Skip to main content

Policy Design for Human Embryo Research in Canada: 1989–2015

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Big Picture Bioethics: Developing Democratic Policy in Contested Domains

Part of the book series: The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology ((ELTE,volume 16))

  • 318 Accesses

Abstract

In Canada, research involving human embryos is circumscribed by law and research guidelines. This chapter describes the development of these policy instruments over the past 25+ years and analyses this history using a typology of modes of public consultation developed by Eric Montpetit (2003). Over time, the degree to which the views of Canadians on human embryo research have been solicited as part of the policy-making process has diminished significantly. We expect this trend to continue, given the presence of powerful interest groups and policy communities “speaking for” Canadians.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Françoise Baylis prepared an expert opinion for the federal government in relation to the Québec reference (see, Baylis 2006).

  2. 2.

    For a critical review of consent forms used by researchers who provided hES cell lines approved for use by CIHR, see Krahn and Wallwork (2011).

  3. 3.

    The text cited here appeared on the CIHR website when accessed in 2009, at which time it was properly cited in Baylis and Herder (2009b). It has since been amended.

  4. 4.

    The website for the National registry of human embryonic stem cell lines was last updated on December 19, 2014. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39580.html Accessed 29 May 2016.

  5. 5.

    This is a reference to the time at which individual research groups received monies through the SCN to begin their research.

  6. 6.

    The initial co-Chairs were Janet Rossant, previously the Chair of the CIHR ad hoc Working Group, and Bartha Knoppers, previously a Commissioner with the Royal Commission.

  7. 7.

    http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/index.php/ethical-legal-and-social-issues/

  8. 8.

    Whereas typically practice is made to conform to guidelines, in this instance guidelines were made to conform with practice. The 2002 Guidelines did not discuss the use of fresh versus frozen embryos for hES cell research. Once it became clear that researchers were using fresh embryos for hES cell research, the 2005 Guidelines were amended to legitimize this research. For a detailed discussion of this see Baylis and McInnes (2007), and McLeod and Baylis (2007).

  9. 9.

    http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/index.php/evidence-based-policy-making/

  10. 10.

    At the time this article was published (May 2008), three of the authors (Knoppers, Isasi, and Nagy) were SCN-funded researchers, Cohen and Dickens were former SCOC members, and Brandhorst, Leader, and Evans were current SCOC members. In our view, it is possible (likely) that the former SCOC members were current SCOC members at the time the original manuscript was prepared. In the body of the article the authors acknowledge that five of the authors “are current or former members of the SCOC” (Cohen et al. 2008, 417). In the acknowledgements, three of the authors “thank the Canadian Stem Cell Network for funding support” (Cohen et al. 2008, 420). Nowhere in the article is there a statement about conflict of interest.

  11. 11.

    http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/index.php/ethical-legal-and-social-issues/

  12. 12.

    This wording originally appeared in a description of the Stem Cell Network Strategic Program IV: Public Policy & Ethical, Legal & Social Issues published in 2008 at http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/research.php. This was eliminated from the SCN website following the publication of Baylis and Herder (2009b). The text cited can be retrieved through www.archive.org by: (1) inserting http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/ in Search box; (2) selecting the date May 26, 2008; and (3) following the ‘Research’ footer at the very bottom of the page.

References

  • Act to Implement Certain Provisions of the Budget Tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and Other Measures, S.C. 2012, c. 19. Ss.713–745. http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5697420&file=4. Accessed 9 Dec 2015.

  • Agreement on the Administration of Agency Grants and Awards by Research Institutions. 2013. http://science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=56B87BE5-1. Accessed 9 Dec 2015. The TCPS is referenced under section 3.4 Research involving humans.

  • Angell, M. 2004. The truth about drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Assisted Human Reproduction Act. S.C. 2004, c.2. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-13.4/page-1.html. Accessed 9 Dec 2015 [AHR Act].

