Evidence of meeting #33 for Health in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was consent.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Professor, Department of Bioethics, Novel Tech Ethics, Dalhousie University
I have been consulted in the past on this issue.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB
Okay.
And the other panel members, would you agree with my statement?
4:55 p.m.
Chair, Government Relations Committee, Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society
In the view of expediency, yes, I think we would be happy simply to pass it down.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada
I think we feel that we should go ahead with the regulation now, because I understand if we start making amendments to it, this will be another delay.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada
I don't think we need that. We have the basic document that our members can agree with, and there will be guidelines put out by the professional societies--CFAS, SOGC--and universities on all of these issues for years to come. So I think we have a strong basic document. Let's go forward.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Professor, Health Law Institute, University of Alberta
I agree with those comments. I'm taking my hat off as a law professor and putting on a more practical hat. In that regard, I would agree.
I actually hear the comments made by Professor Baylis, that we should push the right to withdraw back as far as possible. That, to some degree, addresses some of my practical concerns, but I still think we might want to revisit the rationales behind that so that they're clearly articulated.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB
Mr. Chair, I'll just make an observation. Everyone has been consulted. It's not a perfect set of regulations. I'm not aware of any regulations that are perfect from everyone's perspective, but the committee will be well advised that this is a step forward. It's better than where we would have been, and we should move forward.
Thank you.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Thank you.
Before Ms. Baylis has to leave, I have a couple of quick questions.
First of all, Mr. Caulfield, with yours, you suggested that we move it back, the consent to withdraw. To what place...? You didn't specify that.
5 p.m.
Professor, Health Law Institute, University of Alberta
I didn't specify that. I was trying to escape having to answer that.
5 p.m.
Professor, Health Law Institute, University of Alberta
One could make strong arguments that it should be even after the stem cell line has been created, and I would like to see that revisited.
Now, to be fair, virtually every other guideline that has explored this has said that the right extinguishes either at the creation of the blastocyst, when it's been assigned for research, or when the blastocyst is destroyed for the production of the stem cell line. So I think the position is relatively consistent within the international guidelines, but I think there are some strong arguments as to why individuals may still have a right of control over a stem cell line once it's created.
I'm afraid that right now is not perhaps the appropriate time to go into this.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Professor, Health Law Institute, University of Alberta
At least to the creation of the stem cell line, which is—
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Professor, Department of Bioethics, Novel Tech Ethics, Dalhousie University
The regulations do actually allow it up until the stem cell line use.
5 p.m.
Professor, Department of Bioethics, Novel Tech Ethics, Dalhousie University
That's 12(v). It's worded that up until the point that the stem cell line is created, you cannot withdraw, and the reason behind that comes from an old philosophical perspective in political philosophy having to do with law. You've mixed your labour with it, and therefore, in fact, you have some property rights in the stem cell. The stem cell didn't exist, but for you as the scientist doing a certain amount of work...and in fact, what was donated is no longer there to be retrieved. So what you gave me as an embryo, I can't give back to you. It doesn't exist anymore. That's part of the reason for saying that this would be a reasonable point at which it cannot be returned to.
The interesting thing, then, is in the context of not doing stem cell research, but donor gametes.... I've given you my eggs. At what point can I say no, give them back to me? I would say until you've taken them and transformed them into something else, until you've made them into an embryo, well, then you can say back to me, “Mrs. Baylis, I'd love to give you back your eggs, but I don't have them anymore. They've been made into an embryo. You can't have them back.”
The problem there is with the way it's worded. It says that you can withdraw up until the third party acknowledges in writing that the human reproductive material was designated for that use. I'm saying “was received”. That puts it just a little further down. I understand the problem, then, is who receives it. So it's not an uncomplicated issue.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
The comments about individuals who give consent and then change their mind later...for some of us who were around the table and listened to testimony when this legislation was drafted, it shouldn't surprise many of us, because people will walk over cut glass--pardon the expression--to have a child when they're trying to conceive. Once they conceive, looking back a year or two later, they might have a different perspective on how precious the embryo is and have a different take on giving it up for research. I don't think that should surprise many of us in the field.
The data on the Nisker study is interesting. You said something about 88% of those—
5 p.m.
Professor, Department of Bioethics, Novel Tech Ethics, Dalhousie University
That's another study that was done in the United States, with a very small sample size. If I were being critical of the study, I would say it's an extremely small sample size. You can't really generalize from it.
The problem is there is just so little empirical data. People are not collecting the data such that it can be presented. That's why the study by Jeff Nisker is important, because it's Canadian, it's recent, and it was done with a certain degree of thoroughness. But the criticism could be that it's one clinic.
We just don't have a lot of data, but we do know people change their minds, and I'm asking that people retain that right to the last possible moment.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Okay, and I think the committee is well advised to consider whatever changes on that side of the issue.
I want to thank you for coming in, and I thank the committee for their questions. We will take your advice under advisement, I'm sure, as we consider these regulations.
Thank you very much.
We'll take a quick pause and then we'll move in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]