Article or Case Law Search
In this article we will learn how Canada has sought to regulate assisted reproduction and reproductive medicine at the federal level. We will see how decisions about healthcare made in other countries impacts the United States as well as globally. The U.S. Supreme Court has long been in dispute about whether it is appropriate for the justices to take into account the views of courts in other countries. There are no comparable arguments about the importance of medical conclusions from other countries, because human anatomy and physiology are unanimous. But, law is jurisdictional. (George J. Annas, 2011) However, there are lessons to be can learned from legal controversies in foreign courts. The latest verdict of the Canadian Supreme Court on the regulation of reproductive medicine is a key model, especially because it divided the court in a five-to-four decision, giving both sides the chance to articulate powerfully held points of view. (George J. Annas, 2011)
Canada’s bottom line is that reproductive medicine is a part of the practice of medicine, and since regulation of the practice of medicine is a provincial authority, supervision of reproductive medicine is not constitutional when operated by the federal government (unless it involves the prohibition of an activity that is inherently “evil”). When the justices arrived at the conclusion that procedures (and possible procedures) in the area of reproductive medicine could be split into “immoral” ones, such as cloning, germline genetic engineering, and commercialization of human gametes and pregnancy, and legitimate or “moral” ones, such as in vitro fertilization and noncommercial gamete donation and surrogacy. (George J. Annas, 2011)
This was a rational step that at least for five of the justices took to split federal and provincial jurisdiction along these lines. The core