  • Attorney General of Québec v. Attorney General of Canada. Province of Québec Court of Appeal. 2006. No. 500-09-015177-041 C.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batt, S. 2010. Who pays the piper? Industry funding of patients’ groups. In The push to prescribe: Women and Canadian drug policy, ed. A. Rochon Ford and D. Saibil, 67–92. Toronto: Women’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F. 2001. Brickbats and bouquets for the draft legislation on assisted human reproduction. Health Law Review 10(1): 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F. 2002. Betwixt and between human stem cell guidelines and legislation. Health Law Review 11(1): 44–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F. 2006. The regulation of assisted human reproductive technologies and related research: A public health, safety and morality argument. Expert written testimony for the federal government of Canada in the matter of Attorney General of Québec v. Attorney General of Canada. Province of Québec Court of Appeal. No. 500-09-015177-041 C.A. August 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F. 2009. Correspondence with the interagency secretariat on research ethics. http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/sites/noveltechethics/Incorporation_of_Stem_Cell_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2015.

  • Baylis, F. 2010. Correspondence with the interagency secretariat on research ethics. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/Comments2009/45_Baylis,%20 Francoise.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2015.

  • Baylis, F. 2011. Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Assisted Human Reproduction Act creates urgent need for action. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 33(4): 317–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F., and J. Downie. 2011. Confusion worse confounded. British Medical Journal 342:d2570. http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/03/confusion-worse-confounded-1. Accessed 9 Dec 2015.

  • Baylis, F., and J. Downie. 2012. Unfinished business: Ongoing ethical exceptionalism in the oversight of human pluripotent stem cell research in Canada. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 19(1): 13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F., and M. Herder. 2009a. Policy design for human embryo research in Canada: A history. Part 1 of 2 Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6(1): 109–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F., and M. Herder. 2009b. Policy design for human embryo research in Canada: An analysis. Part 2 of 2 Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6(3): 351–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F., and C. McInnes. 2007. Women at risk: Embryonic and fetal stem cell research in Canada. McGill Health Law Publication 1(1): 53–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research ad hoc Working Group on Stem Cell Research. 2001. Human stem cell research: Opportunities for health and ethical perspectives. http://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/stem_cell_e.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2015 [CIHR WG].

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research ad hoc Working Group on Stem Cell Research. 2002. Human pluripotent stem cell research: Recommendations for CIHR-Funded research. On file with the authors. Also available upon request from CIHR: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/15255.html. Accessed 29 May 2016 [CIHR].

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2002. Human pluripotent stem cell research: Guidelines for CIHR-Funded research. On file with the authors. Also available upon request from CIHR: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/15255.html. Accessed 29 May 2016 [CIHR].

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2005a. 33rd Meeting of the Governing Council. Minutes. On file with the authors. Also available upon request from CIHR [CIHR].

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2005b. Updated guidelines for human pluripotent stem cell research. On file with the authors. Also available upon request from CIHR: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/15255.html. Accessed 29 May 2016 [CIHR].

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2005c. Guidelines for human pluripotent stem cell research: Policy details. On file with the authors. Also available upon request from CIHR: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/15255.html. Accessed 29 May 2016 [CIHR].

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2007a. Updated guidelines for human pluripotent stem cell research. On file with the authors. Also available upon request from CIHR: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/15255.html. Accessed 29 May 2016 [CIHR].

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2007b. Stem cell research: Survey. On file with the authors. Also available upon request from CIHR: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/15255.html. Accessed 29 May 2016 [CIHR].

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2009. Results: Survey on the application of the hESC registry. On file with the authors. Also available upon request from CIHR: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/15255.html. Accessed 29 May 2016 [CIHR].

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2010. Updated guidelines for human pluripotent stem cell research. On file with the authors. Also available upon request from CIHR: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/15255.html. Accessed 29 May 2016 [CIHR].

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2014a. Integration of the guidelines for human pluripotent stem cell research into TCPS 2 (2014), Chapter 12, section F: Frequently asked questions. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48928.html. Accessed 9 Dec 2015 [CIHR].

