A Christian Outlook has been campaigning for a very long time in favour of legislation to regulate the complex field of assisted reproductive technology. So we cannot but welcome the call for such legislation in a statement issued last week by Archbishop Joseph Mercieca, Gozo Bishop Nikol Cauchi and Auxiliary Bishop Annetto Depasquale. Quite rightly they said such a law should help "rule out" actions that "go against human beings and against the family".
The bishops were wise to release their statement when they released it because it is wiser to speak while something is being prepared than after the preparations are so advanced that it is difficult to influence it.
In fact Minister Tonio Borg announced that Government is working on such legislation. A Christian Outlook is in a position to state that work on the drafting of this legislation has been going on for several months and that a very advanced draft already exists. Besides, the Social Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives has been meeting regularly hearing the submissions of different experts on the matter. It is a pity that the proceedings of this committee have been very scarcely covered by the media.
The bishops were also wise not to go into all the nitty-gritty of the subject. They outlined a number of principles and stopped at that. Considering the subject's complexity, it is better to enunciate the principles and then let the experts in the field have their say on the practical applications.
The bishops condemned the practice whereby "embryos which are formed through assisted reproduction but are not utilised have also been used for research and have become subject to manipulation.
"One of the main ethical problems with this technology is the large number of embryos which, after being fertilised artificially, are destined to die." The bishops said other problems were tied to this technology which posed moral problems as the death of "unused" embryos was, in this case, being caused knowingly and voluntarily.
A Christian Outlook is informed that the law that is being drafted clearly states that all fertilised ova have to be implanted. Thus the right to life of these fertilised ova will be respected.
The bishops also speak of assisted reproduction by donor and says that this is not accepted by the Church. A Christian Outlook is informed that our legislation will not permit assisted reproduction by donor.
It is perhaps a pity that the bishops did not tackle in any way the difference between what is sinful and what can be lawful. The State is bound to guard the common good and not to turn Catholic moral principles into law. We think that the bishops should have addressed this issue.
This issue was addressed by Rev. Professor Peter Serracino Inglott when he recently addressed Parliament's Social Affairs Committee. As reported in The Times last Wednesday, he stressed that if every sin were considered to be a crime, the result would be tyranny. He also said that there should be the least possible legislation. Although he said that there should be a law to protect embryos, over-legislation should not take place.
Rev. Professor Serracino Inglott mentioned two points which, we think, will be the subject of much discussion. He also said that he could not see on which principles the freezing of embryos should be prohibited by law.
The obligation to preserve life was not absolute, he said, such as when a person refuses possible life-saving treatment. He understood those who were against the freezing of embryos because these could deteriorate, but he added that while prudence was a virtue, this should not be practised to the detriment of values like justice and freedom. However, he stressed that he was not in favour of an embryo being deliberately destroyed.
Though the argument presented by Rev. Professor Serracino Inglott is strong it is not universally accepted. Will those who think otherwise join the debate?
According to The Times, another argument he raised was whether assisted fertilisation should be permitted solely in the case of married couples. He said one could argue that if a couple was refusing to marry, they were not guaranteeing that they would take care of the baby. However, he added, the situation was different in Malta, where divorce was not legal. But this, he said, was an argument to introduce divorce and not to introduce IVF for non-married couples.
"It is less of a threat to introduce divorce than to give IVF treatment to non-married couples," he said. He stressed that marriage was very important for the function of society, and therefore the introduction of divorce would be attacking the local public policy less than offering IVF to non-married couples.
Once more we state that this is a valid argument. But if an unmarried couple would not be considered to have broken any law if they reproduced naturally, why should they be considered to have committed an unlawful act if their reproductive activity is assisted?
One hopes that the discussion about all of these subjects will create more light than heat.