Picture
Last night, I saw the play Hatched at the Toronto Free Gallery.  I had been waiting eagerly for the play to open, ever since first being contacted by the playwright, Claire Burns, reading a draft of the script, and then attending at and speaking at a fundraiser. 

Hatched is a play about egg donation.  It asks important questions: what makes a family? How important is biology? How much of a person is nature vs. nurture? Should parents tell a child born through the use of donor gametes about their conception, and if so, when? What role should a donor play in the life of the child conceived through the use of the donated gametes? Hatched goes a step further, though.  It asks questions about the emotional experience of the egg donor.  What does the experience mean to an egg donor? Is the donor curious about children born through the use of the donated ova? It explores the emotions of a woman who had donated her eggs in her youth and later ends up suffering from infertility; the only child with a biological link to her that will exist is the child who was conceived with the use of her donated eggs.

Because Hatched is a play and is therefore not required to be true to life, there are parts that are a little bit fanciful.  An intended parent being able to steal the medical records of an anonymous egg donor seems unlikely.  Even more unlikely is the egg donor being the guidance counsellor of the child conceived with the use of the donor eggs.  Regardless, I think it's important to explore the issues surrounding egg donation (and other third party reproductive technologies) from all perspectives, and theatre and art are excellent forums for this.  My one caveat, though, is that the audience must remember that this is a play, and not the actual experience of the donor. If we look back to Margaret Atwood's The Handmaids Tale, for example, when it comes to reproductive technologies, sometimes fiction has taken the place of reality in making policy which is a dangerous thing.

Hatched is playing through the 17th of November.  Tickets can be purchased here.

 
 
Picture
A quick note about my earlier post regarding the legality of paying for imported banked frozen ova into Canada (read it here):
1. I'm proud to announce that a version of the post was published in the Huffington Post here, and
2. I heard through the grapevine that Health Canada confirmed that purchasing banked eggs and importing them into Canada is, in fact legal.  I am hoping to obain confirmation of that in writing shortly!

 
 
The federal government of Canada announced its budget today.  Noticeably absent is any funding for Assisted Human Reproduction Canada (AHRC), the federal corporate body enacted to implement the Assisted Human Reproduction Act and its regulations.  By scrapping the AHRC, Canada will save nearly $10 million per year (see Health care a target in Tories’ deficit reduction plan).

In December 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada found that many aspects of the assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) were within provincial jurisdiction as they are health, and not criminal, matters.  Accordingly, much of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act was found to be unconstitutional (see the Supreme Court of Canada decision here).  However, sections 5 through 9 (among others) remain.  Notably, sections 6 (which prohibits the payment of a surrogate mother) and 7 (which prohibits the payment for eggs or sperm from a donor or a person acting on behalf of a donor) remain in force.

Eliminating the AHRC does not legalize any of the prohibitions in sections 5 through 9.  However, it will undoubtedly affect the enforcement of the AHRA, and further demonstrates just how unrealistic and unworkable the current state of fertility law in Canada really is.  Let's hope that the federal government scraps the AHRA completely instead of holding on to a poorly constructed piece of legislation and flogging a dead horse.  

As stated by Justices LeBel and Deschamps at para 251 of the SCC Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act,
"...Parliament, in adopting the Baird Report’s recommendation on controlled activities, intended to establish
national standards for assisted human reproduction.  The purpose was not, therefore, to protect those who might resort to assisted human reproduction on the basis that it was inherently harmful.  Assisted human reproduction was not then, nor is it now, an evil needing to be suppressed.  In fact, it is a burgeoning field of medical practice and research that, as Parliament mentions in s. 2 of the AHR Act, brings benefits to many Canadians."