Regulating IVF

I thank "Roamer" (The Sunday Times, April 10) once again for referring to my letter. May I refer him to Kelves' In the Name of Eugenics (Harvard University Press, 1997), Adams' Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil and Russia (Oxford, 1990), Mazumdar's Eugenics, Human Genetics and Human Failings (Routledge, 1998) among the books available. He may also wish to read the article by Professor Henk ten Have (director of ethics in Science and technology at UNESCO) and I, "Eugenics and the new genetics", Journal International de Bioethique, 14:55-58, 2003.

As regards to charity for the truth, I hope these references suffice. I have a total regard for what "Roamer" is defending, and respect his sensitivity towards the Church, which I share; and also the concern of Il-Gens. I mentioned Catholic countries to show that we are not immune.

Regarding the IVF document which the government commissioned ten years ago, I was involved in this and am frustrated as much as "Roamer" that it has not been considered. But again, my original article did not deal with that. If we want to be charitable to the truth, it is this: it is a parliamentarian's right to defend life, according to Catholic doctrine, even when his party does not.

If they are to defend a law which regulates IVF, they should do so on the clear premise that they wish to minimise harm and because they are in a minority. They should however clearly state their position in favour of life (for more detail on this, see Città Nuova, February 10). Yet I do not see a stampede of parliamentarians taking a stance against IVF because there is a great sacrifice of life in the process.

So the argument from which we all seem to have departed is from the premise (and truth) that it is not whether to have IVF which the law is contemplating, but how to regulate it as an existing option.

This is where my original article departed as well. I did state however it made more sense to be against IVF, than to regulate it only in favour of legal categories. If we are to defend the right of the unborn child we must honestly take a look at the many children already in separated marriages - the moral being that legality in itself is not a guarantee.

Couples seeking IVF usually have a commitment towards each other much more than we give them credit for. Should those infertile couples waiting for an annulment watch their reproductive time clock tick away helplessly? Conversely, I have seen married couples seek IVF, only to later find that it was an excuse for a troubled relationship.

How would the proposed law allow a doctor to intervene with proper counselling if they automatically would have a right to the service? Only an authority would provide the proper individual evaluation of cases. On pain of being misinterpreted again, criteria have to be subjective.

However I now take Cardinal Silvano Piovanelli's advice (he was archbishop of Florence 20 years ago when I studied there), referring to all the bickering that went on in the papers, he called these people gente senza pace. On pain of becoming one myself, I bow to "Roamer", giving him the final word. Please be charitable!