News

OTTAWA, May 31, 2002 (LSN.ca) – Dr. Dianne Irving, a leading international expert on new reproductive technologies, has reviewed the proposed Canadian legislation, Bill C-56 and has found it completely inadequate.  Dr. Irving, whose Ph.D. included a doctoral concentration in secular bioethics at the world’s foremost bioethics institute, noted that the bill was poorly prepared using faulty science and lacking basic definitions necessary to have the law actually ban cloning as it claims it does.  Irving points out in her analysis that the Bill erroneously or inadequately defines or completely fails to define several key terms. She suggests that if a term is not defined accurately in a piece of legislation, the real procedure accurately defined cannot be considered to be covered by the legislation.  In terms of human cloning, which the bill is said to ban, Irving notes that at least eight varieties and techniques are not mentioned and are therefore not prohibited. The one technique that is mentioned, Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) is inaccurately described.  Therefore, in Irving’s opinion, it too would therefore not be prohibited.  The Bill therefore can be interpreted as prohibiting no form of human cloning at all.  Irving lists many other flaws in the legislation.  She noted that she has reviewed similar legislation in the US and the UK and found the Canadian legislation to be by far the weakest.  Campaign Life Coalition is asking Canadians to urge their MPs to oppose the legislation which also allows experimentation on live human embryos.  Access Dr. Irving’s analysis of Bill C-56 on LifeSite’s Stem Cell page. The summary document provides a brief overview of the detailed analysis.  See https://www.lifesitenews.com/features/stemcellembryo   On Monday LifeSite will provide a more extensive report on Bill C-56 and its deficiencies.  *NOTE: the Stem Cell page, which has just been updated, has become an excellent research resource.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.