From human embryos to interspecies creations: Ethical and legal uncertainties surrounding the creation of cytoplasmic hybrids for research

Medical Law International

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 227-244

  Ogbogu, Ubaka ^a   Caulfield, Timothy ^a   Green, Shane ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b Ontario Genomics Institute   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANADA; CYBRID; EMBRYO; EMBRYO RESEARCH; FERTILIZATION; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; POLICY; RELIGION; STEM CELL; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 56249122956     PISSN: 09685332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/096853320800900302     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Simple, 'Ban on Human-Animal Embryos is Unacceptable, MPs Say' The Guardian (5 April 2007), http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/ 0,,2050278,00.html
2. 'Hybrid Embryo Ban 'Unnecessary" BBC News [International version] (5 April 2007), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/ 6524883.stm
3. 'Hybrid Embryo Work 'Under Threat" BBC News [UK version] (5 January 2007), http://news. bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6230945.stm;
4. M. Roberts, 'Why are Ministers Opposed to Hybrids?' BBC News [UK version] (5 January 2007), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/ 6233671.stm
5. M. Henderson, 'Scientists Triumph in Battle Over Ban on Hybrid Embryos' The Times (27 February 2007), http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ news/uk/science/articlel444186.ece
6. 'Boffins Want to Create Embryos That are Part Cow and Part Human' Birmingham Post (7 November 2006), http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/news/ tm_method=full%26objectid=18057492%26siteid=50002-name-page.html
7. J. Stacey, 'Anger Over 'Hybrid' Embryo Ban' Birmingham Post (5 April 2007) p. 7;
8. S. Connor, 'Medicine Needs Hybrid Embryos, Scientists Say' The Independent (5 April 2007), http://news.independent.co.uk/health/ article2422654.ece.
9. R. Steinbrook, 'Egg Donation and Human Embryonic Stem-Cell Research' (2006) 354:4 New England Journal of Medicine 324-26;
10. D. Magnus & M.K. Cho, 'Issues in Oocyte Donation For Stem Cell Research'(2005) 308:5729 Science 1747-1748;
11. D. Beeson & A. Lippman, 'Egg Harvesting for Stem Cell Research: Medical Risks and Ethical Problems' (2006) 13:4 Reproductive BioMedicine Online 573-579;
12. PJ Smith, 'Study: Women Who Donate Eggs for Fertility Research Face Loss of Life and Limb: 34 Women Suffered Severe Reactions to Hormone-Stimulating Drugs for Egg Extraction.' LifeSiteNews (19 February 2007), http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07021902.html.
13. UK, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Hybrids and Chimeras: A Consultation on the Ethical and Social Implications of Creating Human/Animal Embryos in Research. (London, UK: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, 2007), http://www.hfea.gov.uk/ docs/HFEA_Final.pdf.
14. Simple; Henderson; Connor, supra note 1; 'Scientists Support Hybrid Embryos' BBC News [UK version] (10 January 2007), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6247063. stm;
15. 'Ministers Bow to Hybrid Pressure' BBC News [UK version] (17 May 2007), http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6661717.stm.
16. UK, Department of Health. Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: Proposals for Revised Legislation (including Establishment of the Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos), Cm 6989. (Norwich: The Stationery Office, 2006), http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm69/6989/6989.pdf.
17. UK, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Government Proposals for the Regulation of Hybrid and Chimera Embryos: Fifth Report of Session 2006-07, Report No. HC-272-1, 5 April 2007 (London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2007), http://www.publications.parliament.uk/ pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/272/272i.pdf.
18. Ibid. at p. 3. The HFEA's decision to seek public opinion could also be viewed as a proper exercise of its statutory discretion.
19. UK, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Statement on Licensing of Applications to Carry Out Research Using Human-Animal Cytoplasmic Hybrid Embryos. 17 January 2008, http://www.hfea.gov.uk/ en/1640.html
20. See also UK, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Statement on its Decision Regarding Hybrid Embryos. 5 September 2007, http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/1581.html.
21. Newcastle University. Hybrid Embryos Statement. 1 April 2008. http://www.ncl. ac.uk/press.office/press.release/ content.phtml?ref=1207065299
22. F. Walsh, 'UK's First Hybrid Embryos Created' BBC News [online version] (1 April 2008), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ health/7323298.stm.
23. UK, House of Commons Session, Hansard, (2007-08), http://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080519/ debtext/80519-0004.htm#08051912000001.
24. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (U.K.), 1990, c. 37.
25. Bill 70, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL] 2007-2008 Sess., 2008, s.4: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/ cmbills/070/08070.1-5.html#j254.
26. Ibid. s. 4(2)
27. SC 2004, c2.
28. See generally, ibid. s. 5.
29. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans 1998 (with 2000, 2002, 2005 Amendments). (Ottawa: Interagency Secretariat on Research Ethics, 1998), http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/pdf/TCPS%20October%202005_E.pdf.
30. Supra note 14, s. 3.
31. S. Minger et al., License Application to the HFEA to Create Interspecies SCNT-Derived Human Embryos. On file with the authors, cited with permission; S. Minger, 'Interspecies SCNT-derived Human Embryos: A New Way Forward for Regenerative Medicine' (2007) 2:2 Regenerative Medicine 103-106.
32. Cf. the position adopted by the UK House of Lords in R (on the application of Quintavalle) v. Secretary of State for Health, [2003] All E.R. 113 on the application of the HFE Act to embryos created other than by the process of fertilisation. In the court's view, the purpose of the HFE Act is to regulate the use and creation of embryos regardless of how they are created, including embryos created using new technologies that were not foreseeable at the time the Act was passed. This position suggests that there is no distinction between embryos created by fertilisation or other processes, such as SCNT. The distinction between human embryos and interspecies embryos is now maintained in the amendments to the HFE Act.
33. Supra note 14, s. 3.
34. Ibid.
35. Supra note 18.
36. However, the law affords some level of protection to prenatal entities, particularly in the context of criminal law. See e.g., s. 242 of the Canadian Criminal Code, R.S.C, 1985, c. C-46 which provides for the offence of failing to procure reasonable assistance in child-birth, resulting in permanent injury to or death (before or after birth) of the child;
37. Canada: Bill C-484, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence), 2nd Sess., 39th Parl., 2007 which makes it an offense to cause the death of a child at any time before its birth while committing or attempting to commit an offense against its mother, who the offender knows or ought to know is pregnant;
38. Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 18 U.S.C. 1841 (2004) which makes it an offence to cause the death of or bodily injury to a child in utero during the commission of specified offences, regardless of whether the offender knew or ought to have known that the woman was pregnant at the time of the offence;
39. Williard v. Zurich Insurance Co., (2004) 73 O.R. (3d) 309 (Ontario S.C.) where the court held that although a child has no rights before its birth, once it is born its rights that were previously uncertain 'crystallize';
40. R. v. McDonald, [2002] NICA 54 (Northern Ireland Court of Appeal) involving a unsuccessful appeal against a conviction for child destruction, inter alia. The accused destroyed the victim's unborn child in the course of a sexual assault and attempted murder;
41. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the state can legitimately limit the availability of abortion out of an interest in protecting 'potential life' once the foetus has reached a stage of 'viability' (the ability to survive outside of the woman's body);
42. and finally, s. 37(1) of the HFE Act, supra note 11, which provides for an amendment to s. 1(1) of the Abortion Act, 1967 (U.K.), c. 87 imposing a 24-week limit on a woman's ability to procure an abortion, except where necessary to prevent specified risk or grave permanent injury to the physical and mental health of the mother, existing children of her family, or the unborn child.
43. R. (on the application of Quintavalle) v. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, [2005] All E.R. 555.
44. Supra note 6.
45. Supra note 14, s. 3.
46. Ibid.
47. R. Mykitiuk, J. Nisker & R. Bluhm, 'The Canadian Assisted Human Reproduction Act: Protecting Women's Health while Potentially Allowing Human Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer into Non-Human Oocytes' (2007) 7:2 American Journal of Bioethics 71-73, at 72.
48. Also cf. the House of Lords position in supra note 19.
49. Ibid.
50. Supra note 16, Art. 9.5.
51. Ibid. Art. 9.3.
52. T. Caulfield, 'Clones, Controversy and Criminal Law: A Comment on the Proposal for Legislation Governing Assisted Human Reproduction' (2001) 39:2 Alberta Law Review 335-346.
53. The independent body could be a non-governmental panel of experts and members drawn from various stakeholder communities. See generally T. Caulfield, 'Bill C-13 The Assisted Human Reproduction Act: Examining the Arguments Against a Regulatory Approach' (2002) 11:1 Health Law Review 20-25.