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2014b. National registry of human embryonic stem cell lines. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39580.html. Accessed 9 Dec 2015 [CIHR].

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. 2014. Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2-2014/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2015 [CIHR, et al.].

  • Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine. 2015. http://ccrm.ca/. Accessed 9 Dec 2015 [CCRM].

  • Chapman, A.R., M.S. Frankel, and M.S. Garfinkle. 1999. Stem cell research and applications: Monitoring the frontiers of biomedical research. American association for the advancement of science website http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/content_files/Stem%20Cell%20Research%20and%20Applications%20Report.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2015.

  • Cohen, C., B. Brandhorst, A. Nagy, A. Leader, B. Dickens, R. Isasi, D. Evans, and B. Knoppers. 2008. The use of fresh embryos in stem cell research: Ethical and policy issues. Cell Stem Cell 2: 416–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Discussion Group on Embryo Research. 1995. Research on human embryos in Canada: Final report of the discussion group on embryo research. Submitted to Health Canada. November 15. [Discussion Group]

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Canada. 2007. Mobilizing science and technology to Canada’s advantage. Industry Canada. http://www.ic.gc.ca/s&tstrategy. Accessed 9 Dec 2015.

  • Health Canada. 1995. News release. Health minister calls for moratorium on applying nine reproductive technologies and practices in humans. July 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Health Canada. 1996a. News release. Comprehensive national policy on management of New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies proposed, June 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Health Canada. 1996b. New reproductive and genetic technologies: Setting boundaries, enhancing health. http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.646113/publication.html. Accessed 9 Dec 2015.

  • Health Canada. 2001. Proposals for legislation governing assisted human reproduction. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/reprod/index-eng.php. Originally accessed 9 Dec 2008. No longer available at this URL.

  • Health Canada. 2008. A Chronology of the assisted human reproduction act. www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/reprod/hc-sc/general/chronolog_e.html. Originally Accessed 1 Sep 2011. No longer available at this URL.

  • Herder, M., and J. Dyck Brian. 2008. Canada’s stem cell corporation: Aggregate concerns and the question of public trust. Journal of Business Ethics 77(1): 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herxheimer, A. 2003. Relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and patients’ organizations. BMJ 326: 1208–1210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Consortium of Stem Cell Networks. 2005. A Collaborative research group of the ISCF, Montréal White Paper. June 23. http://www.stemcellconsortium.org/uploads/documents/Montreal_White_Paper.pdf. Originally Accessed 1 Sep 2011. Content referenced is available at: https://icscn.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/agenda_minutes_meeting_4.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2015 [ICSCN]

  • Krahn, T.M., and T.E. Wallwork. 2011. Who cares about consent requirements for sourcing human embryonic stem cells? Are errors in the past really errors of the past? Accountability in Research 18(4): 250–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerou, P.H., A. Yabuuchi, H. Huo, et al. 2008. Human embryonic stem cell derivation from poor-quality embryos. Nature Biotechnology 26: 212–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massey, C. 1993. The public hearings of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies: An evaluation. In Misconceptions: The social construction of choice and the new reproductive and genetic technologies, vol. Vol.1, ed. B. Gwynne, M. Eichler, and A. Lippman, 237–252. Hull: Voyager Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, C., and F. Baylis. 2007. Donating fresh versus frozen embryos to stem cell research: In whose interests? Bioethics 21: 465–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medical Research Council of Canada. 1987. Guidelines on research involving human subjects. Ottawa: Medical Research Council of Canada [MRC].

    Google Scholar 

  • Medical Research Council of Canada, National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. 1998. Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/archives/tcps-eptc/docs/TCPS%20October%202005_E.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2015 [MRC et al.].

