Regulating 'assisted human reproduction'

[Kreskin]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/genetics_reproduction/rgtech.html

The nine prohibitions listed on the federal government's voluntary moratorium:

• sex selection
• commercial "surrogacy" arrangements
• buying and selling eggs, sperm and embryos
• genetic alteration
• creation of an artificial womb
• human embryo cloning
• formation of animal-human hybrids
• retrieval of eggs from fetuses and cadavers
• egg donation in exchange for in-vitro fertilization

Commercial surrogacy arrangements have been in the news lately. It's an odd situation. For example, in the US women can transact surrogacy services for fees (although is governed by the individual States and some don't allow it). In Canada it's federal law, but the human reproduction act prohibits the paying or offering to pay women to act as surrogates or donate their eggs. What essentially happens is some women will act as surrogates for a fee and will offer their services fairly openly because the law doesn't really apply to them. The law prohibits the intended parents who want their services. Intended Parents (IP's) are subject to a maximum penalty of a $500,000 fine or 10 years in jail for even offering to pay compensation above receiptable expenses. What has formed is an underground network of surrogates charging fee structures like a $3000 retainer plus $2000 per month while pregnant.

The law was intended to protect potential surrogates from being lured into these arrangements only to make money. However, surrogates are making a business out of it and the ones most in need of protection are those who seek their services. There have been some allegations of faked pregnancies for the sake of profit and subsequent bad news "miscarriage" announcements. Another allegation where the surrogate was already pregnant with her own child but took some start-up profit, even sent ultrasounds to the IP's.

It is legal for Canadians to go south and pay enormous fees surrogacy services. Generally anywhere from $20,000 to $80,000. They just can't pay an other Canadian for the same service, and if they do they can be subject to the penalties noted above. It's also legal for US women to hire Canadian surrogates (since the laws really only apply to Canadian women offering to pay Canadian surrogates).

Most surrogates are honest and trusting. They're upfront, that they would help couples have children but to take the time, energy, medications, procedures and do it for nothing (only the goodness of their hearts) is unreasonable. Many intended parents feel the same way.

What are your thoughts on this or any other prohibited activities in the Human Reproduction Act?

 

[talloola]

I can only comment on one aspect at this moment, as I have to read this again and again, and think about it.

I see nothing wrong with the daughter carrying a child from her mothers 'frozen egg', it is helpful for
her, and she is 'just' carrying the child, not conceiving it, it will always be 'her mothers' in reality, but
for the daughter, it is keeping family genetics and not involving strangers re: sperm/egg donators etc. The child will be truly a part of that family and not connected to a stranger.
Possibly it will be a nightmare for the government doing statistics, who cares.

 

[Kreskin]

I can only comment on one aspect at this moment, as I have to read this again and again, and think about it.

I see nothing wrong with the daughter carrying a child from her mothers 'frozen egg', it is helpful for
her, and she is 'just' carrying the child, not conceiving it, it will always be 'her mothers' in reality, but
for the daughter, it is keeping family genetics and not involving strangers re: sperm/egg donators etc. The child will be truly a part of that family and not connected to a stranger.
Possibly it will be a nightmare for the government doing statistics, who cares.

I saw that recently. A woman was freezing her eggs because her 7-year old daughter was already confirmed infertile/sterile.

The laws though are focusing on the banning of the purchase and sale of eggs, sperm and surrogacy services. For example, a sperm bank, up to 2003, would compensate a sperm donor for a "deposit". Now they can't. Needless to say there are few men offering to help out any more. Now one would need to basically get a donor on their own. It's kind of a strange situation.

 

[s243a]

Why shouldn't they create an artificial womb? Then we could for once and all end the practice of abortion.

 

[talloola]

Why shouldn't they create an artificial womb? Then we could for once and all end the practice of abortion.

If I ever had to have an abortion, which I didn't, it would have been done very early, and I would not have transfered my embryo to anything, alIve or artificial, I would have ended my pregnancy and also the
developement of the embryo.
There you go, that will start up some excitement for awhile.

 

[Kreskin]

Why shouldn't they create an artificial womb? Then we could for once and all end the practice of abortion.

