Home > News, Opinions > “Baby by Stealth” covers only one side of complex argument

“Baby by Stealth” covers only one side of complex argument


In her front-page National Post article, “Baby by Stealth”, journalist Kathyrn Blaze Carlson, suggests that a Canadian statute is causing Canadians to break the law. Quoting some professionals whose income is derived at least in part from assisted human reproduction, Carlson writes that the Assisted Human Reproduction Act is “forcing a slew of prospective parents underground”.

The article suggests that Parliament is wrong to treat people who just want to be a mom or a dad like criminals. But the one-sided argument hardly helps advance debate on this complex issue.

Regulating human reproduction in Canada has not been easy, especially for politicians who face re–election by citizens who can disagree fundamentally on reproductive matters.

Not surprisingly, every Canadian effort at regulation has been controversial. The Ontario Law Reform Commission bravely tackled the matter in 1982. But that all-male body recommended that “surrogacy” deals be enforced, even by taking a breast-feeding infant from its mother.

Canadian women reacted by lobbying for the federal Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. It reported in 1993, after spending $28 million hearing from individuals and groups throughout the country and commissioning volumes of original academic research.

Despite the cost and the effort, it would be eleven years before Canada’s Parliament enacted the Assisted Human Reproduction Act.

And then in June 2008, the Quebec Court of Appeal decided that Parliament acted unconstitutionally regarding many statutory provisions because they concerned health – a matter within provincial jurisdiction. The Federal Government appealed to the Supreme Court, whose decision we await.

Meanwhile, the Federal Government has, since January 2009, had a duty to review the existing statute. It is unclear whether Prime Minister Harper’s government has even commenced the statutorily-required task.

This history can perhaps unite all Canadians in agreement on two points: it is difficult to pass legislation in a federation about matters as sensitive as whether people can buy semen, ova and embryos; and some Canadians are bound to feel badly treated by everyone’s best efforts to regulate assisted human reproduction.

So maybe we should not ask, “How can we make everyone happy?” but rather, “Whom should we worry about the most?”  Parliament admirably answered this question in 2004 when it recognized and declared that, “the health and well-being of children born through the application of assisted human reproductive technologies must be given priority in all decisions respecting their use”.

So what are the health and well-being interests of the children? Some reproductive technology providers say, “The children should be grateful to be alive.” In other words, they believe that the children’s interests are in being born and the consequences of the methods are irrelevant.

But many disagree. Some people conceived by third party gametes say that not knowing half of their identity creates a significant loss. Many claim that not only must they grieve this loss; they must defend the legitimacy of their grief – a double blow.

Some donor-conceived people compare themselves to adoptees whose loss is recognized. Adoptees are encouraged to seek their birth parents and are aided by government registries in their search. By contrast, parents who use third party gametes need not tell children the truth about their conceptions. Nor is anyone who knows the identity of the genetic parent required to disclose this fact to the child, even when the child becomes an adult.

Whilst the donor-conceived and adoptees arguably suffer similar losses in being separated from their genetic parents, adoptees can find resolution of the loss in the knowledge that the decision to surrender them for adoption was arrived at with great emotional difficulty, as a last resort. The donor-conceived, however, can find it much harder to find resolution of this deliberate separation of genetic and social parenting.

The donor-conceived can believe that their genetic parents were only interested in money, and gave no real thought to the children they were helping to create. They can be devastated by the full import of what their genetic parents did – that their parents were motivated by the money. A condition of the sale can be the promise of anonymity, but the donor-conceived can be severely affected by their inability to meet their genetic parents or even know their names.

Curiously, the National Post article seems to lament, “We see donors who originally thought they didn’t want to be very involved, but who then want increased involvement after the child is born.” How is parental involvement with his or her child a bad thing, even if it is inconvenient for the rearing parents? Children are usually glad to know and to develop a relationship with their genetic parents.

Parliament’s decision to ban the sale of semen, ova and embryos is bound not to make everyone happy. But insofar as it attempted to protect human reproduction from becoming a commercial enterprise, its motivation is honourable.

In the reproductive technology business, some people claim that adults have a right to have a child no matter what the cost. Parliament and Canadian legislatures have a moral duty to investigate the costs to prospective children and to take steps to reduce them.

When regulating assisted human reproduction, the health and well-being of children and prospective children must be given priority, even if commercial or other adult interests might incidentally be thwarted.

Dr. Juliet Guichon is Senior Associate in the Office of Medical Bioethics and a faculty member of the Department of Community Health Sciences in the University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine.

  1. Damian Adams
    March 23, 2010 at 10:10 pm

    Dr Guichon’s assessment of the situation is very succinct. It is an extremely complex area with many facets, however, the wellbeing of the child should always remain paramount and super-seed any desires that an adult may have. As an adult offspring of these technologies I know only too well the damage that it can cause and my experiences are mirrored in the countless other offspring who I have either met or conversed with.

  2. Karen
    March 24, 2010 at 8:00 pm

    Thank you Dr. Guichon. As a donor conceived person, I fully agree with and support your position. Denying donor conceived their most fundamental right to know information about themselves, unfairly discriminates against them (unlike adopted people) of their equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although, I myself am from the United States, I fully support the Canadian Donor Offspring’s fight for their rights and equality.

  3. Brian Seaman
    March 26, 2010 at 11:22 am

    Hi Juliet. This is an issue with which, as I think you know, I am very familiar, and indeed have also written about it. In these assisted human reproduction matters, there should be a child-centred focus, as you have so eloquently stated. That the lack of knowing the truth of one’s origins has a psychological and deeply emotional on many adult children is evident in my discussions with the few I’ve met. I worry sometimes that I come across as a cold fish when I focus, though, in my writing, on the other element to this issue; i.e. the lack of knowledge of one’s full genetic history.

  4. Kim
    March 28, 2010 at 6:27 am

    Dr. Guichon, thank you so much for supporting the child in this situation, as their voices so often go unheard. I too am a donor conceived adult and struggle every day with the feelings of loss you have so accurately described in your article.

  5. Mark Lyndon
    March 29, 2010 at 8:37 am

    Very well said. The donor-conceived, rather than the parents, clinics, or donors, are the people most directly affected by donor conception, and they are the ones who have to live with the consequences the longest. They also seem to be mostly against donor anonymity, excessive payment for donor gametes, and secrecy surrounding donor conception. Why should an infertile couple’s desire to have a child override a donor-conceived person’s desire to know the identity of their genetic father?

    According to HFEA figures, the numbers of UK sperm donors have gone *up* four years in a row since the ending of anonymity btw, thus reversing a three year decline. The 384 donors in 2008 was the highest figure since 1996, and 160 more than in 2004 just before anonymity ended.

  6. April 16, 2010 at 8:00 pm

    thanks for the interesting blog, its one of my favorites

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: