Regulating 'assisted human reproduction'

[tracy]

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.

I could swear we compensated people for their time at my hospital in Toronto.

I don't think it's illegal. This man was paid for his time. The article was from 2002 though, so I realize it could have changed.
http://www.myhealthcanada.com/Media/vansun20021122.htm

This doctor is offering possible compensation as well"
http://www.drkomer.com/clinical_trials.htm


http://www.ccac-accc.ca/clinical-trials.html

This is from the Colorectal cancer association of Canada: "There is usually no cost for participating in such a study as long as you are a research study participant. Some studies even offer compensation for participation. Participation is completely voluntary, therefore you may decide not to participate or you may withdraw at any time. In the course of bringing a new drug to consumers, many tests are done to ensure that it will be of benefit"

 

[Kreskin]

Just last week I was asked to participate in a university medical study. The study they are doing requires a specific genetic condition and they already have a long file on me to know I match their needs. They offered a couple hundred bucks for a blood sample, and apologized for it being only that amount because the study was funded by a research grant and thus limited. I don't know if they can compensate for profit or if they need to show that they're covering basic participant expenses. I won't be there until close to August but I'll ask when there what rules are as they know them.

 

[karrie]

I have friends at the U of A who participate in some trials, and I've heard the same thing over and over again... in Canada, the most they can do is compensate you for parking costs, because they don't want to risk it turning into an industry that exploits people who've fallen on hard times. I'll have to do some more digging, and see if I'm mistaken, but it all sounded pretty clear from the people I know.

I could swear we compensated people for their time at my hospital in Toronto.

I don't think it's illegal. This man was paid for his time. The article was from 2002 though, so I realize it could have changed.
http://www.myhealthcanada.com/Media/vansun20021122.htm

This doctor is offering possible compensation as well"
http://www.drkomer.com/clinical_trials.htm


http://www.ccac-accc.ca/clinical-trials.html

This is from the Colorectal cancer association of Canada: "There is usually no cost for participating in such a study as long as you are a research study participant. Some studies even offer compensation for participation. Participation is completely voluntary, therefore you may decide not to participate or you may withdraw at any time. In the course of bringing a new drug to consumers, many tests are done to ensure that it will be of benefit"

 

[Pangloss]

Please understand I'm writing from a pretty hard libertarian if not anarchist position, but could somebody tell me why the government should be able to tell me anything about how I use my reproductive system and whatever technology I choose to bring to it?

I don't want regulation and laws to be the default position here; passing a law against something because it might cause harm is a very different (and dangerous) thing than stopping a current bad practice.

Isn't what I do with my body supposed to be my business, and pretty much only my business?

Pangloss

 

[karrie]

Isn't what I do with my body supposed to be my business, and pretty much only my business?

Pangloss

Sure... but, none of these laws are in regards to how you use your body, or bringing technologies to it. They involve the bodies and tissues of others. They involve the creation of living tissues outside of your body. They involve the commercial trading of human tissues. It isn't quite the same as the simple 'my body my right' argument.

I think part of why the government has stepped in boils down to a slippery slope argument. If I can pay a woman for tissue from her body, then what makes one tissue different from another?

 

[Pangloss]

Karrie:

If I want to sell an eye or a kidney or my sperm or my ova, these are all my tissues - if I want to rent out my womb - these are all issues of how I use my own body.

People use up their bodies for work all the time - athletes and tradespeople are truly worn out after a lifetime of work - why is that ok, but not using your body in reproductive ways that might not even hurt the service provider, in fact, it might even be a healthy and positive thing?

I do honestly wish to be enlightened on this.

Pangloss

 

[Pangloss]

The slippery slope argument means "it isn't a problem now, but it might be in the future."

Ok, maybe we should stop at the "it isn't a problem now" part. There are lots of slippery slopes out there and if we outlaw everything that might be a problem, then very little would be allowed.

Pangloss

 

[karrie]

Karrie:

If I want to sell an eye or a kidney or my sperm or my ova, these are all my tissues - if I want to rent out my womb - these are all issues of how I use my own body.

People use up their bodies for work all the time - athletes and tradespeople are truly worn out after a lifetime of work - why is that ok, but not using your body in reproductive ways that might not even hurt the service provider, in fact, it might even be a healthy and positive thing?

I do honestly wish to be enlightened on this.

Pangloss

Pangloss,

According to Kreskin, you CAN rent out your uterus if you so desire... the illegality comes into play for the person renting it. The person who is not in ownership of it. The person who could potentially be taking advantage of a situation of hardship, exploiting you.

And don't kid yourself. Pregnancy is a beautiful thing, but it is always a risk. It is always a potential for severe harm to the mother. The last I heard, there is no other job in our country which contains the risks of surrogacy, without any kind of worker's compensation coverage.

When it comes to the actual surogacy laws, I'm not quite solid on the issue, but I can see where the gov is coming from. Doing it out of the goodness of your heart is one thing. Making a commercial enterprise out of it, is a complete other.

 

[karrie]

The slippery slope argument means "it isn't a problem now, but it might be in the future."

Ok, maybe we should stop at the "it isn't a problem now" part. There are lots of slippery slopes out there and if we outlaw everything that might be a problem, then very little would be allowed.

Pangloss

Well, the trafficking and commercialization of human tissues IS a problem in our world, right now, so perhaps slippery slope isn't the correct term.

