OTTAWA, June 14, 2002 (LSN.ca) – The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) yesterday presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health its reflections on The Assisted Reproduction Act, Bill C-56. The bishops recommended “that research on embryos, as well as any treatment that is not for their benefit, be prohibited” and recommended adult stem cell research as a mutually agreeable way forward. The presentation was made by Most Reverend Terrence Prendergast, S.J., Archbishop of Halifax, and by Dr. Noël Simard, an ethicist at Saint Paul University, Ottawa.
The CCCB praised a declaration of the committee's which “underlined that the interests of researchers must be subordinated firstly to the interests of children born from assisted reproduction procedures, followed by the interests of adults participating in the procedures.” The CCCB suggested further that “It would be even better if it also included protection for the interests of children before birth, that is for the embryos created by these procedures.”
The presenters used noteworthy arguments from reason to support their faith-based positions. They criticized one portion of the legislation which said, “No person shall knowingly create an in vitro embryo for any purpose other than creating a human being.” The bishops noted that the clause was “puzzling because, from our perspective, the embryo is a human being from its earliest beginnings. . . . The human embryo simply cannot be other than a human being.” Similarly they criticized a portion of the bill that spoke of the embryo's parents as “donors” noting “one does not own an embryo; that while property can be donated, living beings cannot, and that consent is not sufficient unless it is for the good of the embryo.”
The CCCB praised the legislation for banning sex selections of embryos but criticized the bill's permission of sex selection for health reasons. The presenters pointed out that “by permitting sex selection for health reasons the legislation permits discrimination on the basis of disability.”
They noted that surrogacy, while not banned by the bill is discouraged, and argued that “even if there is no financial gain and the offer is made from a generous heart, there is still the commodification of procreation which is inconsistent with the dignity of everyone involved . . . moreover, it violates the unity and dignity of marriage and separates genetic, gestational and social parenthood.”
Addressing one of the central arguments in the controversy, “Some argue that the embryos who remain after fertility treatments will die anyway, so why not do some good?”, the presenters responded: “It is not necessary that we do something with these embryos so that some good or meaning will be given to their lives. There is good and meaning in their lives simply because they are intrinsically human which also means from a faith perspective that they are known and loved by God. It is unnecessary to search for meaning on their behalf, especially when such a search is really nothing more than a way of justifying the decision to release human embryos for research purposes.”