5/30/2013 0 Comments Pratten denied leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada - no prohibition on anonymous gamete donation in CanadaThis morning, the Supreme Court of Canada denied Olivia Pratten's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. See the Vancouver Sun article here. Ms. Pratten is a Canadian woman who was conceived through the use of donor sperm in the early 1980s. Ms. Pratten sued the Province of British Columbia (and others) for, among other things, discriminating against donor-conceived people as compared to adult adoptees by failing to take steps to ensure that identifying and medical information about the donor was available to donor-conceived people upon reaching the age of majority. Ms. Pratten alleged that donor-conceived people suffered from various traumas as a result of not having access to such information, and this allegation was accepted by the lower court. Ms. Pratten was successful in the lower court, but the decision was overturned by the B.C. Court of Appeal. For more information about the decisions, read this article here. The fertility community - including parents, donor-conceived people, clinics, sperm banks, doctors, and lawyers - was waiting with baited breath for this decision. Although the case was originally brought in B.C., if successful, it was widely believed that the implication would be a national ban on the use of anonymously donated sperm and eggs across Canada. This would be the case for all donor sperm and eggs, despite the lack of known or open identification donors among various ethnic groups, the parents' preference, etc. At this point in time, of all the donor sperm used in Canada that is not from a known donor (for the most part, such sperm being imported into Canada from the U.S. and Europe), about 60% is from open identity (open-i.d.) donors, meaning upon reaching the age of majority, the child already has access to information about the donor through the sperm bank (notably, though, this is a contractual relationship and the information provided is not through the state, province or territory). The specifics of what information is available to the donor-conceived person varies from sperm bank to sperm bank. The only remaining national Canadian sperm bank, Repromed, also offers donors and parents open-i.d. as an option. Over the past decade or so, there has been a definite increase in Canadian parents' preference to use known or open-i.d. donors as compared to anonymous donors. However, this preference isn't necessarily true for everyone, and isn't necessarily true of parents from every community. For example, some fascinating research has been published about the British South Asian community which seems to suggest that this community is one that would struggle with the idea of known gamete donation. Is it acceptable that parents have a choice in deciding what is in the best interests of their child, taking into account many different factors, including the culture in which the family exists? Is it enough that through education and research, without imposing a complete ban, far more Canadian parents are choosing known or open-identity donors than are choosing anonymous donors? In my opinion, the best way to encourage known gamete donation across Canada is not to impose a ban on anonymity (which clearly isn't legally sound as per the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision), but for each province to draft legislation which clearly sets out the rights and obligations of sperm and egg donors, parents and children conceived through gamete donation, with respect to parental rights. If parents were less concerned that a donor may have parental or other rights to their child, it seems logical that they would be less concerned about the issue of anonymity.
0 Comments
3/29/2012 0 Comments The biggest news in fertility law in Canada: Assisted Human Reproduction Canada scrapped - what does this mean for fertility law in Canada?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." |
AuthorSara R. Cohen practices fertility law at Fertility Law Canada™ in Toronto, Canada with clients across the country and beyond. She loves what she does, and it shows! Archives
February 2020
CategoriesAll 2011 2012 Abortion Age Ahra Ahrc Andre Picard Anonymous Donation Asrm Assisted Human Reproduction Act Assisted Human Reproduction Canada Blair Commission Blessings Building Family Canadian Medical Association Journal Cbc Cmaj Declaration Of Parentage Discrimination Donor Insemination Donor Sperm Egg Bank Egg Donation Egg Donor Embryo Donor Embryo Selection Ethics Federal Budget Feminism Fertility Law Fertility Law Canada Frozen Eggs Frozen Sperm Gamete Gender Grateful Handmaids Tale Hope Infertility Intended Parents Isis Regional Fertility Centre Ivf J.C.M. V. A.N.A. Legal Parentage Legal Status At The Federal Level Of Assisted Human Reproduction In Canada Lgbt Margaret Atwood Ova Parliament Background Paper Pgd Pratten Pride Professor Karen Busby Property Law Repromed Semen Regulations Sex Selective Abortions Shana Tova Sperm Sperm Bank Sperm Donation Sperm Donor Supreme Court Of Canada Supreme Court Of Canada Reference Re Assisted Human Reproduction Act Surrogacy Surrogacy In Canada The World Egg Bank Three-person Ivf Warawa What Is Fertility Law |
Contact us by email at [email protected] or phone at 647.696.7189. International clients can contact us by whatsapp at 647.696.7189