Advertisement

Monash Bioethics Review

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 379–395 | Cite as

Of research and reproduction: defining embryo ‘Research’ in Canada

  • Alana Cattapan
  • Dave Snow
Biobanking Eggs and Embryos for Research

Abstract

This article traces how embryo research has been theorized in Canada from the late 1980s to the current day. We find that research on human embryos has gradually come to be viewed in dichotomous terms, with scientific research pulled apart from experimentation to improve assisted reproduction procedures within fertility clinics. This distinction has been made manifest most clearly in the federal government’s 2007 consent regulations. The distinction between ‘improvement of assisted reproduction procedures’ and ‘research’ is problematic on two accounts. First, interviews reveal that many Canadian IVF patients do not distinguish between the improvement of assisted reproduction and broader conceptions of ‘research’. This suggests that patients may be consenting to participate in embryo experimentation even where they do not understand its purposes. Second, the dichotomy may allow researchers and clinicians to evade research protocols that might otherwise apply in Canadian law. This could permit fertility clinics to conduct what might in other contexts fall under the category of ‘research’ without prescribed oversight, and may even enable clinicians and researchers to engage in practices that policymakers deliberately sought to proscribe. We call for a re-evaluation of the legal distinctions on embryo experimentation built into Canadian law, and indeed built into broader discussions of embryo research.

Keywords

Embryo research Canada Infertility Informed consent Embryonic stem cell research 

References

  1. Backhouse, D., and M. Deckha. 2009. Shifting rationales: The waning influence of feminism on Canada’s embryo research restrictions. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 21(2): 229–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baird, P. 1997. Human embryo research in Canada: Legal and policy aspects. Human Reproduction 12(1): 2343–2345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bangsbøll, S., et al. 2004. Patients’ attitudes towards donation of surplus cryopreserved embryos for treatment or research. Human Reproduction 19(10): 2415–2419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baylis, F., and M. Herder. 2009. Policy design for human embryo research in Canada: A history (part 1 of 2). Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6(1): 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baylis, F., and H. Widdows. 2015. Human embryos and eggs: From long-term storage to biobanking. Monash Bioethics Review 33.Google Scholar
  6. Burton, P.J., and K. Sanders. 2004. Patient attitudes to donation of embryos for research in Western Australia. Medical Journal of Australia 180(11): 559–561.Google Scholar
  7. Canada. 1996a. An Act respecting human reproductive technologies and commercial transactions relating to human reproduction (Bill C-47).Google Scholar
  8. Canada. 1996b. Parliament. House of Commons. Debates. 23 October. 35th Parliament, 2nd Session, Vol 134, No 89, 5614–15 (Pauline Picard, BQ).Google Scholar
  9. Canada. 1996c. Parliament. House of Commons. Debates. 31 October. Parliament, 2nd Session, Vol 134, No 94: 5966 (Grant Hill, Reform).Google Scholar
  10. Canada. 1997. Parliament. House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Evidence. Meeting 33, 12 December. 39th Parliament, 1st session (Fiona Miller).Google Scholar
  11. Canada. 2004. Assisted Human Reproduction Act. S.C. 2004, c. 2 (Bill C-6).Google Scholar
  12. Canada. 2006. Parliament. House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Evidence. Meeting 33, 12 December. 39th Parliament, 1st session (William Buckett).Google Scholar
  13. Canada. 2007. Assisted Human Reproduction (Section 8 Consent) Regulations. SOR/2007-137. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-2007-137.pdf. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
  14. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [CIHR et al.]. 2014. Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa, ON: Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research.Google Scholar
  15. Cattapan, A., and A. Doyle. Forthcoming. Patient decision making on the disposition of surplus cryopreserved embryos in Canada. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada.Google Scholar
  16. Caulfield, T., and T. Bubela. 2007. Why a criminal ban? Analyzing the arguments against somatic cell nuclear transfer in the Canadian parliamentary debate. American Journal of Bioethics 7(2): 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Discussion Group on Embryo Research. 1995. Research on human embryos: Final report of the Discussion Group on Embryo Research. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada.Google Scholar
  18. Downie, J., and F. Baylis. 2013. Transnational trade in human eggs: Law, policy, and (in)action in Canada. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 41(1): 224–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gruben, V., and A. Cameron. 2014. Quebec’s constitutional challenge to the Assisted Human Reproduction Act: Overlooking women’s reproductive autonomy. In Fertile ground: Exploring reproduction in Canada, ed. S. Paterson, F. Scala, and M.K. Sokolon, 125–151. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Health Canada. 1996. New reproductive technologies: Setting boundaries, enhancing health. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.Google Scholar
  21. Hug, K. 2008. Motivation to donate or not donate surplus embryos for stem-cell research: Literature review. Fertility and Sterility 89(2): 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lyerly, A.D., et al. 2006. Factors that affect infertility patients’ decisions about disposition of frozen embryos. Fertility and Sterility 85(6): 1623–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McMahon, C.A., et al. 2003. Embryo donation for medical research: Attitudes and concerns of potential donors. Human Reproduction 18(4): 871–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Medical Research Council of Canada. 1987. Guidelines on research involving human subjects. Ottawa, ON: Medical Research Council of Canada.Google Scholar
  25. Mohler-Kuo, M., et al. 2009. Attitudes of couples towards the destination of surplus embryos: Results among couples with cryopreserved embryos in Switzerland. Human Reproduction 24(8): 1930–1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morris, S.G. 2007. Canada’s Assisted Human Reproduction Act: A chimera of religion and politics. American Journal of Bioethics 7(2): 69–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nachtigall, R.D., et al. 2005. Parents’ conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision. Fertility and Sterility 84(2): 431–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Provoost, V., et al. 2012. Trends in embryo disposition decisions: Patients’ responses to a 15-year mailing program. Human Reproduction 27(2): 506–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. 1993. Proceed with care: Final report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Government Services Canada.Google Scholar
  30. Samorinha, C., et al. 2014. Factors associated with the donation and non-donation of embryos for research: A systematic review. Human Reproduction Update 20(5): 641–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Victoria. 1984. Committee to consider the social, ethical and legal issues arising from in vitro fertilisation. Libraries Australia Authorities (Record ID 36518755).Google Scholar
  32. Warnock, M. 1985. A question of life: The Warnock report on human fertilization and embryology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Monash University 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations