It was not CIHR funded.
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.
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.
4:40 p.m.
Professor, Department of Bioethics, Novel Tech Ethics, Dalhousie University
It was not CIHR funded.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
We asked that question, and they said it was only frozen. That's why that struck me as misinformation.
4:40 p.m.
Professor, Department of Bioethics, Novel Tech Ethics, Dalhousie University
No, the first two stem cell lines were created using fresh embryos. That research was not funded by CIHR. That research was also announced and made public immediately after the CIHR guidelines were changed in 2005, permitting both fresh and frozen.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON
Thank you very much for coming down and sharing some very insightful information.
I wanted to touch upon Dr. Baylis' information, which you passed around to us. You stated in your report that according to the 2002 CIHR guidelines, they were amended in ways that perhaps were inconsistent with women's reproductive interests.
Could you perhaps expand on that a little bit?
4:40 p.m.
Professor, Department of Bioethics, Novel Tech Ethics, Dalhousie University
Yes, I'd be happy to expand on that. That is a specific reference with respect to this issue that we keep returning to, whether or not you should be approaching women who are creating embryos for their reproductive purposes and encouraging them to donate them to research when it's in their best interest that they be frozen for their own reproductive use.
I would agree, however, with what Dr. Buckett made clear a minute ago, which is that there are some embryos that are not suitable for transfer. If it were the case that they were not suitable for transfer, they're presumably not suitable for freezing in the context of pursuing a reproductive project, and I would allow that it would then make sense that they would be available or eligible for research.
But that is not in fact the constraint that is put on the fresh embryos; therefore, in theory, healthy fresh embryos that could otherwise be used for reproductive purposes would be available for research purposes. And that's the part later on where I talk about how this is contrary to women's interest. If they truly want to get pregnant, it's better for them to freeze their embryos. If they don't want to have to pay to be hyperstimulated again, it's better for them to freeze their embryos. If they don't want to take the risks of hyperstimulation again, it's better for them to freeze their embryos.
All in all, if you're deeply committed as a clinician to doing what's best for your patient, you ought not to be approaching them and saying, “By the way, there are some other options here. Instead of freezing them for yourself, would you like to give them up for research?” I'm saying that's something that ought not to happen, and I can happily report that in most clinics it does not happen.
4:40 p.m.
Professor, Health Law Institute, University of Alberta
I'd like to comment on the fresh and frozen embryo. I think this is perhaps an area where this committee can do some important work. I think you probably sense that not everyone in the community agrees on this. I'm one who feels that perhaps it's appropriate to use fresh embryos. I think we need to be careful in presuming what is in the woman's best interest, and perhaps if we have an appropriate informed consent process, they can decide for themselves what is in their best interest.
But it is a contentious issue. I think it's one that this committee may want to tackle in a transparent manner. I also think we need to be careful about the science around here. There are obviously some scientists who feel that working with fresh embryos is valuable and important, and it might be worthwhile to have some of them before you.
4:45 p.m.
Professor, Department of Bioethics, Novel Tech Ethics, Dalhousie University
I'd just say that scientists should not be acting on their feelings; they should be acting on the data. The published data say very clearly that you do not get an advantage from using fresh embryos as opposed to frozen and thawed embryos. If somebody can show me data that says otherwise, I'd like to see it. All of the published data do not support that feeling.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON
I can tell that there's a wide variance in terms of opinions, and I believe Mr. Lalonde also touched upon the fact that there's also a wide degree of variation in terms of consent forms.
How has not having the board in place right now impacted on that variation, and in terms of timelines and so forth, how imperative is it to have the board put in place immediately to ensure there is some sort of consistency?
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Government Relations Committee, Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society
I missed the beginning part of your question.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON
Mr. Lalonde had spoken about the fact that there's a wide degree of variation in terms of the consent form and how that's obtained. In regard to the delay we've seen in terms of the implementation of the board, how is that impacting on the industry and the area?
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Government Relations Committee, Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society
I would hope that most clinics consent patients roughly in the way the proposed regulations have laid out. Of course, I can't speak for every single clinic everywhere. When we have discussed these proposed regulations as a group with all the directors of all the IVF clinics, we have not found that people have come back and said, “Oh, but we do this”, or “We do something differently.”
In terms of the safety to Canadians, I don't think things are terrible at the moment. However, I think it would help if we had standardized legislation. Then it would be the same everywhere.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
December 12th, 2006 / 4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you.
This is some very interesting information we're hearing this afternoon. I have a couple of questions.
We've talked about the 2002 guidelines, and I think, Ms. Baylis, you said that you favoured most of the things that were in those 2002 guidelines.
In 2005 there was the introduction of fresh embryos. Is that correct?
4:45 p.m.
Professor, Department of Bioethics, Novel Tech Ethics, Dalhousie University
That's correct, and please, I want to be explicit. Both Mr. Caulfield and I were involved in drafting the 2002 guidelines, so my support of them may be biased.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Okay. What process was followed to come up with these amendments? How did this amendment arrive? We've heard a lot about the 2002 process, but how did the amendment come about?
4:45 p.m.
Professor, Department of Bioethics, Novel Tech Ethics, Dalhousie University
The 2005 amendments were made on the basis of recommendations from the stem cell oversight committee and some recommendations from the CIHR governing council. They would then have been approved at the level of the governing council within CIHR. They then would have been taken to the other councils, NSERC and SSHRC, for their approval, because all the councils work together on that, and then they were announced in June of 2005. Shortly thereafter, Canada's first two stem cell lines were also announced.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Was there a comparable or a lesser degree of consultation than in the 2002 process?
4:45 p.m.
Professor, Department of Bioethics, Novel Tech Ethics, Dalhousie University
The 2002 process did have a public consultation. That public consultation was criticized for not being broad enough; however, there was a consultation. There was no consultation for subsequent changes; consultation is in fact not required, so their actions were consistent with what would be expected within the organization in making changes to their guidelines.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
One of the things I was a little confused about was the information that 45% of the couples changed their minds when it came to it, but then once we had more discussion on it, that wasn't exactly the way it went. They were—
4:45 p.m.
Professor, Department of Bioethics, Novel Tech Ethics, Dalhousie University
I will stand behind what I said. I work very closely with Jeff Nisker. He's a PI on a project I have that is funded by CIHR. I am working with him looking at healthy embryos. I saw drafts of the documents sent out to those couples, and these were not returned as not deliverable. That's different. It's not that they didn't reach the place and the post office sent them back. It was made very clear that if we did not hear back from them, our understanding was that we were not to act on the consent and that we would not act on that consent. That is why I made the statement that it can be interpreted in that way.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
So there was a directive on the information that went out that if it wasn't returned, it would be deemed to be negative?
4:50 p.m.
Professor, Department of Bioethics, Novel Tech Ethics, Dalhousie University
It was explained that we would make that interpretation. It is still possible that they did not agree with how we explicitly said we would understand or interpret that behaviour, but I did want to specify that it was not a case of not getting a response because Canada Post returned it as not deliverable.