Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-15 of 18
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Health committee  At least to the creation of the stem cell line, which is—

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Timothy Caulfield

Health committee  I didn't specify that. I was trying to escape having to answer that.

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Timothy Caulfield

Health committee  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.

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Timothy Caulfield

Health committee  I can comment. Are you referring to the creation of a general consent form template? In March of next year, as part of my Stem Cell Network project, we are convening an international workshop to consider research ethics issues, including many of the issues we are talking about today.

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Timothy Caulfield

Health committee  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.

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Timothy Caulfield

Health committee  I don't think that was me.

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Timothy Caulfield

Health committee  Do you mean from the regulations?

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Timothy Caulfield

Health committee  As I said, the standardization and the ability to monitor is a benefit. As well, there is the ability to create a culture of consent. It may sound trite, but I think it's important. It is going to create an awareness that there are specific consent rules in place. Because it's going to have that impact, I think it's very important to ensure--and again, this is important work that a body like this could do--that the rationales for that regime are clearly articulated.

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Timothy Caulfield

Health committee  Merci, and I apologize that I am unable to respond in French. I get the sense that you're asking me whether the process that has surrounded this committee has been appropriate. I do think there has been an unfortunate delay in the undertakings of the agency and in the regulations.

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Timothy Caulfield

Health committee  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.

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Timothy Caulfield

Health committee  We're actually in the process of doing a study on how consent is obtained in the context of embryonic stem cell research. I can't speak to how it's obtained more broadly, but we tried to explore exactly how consent has been obtained in the past for those researchers and those clinics that are actually involved in embryonic stem cell research.

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Timothy Caulfield

Health committee  As I said earlier, and as is recognized in some of the Health Canada background documents, there are a lot of consent norms out there. The consent norms in the context of research are tremendously high. Justice Picard has said it's the most onerous duty imaginable. Having said that, I think these guidelines will help to ensure and also create a form of monitoring that will allow us to know what is going on in the—

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Timothy Caulfield

Health committee  That's correct.

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Timothy Caulfield

Health committee  I think this is a very interesting question and again one that has immediate relevance. The interesting question is whether it falls under our section 8 analysis. Having said that, I'd be happy to offer an opinion. I actually think the clinician who is uninvolved with the research may be an appropriate party.

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Timothy Caulfield

Health committee  As was also highlighted earlier, I think there's a very interesting conflict with the 2002 guidelines, which are explicitly referenced in the act. I believe it means the 2002 CIHR guidelines are the guidelines that are relevant to the legislation. It creates a very interesting legal dilemma because you have a set of guidelines that were created by a relatively ad hoc committee, which both Françoise and I sat on, and became incorporated into law without the knowledge that it was in fact what was going to happen.

December 12th, 2006Committee meeting

Timothy Caulfield