to Patricia Baird, chair of the royal com- mission, the government must move quickly to implement the regulatory body.

A November article by Baird printed in newspapers across the country called on the governmentto put the regu- latory body in place immedi- ately. “The bill is only half of what is needed,” wrote Baird. “A licensing and regulatory body is the other part of what is needed.”

Although there is con- sensus among women’s groups and the medical pro- fession about the need for a

regulatory body, the vision each has for it differs dramati- cally.

The government's plan is to create a body that would issue licenses for acceptable new reproductive and genetic technology practices. The regulatory body would pay for itself by charging a fee to those receiving the licenses.

Caulfield likes the idea. “The regulatory body can re- spond to social changes, crimi- nal law is not good at respond- ing to change,” he says.

The government’s model may please the medical com- munity, but ithas sparked con- cern among women’s groups.

“There is a great danger in taking the licensing approach the doctors want, says Miller. “A model that pays for itself serves the people who pay for it.” Miller adds that besides issuing licenses, a regulatory body has to restrict practices as well.

Lippman agrees and is adamant that the body be made up primarily of citizens, rather than “experts”. Lippman sees the issue of genetic and repro- ductive technologies as one that affects the entire popula-

tion and says it must be treated as such.

Although the government may be stalling on its commit- ment to implement legislation and a regulatory body for new reproductive technologies, it is clear the issue won’t go away. As new discoveries and rapid changes in the field of biology continue to wider the range of genetic and reproductive pos- sibilities, many are asking whose issue is this and who should control the debate.

The government says it wants to protect the public, researchers say they want to make advances for science, doctors say they want to help their patients and women say they want control of their own bodies.

Miller says the issue is one for all women. “It’s about women’s equality on a funda- mental level,” she says. “Wom- en’s reproduction has been a battleground for how we’re seen in society.”

But without a clear com- mitment from the government or a clear consensus among stakeholders, it seems the bat- tle will continue, and the ques- tion of whose issue it is will have to remain unanswered.