OK to restrict gay men to from donating sperm: court
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b6632b16-67a3-459f-b9c8-b8dd651e8b1f&k=83535
It does not violate the Charter of Rights to restrict gay men from donating to sperm banks, says the Ontario Court of Appeal.
The ruling rejected the claim of a Toronto lesbian, known as Susan Doe, who argued that it violated her constitutional rights to exclude the semen of gay men, including that of a gay friend who was willing to help her become pregnant.
The ban, contained in the federal Processing of Semen for Assisted Contraception Regulations, is "rational and health based," said a three-judge panel.
The federal regulations prohibit to use of semen from all men who have had sex with another man (MSM's), since 1977, to reduce the risk of infectious diseases such as HIV being spread to women and unborn children.
Now this mirrors the rules of Canadian Blood Services, which I also happen to disagree with. But this is very much different. In the case of blood donations, there's an anonymous donor and the recipient has no foreknowledge of any perceived risks associated with any given blood. But in this case, a woman is saying, "I know this man. I trust that he is not disease-ridden, and I want to have a baby using his sperm." With this kind of informed consent, how can there be any real grounds for refusal?
It does not violate the Charter of Rights to restrict gay men from donating to sperm banks, says the Ontario Court of Appeal.
The ruling rejected the claim of a Toronto lesbian, known as Susan Doe, who argued that it violated her constitutional rights to exclude the semen of gay men, including that of a gay friend who was willing to help her become pregnant.
The ban, contained in the federal Processing of Semen for Assisted Contraception Regulations, is "rational and health based," said a three-judge panel.
The federal regulations prohibit to use of semen from all men who have had sex with another man (MSM's), since 1977, to reduce the risk of infectious diseases such as HIV being spread to women and unborn children.
Now this mirrors the rules of Canadian Blood Services, which I also happen to disagree with. But this is very much different. In the case of blood donations, there's an anonymous donor and the recipient has no foreknowledge of any perceived risks associated with any given blood. But in this case, a woman is saying, "I know this man. I trust that he is not disease-ridden, and I want to have a baby using his sperm." With this kind of informed consent, how can there be any real grounds for refusal?