  • Montpetit, E. 2003. Public consultation in policy network environments: The case of assisted human reproduction in Canada. Canadian Public Policy 29(1):95–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montpetit, E. 2004. Policy networks, federalism and managerial ideas: How ART non-decision in Canada safeguards the autonomy of the medical profession. In Comparative biomedical policy: Governing assisted reproductive technologies, ed. I. Bleiklie, M.L. Goggin, and C. Rothmayr, 64–81. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montpetit, E. 2008. Policy design for legitimacy: expert knowledge, citizens, time and inclusion in the United Kingdom’s biotechnology sector. Public Administration 86(1): 259–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Bioethics Advisory Commission. 1999. Ethical issues in human stem cell research: Report and recommendations of the national bioethics advisory commission. https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/23. Accessed 9 Dec 2015 [NBAC].

  • Nelson, E., R. Mykitiuk, J. Nisker, et al. 2008. Informed consent to donate embryos for research purposes. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 30(9): 824–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisker, J., and A. White. 2005. The CMA Code of Ethics and the donation of fresh embryos for stem cell research. Canadian Medical Association Journal 173(6): 621–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris S., and M. Tiedemann. 2015. Legal status at the federal level of assisted human reproduction in Canada. Publication no. 2011-82-E. Ottawa: Library of Parliament. http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-82-e.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2016.

  • Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, 2010 SCC 61

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, G., and J. Hunter. 2005. The Law of Assisted Human reproduction. LexisNexis: Markham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J.H. 1999. Coalition building and public opinion: New reproductive technologies and Canadian civil society. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 15(1): 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. 1990. News release. Royal Commission takes “total society” approach to new reproductive technologies. September 4, 1990 [RCNRT].

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. 1992. Update. August 1992 [RCNRT].

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. 1993. Proceed with care: The final report of the royal commission on new reproductive technologies, vol. 1 and vol. 2. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. [RCNRT]

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F.W. 1999. Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shamblott, M.J., J. Axelman, S. Wang, et al. 1998. Derivation of pluripotent stem cells from cultured human primordial germ cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 95(23): 13726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stem Cell Network. 2006. Policy development committee established. Cell Lines 37: 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stem Cell Network. 2008. Strategic program IV: Public policy & ethical, legal & social issues. Originally available at http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/research.php.

  • Stem Cell Network. 2009. Partners. http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/index.php?page=partners&hl=eng. Accessed 1 Sep 2011. No longer available from this URL [SCN].

  • Stem Cell Network. 2015a. A catalyst for Canadian stem cell research. http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/index.php/about-scn/ Accessed 9 Dec 2015 [SCN].

  • Stem Cell Network. 2015b. Stem Cell Network – SCN. http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/NetworksCentres-CentresReseaux/NCE-RCE/SCN-RCS_eng.asp. Accessed 9 Dec 2015 [SCN].

  • Thomson, J.A., J. Itskovitz-Eldor, S.S. Shapiro, et al. 1998. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 282: 1145–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Kingdom, Department of Health. 2000. Government response to the recommendations made in the chief medical officer's expert group report “stem cell research: Medical progress with responsibility”. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16218864. Accessed 9 Dec 2015.

  • Vogel, G. 2000. Stem cell scorecard. Science 290: 1673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks are owed to Eric Montpetit for comments on an earlier draft. As well, parts of the text were reviewed for accuracy by Jeff Nisker (past member of the Discussion Group on Embryo Research), Francine Manseau (retired federal public servant actively involved in shepherding the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHR Act) through the legislative process), and Lynne Cayer (Ethics Policy Advisor, CIHR). Thanks are also owed to Tim Krahn for careful research assistance. Any errors are our own. This work is supported by a research grant from the Australian Research Council DP0556068 and a salary award from the Canada Research Chairs program (to Françoise Baylis).

This chapter is an updated and significantly revised version of: Baylis, F. and M. Herder. 2009a. Policy design for human embryo research in Canada: A history. Part 1 of 2. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6(1):109–122.; and Baylis, F. and M. Herder. 2009b. Policy design for human embryo research in Canada: An analysis. Part 2 of 2. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6(3):351–365. Reprinted with the permission of Springer.