54. This strategy is employed in the amendments to the HFE Act, albeit in a manner that might be perceived as improper delegation of legislative authority. See supra note 12, s. 4(10), which empowers the Secretary of State to amend certain sections of the Act or expand the scope of certain definitions if he considers it necessary and desirable to do so in the light of developments in science and medicine.
55. T. Caulfield & T. Bubela, 'Why a Criminal Ban? Analyzing the Arguments Against Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer in the Canadian Parliamentary Debate' (2007) 7:2 American Journal of Bioethics 51-61.
56. Ibid.
57. See also A.M. Viens, 'Criminal Law in the Regulation of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer' (2007) 7:2 American Journal of Bioethics 73-75.
58. The benefits and limitations of evidence-based legislation or policymaking have received some attention in relevant literature. See e.g., S. Nutley, 'Bridging the Policy-Research Divide: Reflections and Lessons from the United Kingdom' (2003) 108 Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration 19-28;
59. M.A. Rodwin, 'The Politics of Evidence-based Medicine' (2001) 26:2 Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 439-46.
60. Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat. International Public Opinion Research on Emerging Technologies. Canada-U.S. Survey Results, March 2005, http://www. biostrategy.gc.ca/CMFiles/ E-POR-ET_200549QZS-5202005-3081.pdf
61. Canadian Press, Leger Marketing. How Canadians Perceive Human Cloning: Executive Report 15 August 2001, http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/spclm/010820eng.pdf.
62. Caulfield & Bubela supra note 35;
63. Health Canada. Proposals for Legislation Governing Assisted Human Reproduction: An Overview, May 2001, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/ alt_formats/cmcd-dcmc/pdf/media/releases-communiques/2001/ repro_over.pdf
64. Canada, House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families (Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2001).
65. The AHRAC is vested with statutory authority to implement the provisions of the AHRA, including the power to issue research licences. See supra note 14, ss. 21-24.
66. C. Abraham, 'Critics Troubled by New Fertility Panel: Social Conservatives on Oversight Board for Stem-Cell Research, Reproduction Laws' The Globe and Mail (23 December 2006) A1.
67. L. Eggerston, 'New Reproductive Technology Board Belies Expert Selection Process' (2007) 176:5 Canadian Medical Association Journal 611-12, http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/176/5/611?ck=nck
68. G. Galloway, 'Ottawa Rejects Concerns Over Fertility Panel;
69. Board Appointments Reflect 'Wide Range' of Viewpoints, Health Official Insists' The Globe and Mail (28 December 2006) A4.
70. Supra note 35.
71. Supra note 28;
72. S. Bordet, S. Feldman & B.M. Knoppers, 'Legal Aspects of Animal-Human Combinations in Canada' (2007) 1:1 McGill Health Law Publication 83-99.
73. See Supra note 3.
74. J. Petre, 'Chimera Embryos Have Right to Life, Say Bishops' The Daily Telegraph (27 June 2007), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/26/nchimera126.xml.
75. T. Caulfield & R. Brownsword, 'Human Dignity: A Guide to Policy Making in the Biotechnology Era?' (2006) 7:1 Nature Reviews Genetics 72-76;
76. T. Caulfield, 'Human Cloning Laws, Human Dignity and the Poverty of the Policy Making Dialogue' (2003) 4:3 BMC Medical Ethics, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/4/3
77. T. Caulfield & A. Chapman, 'Human Dignity as a Criterion for Science Policy' (2005) 2:8 PloS Medicine 736-738;
78. R. Macklin, 'Dignity is a Useless Concept' (2003) 327:7429 British Medical Journal 1419-1420;
79. R. Brownsword, 'Bioethics Today, Bioethics Tomorrow: Stem cell Research and the 'Dignitarian Alliance'' (2003) 17 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 15-51;
80. T. Caulfield, L. Knowles & E.M. Meslin, 'Law and Policy in the Era of Reproductive Genetics' (2004) 30 Journal of Medical Ethics 414-417;
81. J. S. Robert & F. Baylis, 'Crossing Species Boundaries' (2003) 3:3 American Journal of Bioethics 1-13;
82. J.A. Robertson, 'A Response to 'Crossing Species Boundaries' by Jason Scott Robert and Francoise Baylis' (2003) 3:3 American Journal of Bioethics W64-W65.
83. Robert & Baylis, ibid. at 7.
84. Robertson, supra note 47 at W64.
85. Ibid. at W65.