 

[Pangloss]

Karrie:

If it ought to be legal for me to rent out my womb, or sell my sperm, or whatever else of mine I wish to vend, then it ought to be legal for someone to rent or purchase it. The law, if it is written as you say, is logically inconsistent.

There are bad employers out there - does that mean we should outlaw paying for the work of others? This is precisely, exactly the same argument. There are remedies, including standing up for oneself and the assistance of the law, for bad treatment at the hands of employers, landlords, merchants, doctors, etcetera. I see no difference here.

Technicalities dispensed with, I return to my original question - whose business ought it to be but mine what I do with my body?

Pangloss

 

[Pangloss]

Well, the trafficking and commercialization of human tissues IS a problem in our world, right now, so perhaps slippery slope isn't the correct term.

We have problems right now with refineries spewing CO2, should they be shut down? Or should we fix the problem, as best as we can?

I do not know the magnitude of the problem, what the problem is, or even if it exists, so I am arguing from a bit of a "pig in a poke" position here, so I will stick to broad issues and general principles.

Bad behaviour infects almost every arena of human interaction. Every good arena of human activity includes some abuse - it is in our nature. There are welfare cheats, overpaid bureaucrats working for charities, ignorant teachers, crooked cops, corrupt immigration lawyers - but we don't outlaw welfare, charity, education, policing and immigration.

We work at fixing the bad stuff so the vast majority of the population can benefit from the good stuff.

The same could be done for this issue.

I could go on with more examples, but I suspect you get my point.

Pangloss

 

[Pangloss]

Karrie

"And don't kid yourself."

I try never to.

Pangloss

 

[karrie]

Karrie:

If it ought to be legal for me to rent out my womb, or sell my sperm, or whatever else of mine I wish to vend, then it ought to be legal for someone to rent or purchase it. The law, if it is written as you say, is logically inconsistent.

Technicalities dispensed with, I return to my original question - whose business ought it to be but mine what I do with my body?

Pangloss

Whose business is all areas of medical tissue exchange? It's the health care system's business, and thus the government's. Guaranteeing equality of care (as the government sees it) means ensuring that everyone has equal access when someone decides to donate tissue to the system. Thus, it means writing laws or regulations to ensure that the rich can't get preferential treatment by buying said tissues, or paying someone to donate them. These laws are an extension of that as far as I can tell.

And why shouldn't the law be written the way it is in regards to penalties for paying for surrogacy? Surrogacy isn't illegal. And if the major concern is the exploitation of the surrogate, then fining them for having been desperate enough to rent their womb seems illogical.

 

[karrie]

We have problems right now with refineries spewing CO2, should they be shut down? Or should we fix the problem, as best as we can?

I do not know the magnitude of the problem, what the problem is, or even if it exists, so I am arguing from a bit of a "pig in a poke" position here, so I will stick to broad issues and general principles.

Bad behaviour infects almost every arena of human interaction. Every good arena of human activity includes some abuse - it is in our nature. There are welfare cheats, overpaid bureaucrats working for charities, ignorant teachers, crooked cops, corrupt immigration lawyers - but we don't outlaw welfare, charity, education, policing and immigration.

We work at fixing the bad stuff so the vast majority of the population can benefit from the good stuff.

The same could be done for this issue.

Pangloss

What you say makes sense. But...

When it comes to human organ and tissue transplantation, the issue doesn't just come down to a few crooked people poluting the system. It boils down to making sure the system doesn't become a form of fiscal Darwinism, where only people with money can afford to extend their natural lives. You say we work at fixing the bad stuff... it seems to me these laws have done that, by making these issues legal only when they are done altruistically.

 

[Pangloss]

Good points Karrie, and as always, I have learned something (or a few things). I remain unconvinced that I should not be allowed to exploit my one true possession (my body) in any way I wish, no matter how vulgar or crass or whatever - but please do not think for a second that I cavillierly* dismiss what you write.

Should I be prevented from profiting off my body because there are bad (exploitive) or weak (the exploited) people out there? Not by my reasoning. Their wickedness or weakness is their problem.

I know that sounds like the height of callousness, but really it isn't - it is expecting people to stand up, and live up, to themselves.

Pangloss

*real word, but my dictionary doesn't list it - it means to dismiss without so much as a thought; carelessly.

- p

 

[Pangloss]

I've written this before Karrie: I dig disagreeing with you. It is fun and smart.

Pangloss

 

[karrie]

I know that sounds like the height of callousness, but really it isn't - it is expecting people to stand up, and live up, to themselves.

Pangloss

*real word, but my dictionary doesn't list it - it means to dismiss without so much as a thought; carelessly.

- p

Like you Pangloss, I do understand where the other side of the argument is coming from. And it's not a view I easily dismiss either. I guess it's just that being the funny combination of a mother, and a student of psychology, I see a bit too much of how people need help, to end up sharing your view very solidly. I am the eternal devil's advocate though... constantly ferretting out all sides of almost any argument. And chatting with you, even when I'm not passionate on the cause, about the reasonings behind it, is a great mental workout. lol.

* cavalierly would be next to impossible to find in your dictionary the way you spelled it. Try out dictionary.com when you can't find one in your dictionary. Its program will generate alternative options if it can't find the word you enter, thus turning up the proper spelling on those occasions when we've had more important knowledge bump the information out.

 

[karrie]

I've written this before Karrie: I dig disagreeing with you. It is fun and smart.

Pangloss

Thanks Pangloss. I appreciate that. I enjoy discussing these issues with you as well.