Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Login
Advanced Search

Search for
BioNews


Print Page Follow BioNews on Twitter BioNews RSS feed

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook



King's College London - Health: More than a medical matter






Event Review: Administrative Review of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada

22 November 2010

By Dr Juliet Guichon

Juliet Guichon is Senior Associate in the Office of Medical Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary

Appeared in BioNews 585

Administrative Review of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada

Organised by the Standing Committee on Health (part of the Parliament of Canada's House of Commons)

Room C-110, Parliament of Canada, 1 Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6, Canada

Tuesday 16 November 2010

'Administrative Review of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada', organised by the Standing Committee on Health (part of the Parliament of Canada's House of Commons), Tuesday 16 November 2010


Last Tuesday, the embattled head of the Canadian federal assisted human reproduction agency, Assisted Human Reproduction Canada (AHRC), returned to defend herself before a Parliamentary committee.

This Parliamentary grilling was different from the one Dr Elinor Wilson experienced in June. Then, she deftly passed off a request for 'detailed budgets for 2007-08, 2008-09, and the current year' to the AHRC Board of Directors' Chair, Dr John Hamm. Dr Wilson, the current President of AHRC, also attributed her numerous trips on Canadian holidays to Vancouver, where her daughter reputedly lives, to the fact that the Agency is headquartered there.

Three former Board members spoke first at Tuesday's Parliamentary meeting. They each claimed to have resigned with great regret and only because they could not meet their responsibilities. They alleged that the Agency undermined its governing statute, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, by funding research contrary to its aims, failed to provide the Board with the 2008-2009 budget, and offered insufficient information about the costs of an international conference and the award of consulting contracts in 2009-2010 valued at more than $2 million.

Professor Francoise Baylis, Canada Research Chair in Bioethics and Philosophy at Dalhousie University, who resigned in March this year, accused the Board of failing to abide by its stated values, 'excessive, unnecessary secrecy that undermines the public trust', and claimed that with the loss of members expert in law, ethics, policy and patient experience, the Board could not fulfil its mandate.

Professor Baylis, together with former members, Barbara Slater, a health policy analyst, and patient representative Irene Ryll, claimed that Dr Wilson acted in a domineering way. They said she engaged in acts of intimidation in board meetings including eye rolling, hand waving, 'tskying' and dismissive body language. They believed the Board could not learn, for example, what percentage of the budget was spent on board governance, why minutes were not posted online and why votes were not being recorded.

Though the Board had been in existence three years, Professor Baylis said: 'We never were at the point of debating any matters of substance'. Barbara Slater detailed allegations of Dr Wilson blocking substantive input by Board members into regulations. Ms Slater also spoke of her persistent resistance to input from Board members on matters of substance and process. Irene Ryll summed it up by saying: 'the Board is broken and is managed by the President'.

The Chair seemed only to add credibility to that claim. Dr Hamm, a respected former Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia and family doctor, said that he often receives emails two days after they are sent. He chairs two other boards and sits on yet two more. As a busy man without instant access to AHRC communication, the Chair must rely unusually heavily on the professionalism, ability and integrity of his President.

But the Agency President did not acquit herself well. Dr Wilson asserted: 'I have never disrespected my board members', whilst conceding that her friends find her expressive and that she does wave her hands. She had no strong answer to Member of Parliament, Ujjal Dosanjh, who wanted to know why she referred in a Board meeting to a user group - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Queer people - as the 'BLTs' (a term that usually refers to a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich).

An investigation is underway into allegations that the Agency she manages shredded documents after the June Parliamentary Committee meeting. Mr Dosanjh is now calling for an independent investigation into the Agency itself.

So where does Tuesday morning's Parliamentary hearing leave Canada now, 17 years after the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies' recommendation that a Canadian agency urgently be established to license and monitor the use of assisted human reproduction and enforce the law? In a very sorry state just when we need it most.

Canadian headlines announce almost weekly new problems created by assisted human reproduction. These include a British Columbia legal action to disclose the identity of a sperm donor; a Vancouver 'surrogate' forced to abort a Down's syndrome fetus; two Ottawa women demanding that their fertility doctor's DNA be tested to rule out him as the father; and a 60-year old woman who gave birth to twins in Calgary.

Canada needs ethical and effective leadership in this brave new world. It is not enough for the Agency leaders to lament the continued wait for a Supreme Court decision on constitutional issues. The unchallenged law that bans the purchase of sperm, egg, embryo and gestational capacity is simply not being enforced.

The Agency and its diminished Board must attempt to regain public trust by improving its practices, communicating those improvements and not engaging in misstatement. Can they do so?

After last Tuesday morning's testimony, the odds look poor.

 

 

SOURCES & REFERENCES

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

11 July 2011 - by Professor Eric Blyth 
It is not so long since I applauded the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia (BC) for promoting the disclosure of the identity of gamete and embryo donors to their offspring [1]. News that the BC Attorney-General is appealing the judgment to the federal Supreme Court indicates that my enthusiasm was a case of premature elation [2]. The good news for those of us who believe that non-anonymous donation is the only ethical form of gamete and embryo donation is that if the federal Su... [Read More]

HAVE YOUR SAY
Be the first to have your say.

You need to Login or Register to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions

 


 

- click here to enquire about using this story.

Printer Friendly Page

Published by the Progress Educational Trust
RISK ASSESSMENT:
BREAST CANCER, PREDICTION AND SCREENING
FREE public event in central London, 6.30pm on Thursday 8 May 2014 - find out more HERE

ANNIVERSARY APPEAL
Please donate HERE, so that the Progress Educational Trust can continue throughout 2014 (and beyond) while keeping BioNews FREE for you to read

The Progress Educational Trust was shortlisted for the Charity Times Awards 2011

Advertise your products and services HERE - click for further details

Good Fundraising Code

Become a Friend of PET HERE, and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation