 |
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...REPRN/TPHealth/
MPs vote to allow use of embryos in research
Amid bitter divisions, sweeping legislation passes Commons but faces Senate fight
By BRIAN LAGHI
With a report from Campbell Clark
Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - Page A1
OTTAWA -- Federal MPs have approved legislation paving the way for the limited use of human embryos in medical research after a morally charged debate that divided the governing Liberals.
The measure is part of a wide-ranging bill that also regulates human assisted reproduction and bans human cloning. The legislation is hailed by its supporters as a badly needed set of guidelines for the controversial science and attacked by its critics as morally questionable.
The legislation passed 149-109, a more convincing margin than some opponents had at first predicted. It made it through the House despite the objections of 16 Liberal backbenchers, the entire Canadian Alliance and Bloc Québécois caucuses and five Progressive Conservative MPs. The New Democrats voted in favour of the bill, as did 133 Liberals and four Tories; 41 MPs did not vote.
It must now make its way through the Senate, where it is likely to face more challenges before being approved.
"As far as I'm concerned, it will become law," said Health Minister Anne McLellan, who shepherded the legislation through the Commons.
Paul Szabo, a Liberal MP who spearheaded government backbenchers against the bill, pledged to fight it in the Senate. "I'm not going to be rolled over on this one," he said. "I'm going to fight it to the end."
The need for the legislation was flagged 10 years ago when a blue-chip committee produced a report calling for immediate regulation. A later bill died in the House six years ago.
The most controversial portion of the proposed legislation would allow a government-appointed agency to approve using embryos left over from fertility clinics for stem-cell research. Many scientists consider human embryos the best source of stem cells, a promising component of regenerative medicine that may one day provide treatments for several conditions, including Parkinson's disease.
A spokeswoman for the Parkinson Society of Canada said the proposed law will give up to 100,000 Canadians suffering from the condition reason to be optimistic about improved therapies.
"We have been strong supporters of this right from the beginning," Suzanne Tobin said. "A lot of people feel that this is an area of real hope."
Margaret Turner, 67, who has Parkinson's disease, said yesterday that she wouldn't support the bill if it would create human embryos for research.
"But if they are left over, rather than have them destroyed indiscriminately, I think it's a good idea to see them used," she said.
Ms. Turner, who was diagnosed 10 years ago after retiring as an office manager, said she exercises regularly and keeps herself healthy for the day when a cure or a better therapy might be found. She said she is hopeful for improved treatment -- "if not for me, then for other people."
Ms. Turner, who watched the debate closely, takes medication three times a day and could move to other therapies if her symptoms worsen.
The discussion on the reproductive technology bill over the past year or so has been reminiscent of the abortion debate, with some MPs calling embryos the most basic form of human life.
Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper said enough adult stem cells are available for research that human embryos are not needed.
"I think that there is lots of room for scientific progress with adult stem-cell research. I do not believe we need to be going down the route of embryonic stem-cell research," he said.
Mr. Szabo said the bill's language would allow human reproductive material to be implanted into non-human life forms, an assertion Ms. McLellan rejects.
"This bill is fatally flawed, there's no doubt about it," he said.
Aside from the use of embryos for stem-cell research, the bill touches on several areas.
It bans activities such as cloning and the creation of human-animal hybrids. It also prohibits the sale of sperm and ova and makes commercial surrogacy illegal. Surrogate mothers can, however, be reimbursed for expenses and loss of work-related income.
The bill would also create the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada to monitor clinics that deal with in vitro fertilizations and fertility. The agency would be involved in licensing, protecting the health of those undergoing fertility procedures, and in the collection of data.
Jocelyn Downie, Canada research chair in health and law policy at Dalhousie University, said the issue of assisted reproduction has been somewhat lost in all the debate involving embryonic stem-cell research.
She said yesterday that the bill is the last chance to bring in a regulatory framework for assisted human reproduction. Prof. Downie and a group of 64 other Canadian health-care, ethics and law experts issued an open letter on Monday in support of the bill.
Prof. Downie said that, currently, much of what takes place at in vitro and fertility clinics across the country is unregulated.
"The message has to get out that if we don't get this we're not going to get legislation because nobody is going to touch this again," she said.
The government appointed a royal commission on reproductive technologies in 1989.
New Democrat MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis welcomed the legislation, noting that the NDP got Ms. McLellan to pledge that she will try to ensure gender parity on the board of the new monitoring agency. The restiveness of the Liberal back bench forced the government earlier this fall to make a deal with the NDP for its votes.
