The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that the Costa Rican law prohibiting in vitro fertilization violates the American Convention on Human Rights(Murillo et al. v. Costa Rica. The Costa Rican law is intended to protect human life, including embryonic ife, from the moment of conception, which is guaranteed by the Convention. A preliminary commentary by Piero A. Tozzi, J.D. indicates that the court “elevated secondary rights – such as the right to privacy, a right to personal
autonomy, and a right to sexual and reproductive health – above the right to
life.”
Category: Artificial reproduction
Artificial reproduction extended in United Kingdom
Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has directed the National Health Service (NHS) to provide artificial reproduction at public expense to homosexual couples and to women up to the age of 42. The change was preceded by the abolition of a legal requirement that a child’s need for a father be taken into account when assessing requests for treatment [The Telegraph].
Human eggs grown from stem cells to be used to produce embryos
It is reported that, within a few weeks, researchers from Edinburgh University will request a license from Britain’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to fertilize human eggs produced from stem cells isolated in ovarian tissue. The ultimate goal is to produce an unlimited supply of human eggs for artificial reproduction and research, and, perhaps, to provide a way to treat older women to prevent health problems related to menopause. However, the immediate purpose is to demonstrate that the eggs grown in the laboratory can be used to produce human embryos. Embryos produced in the initial experiment will be studied for up to 14 days and then destroyed or frozen. [The Independent] While researchers clearly are protected by a protection of conscience provision in the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act, a recent court decision suggests that the law may not protect physicians and others who may be asked to facilitate procedures and services that may ultimately be derived from this research.
Draft Bill Lacks Conscience Protection, Erodes Trial by Jury
News Release
Protection of Conscience Project
The Canadian government’s proposed Assisted Human Reproduction Act lacks protection for health care workers and others who do not want to participate in morally controversial procedures, and erodes the customary right to trial by jury, according to a letter sent earlier this month to Allan Rock, Canadian Minister of Health.
Project Administrator Sean Murphy noted that, beyond the procedures allowed in the draft text, the bill provides for ad hoc legalization of activities by Orders in Council, which do not require parliamentary scrutiny or approval.
Murphy suggested that the bill would establish an expectation of entitlement to legalized procedures, and cautioned that problems will arise for conscientious objectors, especially if provision of the “controlled activities” were made a condition for federal health care grants or transfer payments.
“Experience in Canada and elsewhere suggests that conscientious objectors will . . . be subjected to coercion and discrimination” or “forced into expensive litigation before human rights tribunals or courts . . . to buy the freedom that ought to have been their birthright.”
The letter requests that the bill be amended to include protection of conscience provisions.
Murphy also expressed alarm that the bill erodes the right to trial by jury for serious offences. He argued that it would be more consistent with Canadian legal traditions to reduce the bill’s summary conviction penalties to bring them into line with those now customary in criminal law.