The conventional theory on the artificial womb is that if it were allowed it could lead to commercialized baby production; or on a more sinister note, the growing of fetuses for stemcell or organ production and sales. I don't think there would be an opportunity to move a fetus from a person to an artificial womb, only via artificial conception and embryonic transfer.

 

[s243a]

The conventional theory on the artificial womb is that if it were allowed it could lead to commercialized baby production;

Which means anyone who wants a kid will be able to have one.

or on a more sinister note, the growing of fetuses for stemcell or organ production and sales.

Lets grow them. I'll need spare parts for when I get older.

I don't think there would be an opportunity to move a fetus from a person to an artificial womb, only via artificial conception and embryonic transfer.

Why not surgery is getting better and better all the time. Surgeons these days sometimes use robotic arms for smaller and more precise work.

 

[s243a]

• retrieval of eggs from fetuses and cadavers
• egg donation in exchange for in-vitro fertilization

What is supposedly wrong with these procedures?

 

[Kreskin]

Originally Posted by Kreskin

• retrieval of eggs from fetuses and cadavers
• egg donation in exchange for in-vitro fertilization

What is supposedly wrong with these procedures?

That's a good question. Informed conesent, or lack of it, is a part of the first one. Commercial exploitation apparently the second. Not everyone agrees with the prohibitions.

 

[tracy]

The only part I disagree with is not compensating surrogates or donors. The women who do that go through a lot of trouble. The men may have an easier procedure, but they should still be compensated for their time. It's still allowed in the US, so couples wanting it will easily be able to cross the border to get it. The laws here vary state to state and we have a lot of people come to California specifically for their surrogacy laws.

 

[Twila]

I've always believed that having children is not a right but a priveledge. I also hold the opinion that more people on planet earth is not a good thing. We have enough trouble feeding those we have and the air here is getting more and more toxic. We will soon run out of usable land ( pollution, floods, etc) and bringing more people into the mix doesn't seem like sound logic.

 

[Kreskin]

The only part I disagree with is not compensating surrogates or donors. The women who do that go through a lot of trouble. The men may have an easier procedure, but they should still be compensated for their time. It's still allowed in the US, so couples wanting it will easily be able to cross the border to get it. The laws here vary state to state and we have a lot of people come to California specifically for their surrogacy laws.

There seems to be an overwhelming consensus on that from people in Canada who either want to be surrogates or who need them. However, the board governing the new Human Reproduction Act has been padded with compassionate conservatives. I think one has been through IVF but the rest have no personal experience to help them see the issue from the other perspective.

 

[Unforgiven]

Why is it ok to make people who have no voice about wanting to be born while it's murder to kill someone who wants to die?

 

[karrie]

• sex selection

I'd have to say I'm thrilled that sex selection, is illegal. Being hesitant to see abortions performed for any but extremely necessary cases probably contributes to my view no that.

• commercial "surrogacy" arrangements

I see no need for commercial surrogacy, and can understand the reasons the government is against it. Again, being relatively 'anti-abortion' and heavily pro-adoption probably contributes to my view on this one. But, the ways the laws are written according to Kreskin's write up, seem very one sided and odd.

• buying and selling eggs, sperm and embryos

Again, I really don't see the need, and can understand why the government would want to put a lid on the buying and selling of human tissue.

• genetic alteration

I'm still on the fence with this one.

• creation of an artificial womb

Again, with the number of kids up for adoption both here and world wide, I really don't see the need or the usefulness.

• human embryo cloning
• formation of animal-human hybrids

Now does anyone on here agree with these? I'm a solid no on both.

• retrieval of eggs from fetuses and cadavers

I definitely think this would be unacceptable. Especially the retreival from a cadaver. But, that largely reflects my views regarding the creation of life, and my own desire to not have my eggs removed upon my death for uses which I currently object.

• egg donation in exchange for in-vitro fertilization

Well, if you've banned commercialization, then bartering is out too. Seems to be fairly consistent with their stand on the issue.

 

[tracy]

The need for commercial surrogacy and donor arrangements is that a lot of couples will be unable to have families without them. It isn't easy to find a woman willing to carry and give birth to your child without any compensation. Abortion isn't an issue here since they are clearly wanted pregnancies, and unfortunately a lot of those families have had failed adoption attempts. We allow people to be paid for medical experiments, but not if they are giving up their time and risking their health to help a couple start a family.

What I dislike in reproductive technologies are things like docs fertilizing women who have ovulated 14 eggs and stuff like that. Clomid and drugs like it that cause hyperovulation can't be controled and you wind up with those sextuplets born recently here in the US. The family didn't want selective reduction (abortion of some of the fetuses to give the others a chance to stay in). They were born at less than 23 weeks. 4 of them are dead already. That bothers me a lot more than a couple paying a surrogate to carry their baby when the woman can't do it for whatever reason. I've seen a lot of happy babies born that way.

 

[Kreskin]

In the globe today

[URL]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070626.SURROGATE26/TPStory//?pageRequested=1[/URL]

Canada: destination for infertile couples

An increasing number of foreigners are choosing Canadian surrogates because the practice is illegal in their home countries

MARY GAZZE
Special to The Globe and Mail
June 26, 2007

Infertile couples from France, Italy, Sweden and Australia are travelling to Canada to have a Canadian surrogate give birth to their children.
An increasing number of foreigners are making the choice because surrogacy is illegal in their home countries. .........

Surrogacy is legal here, but not for profit. However, Canadians aren't helping these people solely from the goodness of their hearts. Foreigners are coming to Canada, where a law subjects them to a $500,000 fine and up to two years in prison if caught compensating the Canadians in Canada.

Coincidentally, the article quotes a post on a site I operate, ivf.ca (it's on page 2). We've had some major battle-royals over these issues. I had to put a lid on some of the discussions, both for the way people were conducting themselves and the legal issues surrounding it.

 

[karrie]

We allow people to be paid for medical experiments, but not if they are giving up their time and risking their health to help a couple start a family.

Actually, we don't allow that. Trust me, I have friends who take part in medical experiments, and it is illegal in Canada to pay people for it.

 

[karrie]

The need for commercial surrogacy ... Abortion isn't an issue here...

Oh, and, to clarify (because I really didn't explain why I added that), preventing abortion IS a part of my view when it comes to surrogacy versus adoption. I don't believe that society has any right to say that women aren't allowed abortions, if we're not finding ways to provide healthy happy homes to the babies that result. To my way of thinking (and I don't think anyone needs to agree), surrogacy is not as needed if we have a properly working adoption system in place. Every adoption I've seen has been with the adoptive parents there, in the room, for the birth, and I fail to see how that is any worse than surrogacy.

 

[tracy]

Oh, and, to clarify (because I really didn't explain why I added that), preventing abortion IS a part of my view when it comes to surrogacy versus adoption. I don't believe that society has any right to say that women aren't allowed abortions, if we're not finding ways to provide healthy happy homes to the babies that result. To my way of thinking (and I don't think anyone needs to agree), surrogacy is not as needed if we have a properly working adoption system in place. Every adoption I've seen has been with the adoptive parents there, in the room, for the birth, and I fail to see how that is any worse than surrogacy.

I share your positive view of adoption (I'm adopted myself). Unfortunately, I have also seen the negatives of it. There are just not enough babies out there to be adopted for every family who wants one. Many families I've met finally adopting have been put through hell with "failed" adoptions. Birth mothers change their minds, birth fathers suddenly come into the picture and the adoptive parents get their hearts broken. I can completely understand why some people would rather do a surrogacy arrangement than try to adopt. The legalities around it are much more certain for them here. Really, it isn't too different from the adoption scenario you've seen. Every surrogate family I've known has also been in the room for the birth. I would actually consider surrogacy as a form of adoption. Sometimes the parents are the biological parents and sometimes they aren't. I've had a few gay couples use this to start a family too. For them, adoption is even more difficult than it would be for a straight couple. The same is true for older parents. I have a friend who conceived with donor eggs at 41. She would have been less likely to find a child to adopt at her age. Her twins are 3 now and I just can't imagine why people think her family was wrong in some way. It was created thanks to about 10K spent on donor eggs. Those beautiful children would not exist if not for the money she and her husband spent.

 

[Kreskin]

Good post Tracy, you touched on some important issues.