She added, however, that she is concerned that the bill may not make it through the Senate before the Liberal government shuts down the House.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis and other MPs have speculated that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien may prorogue Parliament at the end of next week because of the coming leadership change in the Liberal Party. A prorogation would kill all legislation that hasn't passed both Houses of Parliament.
"I think the bad outcome on behalf of all these delays on the part of Paul Szabo is that it may not get through the Senate before Parliament prorogues," she said.
Ms. McLellan said she has spoken to Senator Michael Kirby, who heads a Senate committee that will review the bill. "I have every confidence that Senator Kirby will take this legislation and do a thorough job of reviewing it and move forward," she said.
She also predicted that even if the House prorogues, the bill may come back to the Senate in its current form in a new government led by Paul Martin, who will become Liberal leader in November and prime minister when Mr. Chrétien steps down early next year. Parliamentary rules allow for government to pass a motion to resurrect a bill killed by prorogation.
Not happy. This bill went to committee last year, split evenly between the members. None of the real amendments proposed by Szabo passed, so it looks like Canada has no effective ban on human cloning.
quote:
41 MPs did not vote.
|
My cowardly MP has yet to vote on a controversial bill.
C'mon! 
quote:
New Democrat MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis welcomed the legislation, noting that the NDP got Ms. McLellan to pledge that she will try to ensure gender parity on the board of the new monitoring agency.
|
The NDP would have voted against the bill before this agreement.  Guess we know where their real priorities lie.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
So what about using human subjects in experimentations against their will? Would you say that this ought to be allowed? |
Obviously not. And when you can find me a majority of credible scientific opinion that agrees with you on the question of fetuses being the same as you or I, then we'll talk.
quote:
Surely science cannot be hindered from the pursuit of knowledge by mere ethics. |
That depends. Is the "ethics violation" also immoral?
quote:
And where has anyone spoke about religion? Experimentation with human cloning will result in the death of many unborn children. |
Clearly, the fact that you are calling fetuses, or cloned fetuses, children implies that you are using religion. You're making an emotional appeal based on religion, with little regard for the weight of scientific opinion.
I'm not qualified, medically speaking, to have an opinion on questions like "when does life begin", "are fetuses the same as us", etc., so I'll simply defer to the experts in this case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
St Leo
|
 |
Member of the Apolyton Social Democratic Party
Jul 2005
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Neo luddite! 
Why should we research on embryos? |
They are there. Willfully shunning knowledge is unwise. You don't know what you don't know until you know it. People didn't mess around with electricity for centuries just to allow Fox News to come into existence. They did it because it was there.
Had Queen Victoria assembled a symposium and requested the development of a system for the recording, transmission, and display of images and sound, she would have been greeted with scepticism. Science is not about mission statements.
quote:
That's interesting language. You say growth like we were talking about plants that we harvest. |
Hmm. Increase in size? Gradual self-elaboration? Organic von Neumann process? Numerical expansion of a cellular colony with specialist components?
Fine, you describe it.
quote:
And I thought feminists believe that women ought to be able to have both a child and a career. |
There is no ought.
Anyways, I never said I opposed having children. I said that there should be an option of not having to temporarily hamper your mobility while the children don't yet exist.
quote:
Last I checked a woman does not get chained to her bed for nine months when pregnant. |
My bad. I exaggerated a bit.:P
quote:
When was the last time you saw someone voluntarily submit to being crippled? |
In real life, never, though one hears stories of people refusing medical treatment for religious reasons.
quote:
Yet you see many women want to be pregnant. Pregnancy is not a disability. |
Uh, it's hard to argue with 3.8 billion years of evolution. At the moment, women who don't want to experience pregnancy -- BTW, "to be pregnant" is a metaphor for "reproduce" that's inappropriate for my point of view -- don't have their genes carry on. That's a good incentive for not chucking out the multiplicative instinct.
Pregnancy is like going into space, except that the view is lousy and you have a lot more time for throwing up.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
He's obviously trying to draw an analogy between chaining you to a bed in a lab and giving you an anal probe, and human cloning. It's an emotional appeal with no real value here - the abortion thread is down the road.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
St. Leo:
quote:
They are there. Willfully shunning knowledge is unwise. You don't know what you don't know until you know it. People didn't mess around with electricity for centuries just to allow Fox News to come into existence. They did it because it was there.
|
Well, you are just sitting in your chair. Does that mean I can conduct experiments on you just because you are there?
quote:
Had Queen Victoria assembled a symposium and requested the development of a system for the recording, transmission, and display of images and sound, she would have been greeted with scepticism. Science is not about mission statements.
|
Sound doesn't require us to kill somebody in order for us to investigate.
quote:
Fine, you describe it.
|
Bad point on my part... Development would be a better word.
quote:
Uh, it's hard to argue with 3.8 billion years of evolution. At the moment, women who don't want to experience pregnancy -- BTW, "to be pregnant" is a metaphor for "reproduce" that's inappropriate for my point of view -- don't have their genes carry on. That's a good incentive for not chucking out the multiplicative instinct.
|
That's a very mechanistic perspective. People have kids just to make sure they pass their genes? They can do that equally well by donating a sperm or their eggs. I'm trying to get across the point that many women enjoy being pregnant and taking care of their child, it's not just about passing on genes.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 30-10-2003 at 10:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I didn't know that people needed hepl
jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
There is a major difference between conducting experiments on a human being who is self-aware (against his will) , and conducting experiments on a few cells which were going to be discarded anyway.
|
That's the statement I was looking for. I want to discuss this whole concept of a 'surplus' embryo? What makes an embryo 'surplus' and thus only suited for the trash?
Secondly, what is this difference? Am I allowed to conduct experiments on someone who is in a coma because they are not self-aware?
We do not have the right to do experiments resulting in the death of the human subject, unless they can give consent themselves. We do not allow a parent to serve as a proxy by subjecting their child to an experiment that may result in the child's death. Why then should we allow parents to subject their embryo to experiments that always result in the death of the embryo?
Edit:
almost missed yet another troll of religion. Show me where any of my arguments have brought religion into this debate.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 31-10-2003 at 05:20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
St Leo
|
|
Member of the Apolyton Social Democratic Party
Jul 2005
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sound doesn't require us to kill somebody in order for us to investigate. |
Neither does this, but you already knew I was going to say this.
quote:
That's a very mechanistic perspective. People have kids just to make sure they pass their genes? They can do that equally well by donating a sperm or their eggs. I'm trying to get across the point that many women enjoy being pregnant and taking care of their child, it's not just about passing on genes. |
No, genes have people to be passed on. Genes aren't especially intelligent, so the point of in vitro fertilisation hasn't quite sunk into them.
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Monk Do you play SMAC?If you do, do you favor University of Planet? |
My factions of choice in descending order are University, Peacekeepers, and Morganites. The spirituality of Gaians was something of a turn-off, so I never really got around to playing them. Human Hive, Believers, and Spartans are far too idealogically different from me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Such a squishy term, 'sameness.' You and I are different, yet no one would consider me to be more valuable than you. Care to refine your term? What differences should we ignore? |
I'm not a doctor, and have no scientific training. I defer to the experts.
quote:
Secondly, why would the majority of opinion necessarily be right? |
It wouldn't, necessarily, but by definition the majority of CREDIBLE medical opinion carries more weight than your opinion or my opinion.
quote:
Not wanting to do research on human subjects without their consent counts as an emotional appeal? Funny, I thought personal autonomy comes at the heart of bioethics. |
No, the emotional appeal is your use of the term "human subjects" when you mean "embryos" or "fetuses". Even assuming for a moment that your opinion is correct, the use of the term "human subjects" carries different connotations, and you are using it as an emotional appeal. You are drawing a connection between an embryo and, say, me strapped against my will to a lab table getting an anal probe. Right or wrong, you need to state your argument better.
quote:
Show me where any of my arguments have brought religion into this debate. |
Are your beliefs on this subject based in any part on your religion? That is, are your views about the starting point of human life, etc., based upon your religious beliefs? If the answer is "yes", you are bringing in religion. If the answer is "no", then I apologize for assuming so, but I'm still going to assume doctors have more credibility than you do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Are your beliefs on this subject based in any part on your religion? That is, are your views about the starting point of human life, etc., based upon your religious beliefs? If the answer is "yes", you are bringing in religion. If the answer is "no", then I apologize for assuming so, but I'm still going to assume doctors have more credibility than you do.
|
I was a prolifer before I became a Christian, so my beliefs that an unborn child is a human person can be based on purely secular terms.
My favourite argument starts with the premise that an unborn child is a living human person. He or she is living because living things can only come from other living things, they are human because their father or mother is human, and they are persons because there are no significant differences between an unborn child and an infant.
All the differences between the two merely have to do with degree of development, which goes on a continuum from conception, until you die. Conception is the only place where a new person comes into being with their entire genetic code formed from the union of the sperm and egg.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-10-2003 06:49
.
|