Competing Interests

Françoise Baylis was a member of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) ad hoc Working Group on Stem Cell Research from November 2000 to December 2001 and a member of the CIHR Governing Council from December 2001 to December 2004. She was a Principal Investigator funded by the Stem Cell Network from January 2002 to December 2005. In 2006 she prepared an Expert Opinion for the federal government in Attorney General of Québec v. Attorney General of Canada. From 2006 to 2010 she was a member of the Board of Directors of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada. The views expressed herein are her own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Françoise Baylis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 6.1: Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, Proceed with Care

Consultations and communications

Input from Canadians

Public and Private Hearings: more than 550 Canadians took part in and presented briefs to public hearings across the country.

Submissions and Letters of Opinion: 500 written submissions and opinions up to September 1993.

Personal Experiences and Private Sessions: 500 individuals wrote to the Commission about their personal experiences or participated in private sessions held across the country.

Information Meetings: to consult organizations such as public health associations, women’s groups, religious organizations, groups representing people with disabilities, the legal and medical professions, the research community, and the pharmaceutical industry.

Search Conference: three-day session involving 32 experts in fields such as health, law, bioethics, and religion, as well as representatives of people with disabilities.

Public Opinion Research: more than 15,000 surveyed; surveys explored awareness, values, and attitudes.

Toll-Free Telephone Lines: to facilitate participation in the Commission’s consultations for people who might have found it difficult or inconvenient to participate through hearings or submissions; to provide access to information about the Commission and its work; more than 6000 calls received.

Informing Canadians

Research Reports Released: Commission released 14 research studies during its mandate.

Newsletter Published: 50,000 copies of semi-annual newsletter, Update, detailing our research and other activities, were distributed through mailing list and public events.

Distribution and Information: 250,000 pieces of information distributed during the life of the Commission, such as information kits, brochures on the public participation and research programs, newsletters, speeches; information for use by community newspapers, journals, and opinion and editorial page editors; and information distribution also by cable television and satellite networks.

Media Activities: more than 1,000 media interviews were given and more than 7,000 media articles appeared about the Commission and its work.

Appendix 6.2: Discussion Group on Embryo Research

Summary of recommendations

Recommendation 1

No research on human embryos should be allowed unless it is approved and overseen on an ongoing basis by a National Regulatory Body (NRB). Violations should be subject to criminal sanction.

Recommendation 2

Human embryo research should be allowed only:

1.  after the exhaustion of useful inquiry using animal or other non-human models;

2.  when demonstrably necessary for the improvement of the human condition;

3.  when of the highest scientific quality as determined by rigorous peer review; and

4.  when approved by the NRB.

This recommendation should be incorporated in the appropriate legislation.

Recommendation 3

In keeping with current internationally accepted norms, research involving developing human embryos, ex utero, should not be permitted later than 14 days after conception. This limit should be subject to modification should there be new and compelling ethical or scientific justification to do so. This recommendation should be incorporated into appropriate legislation.

Recommendation 4

Viable human embryos should only be used in research where a compelling case is made that non-viable embryos cannot be successfully employed. This recommendation should be incorporated into appropriate legislation.

Recommendation 5

For acceptable regulation of RHE, a National Regulatory Body must provide a process of oversight of the clinical practice of reproductive technologies, in cooperation with the appropriate provincial licensing bodies and professional organizations.

Recommendation 6

After the woman/couple has arrived at a settled intention not to use their embryos for gestation, they should be given the choice of donating them to another woman/couple for gestation or donating them for research or directing that they be discarded. This recommendation should be incorporated into appropriate legislation.

Recommendation 7

Any use of embryos for purposes other than consented to by the woman/couple should be subject to criminal sanction.

Recommendation 8

Medical procedures related to infertility treatment should be undertaken with the sole objective of the medical well-being of the woman undergoing the procedures and the resulting offspring. Medical management should be directed toward minimizing risk and maximizing the likelihood of a successful pregnancy. Procedures must not be altered in any way that compromises the medical interests of the woman and the offspring, even if doing so would make ova or embryos available for research. This recommendation should be incorporated into appropriate legislation.

Recommendation 9

While approved clinical procedures exist which involve manipulation of the embryos, appropriate mechanism for their approval and monitoring should lie within the clinical domain.

This recommendation should be incorporated into appropriate legislation.

Recommendation 10

Fertilization of human ova for research is prohibited unless the National Regulatory Body considers the research proposal to contain an exceptional circumstance in which anticipated benefits to society or future offspring require that the experiment occur. Such knowledge would have to be unattainable by other means. Violations should be subject to criminal sanction.

Recommendation 11

All research or experimentation on a human embryo (including but not restricted to human cloning, chimeras, production of interspecies embryos and transgenic human embryos) without the explicit approval of the National Regulatory Body should be prohibited. Failure to secure such explicit approval should constitute a criminal offense.

Recommendation 12

In the absence of a National Regulatory Body vested with the powers listed in Recommendation 19, fertilization of human ova for research and research into human cloning, chimeras, production of interspecies embryos and transgenic human embryos should be banned without exception.

Recommendation 13

PGD should only be offered in the context of structured, clinical trials approved and monitored by the National Regulatory Body.

Recommendation 14

Even if proven to be safe and effective, PGD should only be available to diagnose the most serious of genetic conditions as established on a list by a National Regulatory Body, because of its potential social and health impacts.

Recommendation 15

Commercialization of gametes and embryos for research should be prohibited both within Canada and in the context of importation and exportation. Violations of this recommendation should be subject to criminal sanction.

Recommendation 16

Payment for gametes or embryos shall not exceed the out-of-pocket expenses for the donors and the costs of handling, storing, transporting and transferring the gametes and embryos. Violations of this recommendation should be subject to criminal sanction.

Recommendation 17

Reduction in the price of IVF or other medical services should never be exchanged for gametes or embryos for use in research. This recommendation should be incorporated into appropriate legislation.

Recommendation 18

A multi-perspectival National Regulatory Body should be created by Parliament through legislation without delay. This body should have jurisdiction over all aspects of reproductive technology. This legislation should also specify which conduct should be subject to criminal sanctions.

Recommendation 19

The National Body created through Recommendation 18 should include but not be limited to the following powers with specific reference to RHE:

1.  setting of technical standards of investigation, clinical practice, and education within an ethical framework;

2.  ongoing exploration of emerging ethical issues in RHE;

3.  approval of research protocols and monitoring of approved investigation;

4.  accreditation and supervision of facilities and licensing of practitioners and researchers using human gametes or embryos, in cooperation with the appropriate provincial and national organizations;

5.  defining violations and breaches of conduct, and the enforcement of sanctions;

6.  development of a strategy for information management related to such priorities as registries, research outcomes and clinical practice guidelines;

7.  undertaking other functions as detailed in recommendations in this report.

Recommendation 20

The mandate of the NRB should allow for delegation of powers (other than whose falling within criminal jurisdiction), and development of partnerships with the provinces as well as regional and professional bodies.

Appendix 6.3: Assisted Human Reproduction Act

Prohibited activities

Prohibited procedures

5. (1)  No person shall knowingly

(a)  create a human clone by using any technique, or transplant a human clone into a human being or into any non-human life form or artificial device;

(b)  create an in vitro embryo for any purpose other than creating a human being or improving or providing instruction in assisted reproduction procedures;

(c)  for the purpose of creating a human being, 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 female person after the fourteenth day of its development 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, 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;

(g)  transplant a sperm, ovum, embryo or foetus of a non-human life form into a human being;

(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;

(i)  create a chimera, or transplant a chimera into either a human being or a non-human life form; or

(j)  create a hybrid for the purpose of reproduction, 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.

Payment for prohibited act

(3)  No person shall pay or offer to pay consideration to any person for doing anything prohibited by this section.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Baylis, F., Herder, M. (2016). Policy Design for Human Embryo Research in Canada: 1989–2015. In: Dodds, S., Ankeny, R. (eds) Big Picture Bioethics: Developing Democratic Policy in Contested Domains. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32240-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics