Thursday, 5th March 2009
IVF draft law by summer
'Church cannot remain neutral...'
A Bill on assisted procreation is being drafted by the Bioethics Consultative Committee and should be ready by summer, The Times has learnt.
The Bill is based on recommendations made by Parliament's Social Affairs Committee in July 2005, Bioethics Consultative Committee chairman Michael Asciak said.
"We are using the parliamentary committee's report as our standard, although the draft law might vary slightly," he said.
The news comes after Rev. Prof. Emmanuel Agius on Monday urged the government to stop dragging its feet on the issue as it had been doing for too long. He was speaking during a meeting of the House Social Affairs Committee.
In January, The Times had reported that a law regulating IVF and biotechnology was being drafted but no deadline had been set for its presentation in Parliament.
Dr Asciak said yesterday that Social Policy Minister John Dalli, through Health Parliamentary Secretary Joe Cassar, had asked the consultative committee to draft the Bill, which should be ready "soon."
In an in-depth report on the use of biotechnology, genetic technology and assisted fertilisation, penned by former chairman Clyde Puli, the parliamentary committee had proposed a law that gives the embryo a moral and legal status by not later than the phase of conception, which is when the two nuclei of the sperm and the egg fuse to form the single cell of a new human life.
The committee had recommended that in vitro fertilisation be offered to married heterosexual couples or those in a stable relationship. It had also accepted Polar Body Biopsy, which are tests on the DNA from the ovum in case of serious diseases.
The committee had published the report following an eight-month discussion that had become embroiled in controversy when former Children's Commissioner Sonia Camilleri argued that people should not have the right to have a child at all costs. She had also said IVF should be banned because research could not yet guarantee a healthy life for children born through the process.
The issue was now being discussed by the parliamentary committee following a hard-hitting document on IVF published by the Vatican in December.
The Holy See's document, Dignitatis Personae (Dignity Of The Person), condemned artificial fertilisation, human cloning, designer babies, embryonic stem cell research, the morning-after pill and RU-486, a drug which blocks the action of the needed hormones to keep fertilised eggs implanted in the womb. It was an update of a 1987 document called Donum Vitae (Gift Of Life).
The parliamentary committee on Monday heard Rev, Prof. Agius, dean of the Faculty of Theology say that the previous committee had made some positive recommendations and suggestions.
He also said the Church could not remain neutral in the face of speedy developments in bioethics and reproductive technology.
Rev. Prof. Agius was asked by committee chairman Edwin Vassallo to analyse the previous committee's recommendations in view of Dignitatis Personae and point out any contradictions.
Questioned about this decision, Mr Vassallo ruled out changing Mr Puli's report, adding that he had asked for an explanation of the teachings of the Church and whether there were any parts of the report that diverged from these teachings.
"I don't intend to make any changes to the report. It should stay as is," he said, adding that he wanted MPs and those drafting the law to have all the necessary information before voting in Parliament on this issue.
He said that if the Holy See issued more documents before the law was enacted, these would have to be analysed well.
RSS
Comments
"In a secular state, one's religion must be left at parliament's doorstep. Mature, sophisticated politicians in developed multi-ethnic/racial/religious countries do this"
How rich of Flynn to present us a "given" like this sweeping statement. Who says that this is the ideal? This maybe how Flynn things but Flynn is not a realist. One's religion is personal. It has nothing to do with Flynn. Secularism itself is a belief system s is any other. Should we ask all politicians to be reprogrammed to not think for themselves at all now? If a politician wants to hear what Moslems, Catholics, or Jews think then he/she is entitled to that. He represents them also after all.
Flynn desperately wants to attack any religious belief system. Clearly he feels personally threatened. Surely he will deny this.
I suspect that Flynn will be busy on the internet researching embryology and IVF and with a quick cut and paste, present us with bizarre grounds why we should kill frozen embryos in the name of charity towards others. We have heard these arguments before from another infamous Australian, Peter Singer. Singer has recently taken an interest in Malta and at times contributes to another Maltese paper. Singer is the person who claims that a six month old baby is of not more intellectual and moral worth than a fully grown Chimpanzee. He advocates Euthanasia for babies this age is acceptable.
Singer is revered as a progressive in Princeton University NJ. He is showered with awards for his warped logic.
“What a joke! What a spineless bunch of politician”
This is just more arm chair politics from Flynn. He is ready to pass judgment on our Maltese MPs from in front of a screen thousands of miles from Malta.. Flynn sees opportunities to attack people without truly knowing the complexities of the issue. So, when he is overwhelmed, he throws his hands up and defames the representatives of the people. It is interesting how the issue of the Church upsets Flynn so very deeply. No doubt, he will set off on another epic explanation of how Galileo was unjustly treated decades ago to justify his argument. I would not be surprised if he reminds us about the inquisition next. His absolute ,clear contempt for Christians smacks of discrimination. It insults those of us who may have no faith at all and who simply agree with natural law for its own sake. This weakens an already weak debate to the point of discrediting his argument entirely.
Flynn desperately wishes it to be. I have no problem with a secular ideal, I respect it, I do have a problem with any so called “ism’s” such as fundamentalism and yes, Flynn’s idea of secularism. History has shown that we ought to be wary of these.
At every opportunity, Flynn attempts to ridicule people rather than hold a mature debate. He seems to have a compulsion to malign and slander people he does not even know. Very easy to do from Australia. This says much about his emotional reasoning. It is interesting how Flynn consistently feels the need to attack Christians and Catholics in particular leaving the actual ethics of IVF untreated.
He says nothing to defend his case in effect. I live in Malta, I know what is happening in Australia where apparently Flynn hails from. Australia has many wonderful success stories that we should learn from. I assure Flynn that Malta is in no hurry to copy Australia on issues such as abortion and the destruction of human life from conception.
If his only argument is based on his clear despise of anything remotely connected to religion, and so there is no debating with Flynn at all. This issue transcends religious belief, and people have the right to believe and act how they see fit. Politician and private citizen alike. Malta is simply not Australia as much as it seems
You have noticed then that the Pope, whom you personally dislike so much, has warned of the dangers of secularism. But will you take heed?
If the people of Malta want to respect human life and want their politicians who represent them to do likewise then they should be praised for it.
Secularism, which supports the meddling with, and destruction of human life is indeed a great danger to life and the Pope is clearly quite right. If secularism means that life is cheap and can be played around with then it should not have such a say in things.
Remember that it is NOT just religious people who respect life, Mr Flynn. Surely you see the same subjects cropping up in Australia, just as I do in the UK.
Talking to people in Malta I have found many who fear the spread of secularism as merely an excuse to overcome anything with a hint of religious belief behind it and they will fight it vehemently!
In a secular state, one's religion must be left at parliament's doorstep. Mature, sophisticated politicians in developed multi-ethnic/racial/religious countries do this; but not Maltese politicians. The electorate, the politicians' master, has to demand this. The press has made strides towards secularism, but still appears too weak and meek.
The Pope raising matters with Nancy Pelosi is a universe away from a Maltese parliamentary committee advised by a theologian and hanging on despatches from the Holy See - a foreign state.
The Pope also spoke about the evils of secularism during his visit to secular Australia.
These equate to the Australian Prime Minister or Nancy Pelosi bringing up the evils of Catholicism when visiting the Vatican.
@ChrisVidal
Catholic teaching has always, and is now, preventing/obstructing science solving human problems.
Agreed, that a quandary exists when electing a party with a religious designation. Religious parties have no place in a secular state.
As far as I know in Malta there's the Partit Laburista and the Partit Nazzjonalista.
If the PN stands for Christian Democratic Party it should have the courage of its convictions and change its name.
Even then, people are entitled to a secular government upholding/enacting secular laws.
Who are you to deny me and my partner, IVF just because I'm not married should I opt for such treatment? This is discrimination pure and simple and I doubt it would hold in a European civil rights court should it get challenged.
I regret to say that the church is more and more losing it's grasp on reality. As the global average education levels rise, the more the church loses members, the more fundamentalist it becomes. Reading this article reminds me of Gallileo in front of the church inquisition. It seems the catholic church is still stuck in the dark ages.
This is not and never has been a solely religious issue, no matter what the local secularists wish to suggest!
William P Flynn, a secularist from AUSTRALIA offers us his usual sarcasm. But I see somebody else has already put him right on a few issues.
Wally Vella Zarb, another secularist, takes his usual dig at the church and its followers but again forgets that one does not have to be at all religious in order to uphold the dignity of human life.
Once again I appeal to all who place comments on here to do so without pouring scorn and sarcasm simply because that is all they can think of! But maybe I should welcome this since at the end of the day it dilutes their point - if indeed one can find out what their point is - considerably.
Are you being sarcastic or serious? Hope you are not serious. You comment could be included in a speech by the Taliban
I don't expect our MPs to disagree with the Catholic point of view and I won't be surprised that they opt for a more conservative version of the law, but they should never ever go tugging at the skirts of a priest for advice on how to make the laws for the whole country. MPs are there for all the people, be they Catholic or not.
Religious fundamentalists have the tendency to condemn different things in one document, sometimes even in one sentence. Cloning and designer babies are different from artificial fertilisation and have nothing to do with the morning after pill. While the latter may be acceptable to more people, their association with the other issues burdens them with an emotive baggage which hinders a proper debate. Human reproduction is first and foremost a medical issue and any bioethics related to it should be based on a sound grounding of science not theology.
Should contraception be prohibited in Malta too, just because the Catholic Church is against it !!
I would discagree with what you have said. The Church has a duty to inform the conscience of Catholic politicians. Malta is a Catholic country, and most Maltese politicians are Catholic. So, if Catholic politicians wish to inform their conscience before voting on an important matter, the Church's teachings are extremely relevant. - In Iran they do these things.
These persons ought not to be subjected to the diktats of a religion to which they do not belong; Malta is not yet (officially) a fundamentalist state. Let the Catholic church set whichever restrictions it pleases for its followers, but let the individual citizen - not necessarily a practising Catholic - decide for himself whether or not to abide by the Church's guidelines. After all, it is the Civil Law that is, or should be, applicable to everybody and not Church Law.
This is similar to the divorce question in that 'officially' our Civil Law is bowing to the Catholic Church, yet at the same time recognises divorces that are obtained by Maltese Citizens who are affluent enough to obtain one abroad.
Why doesn't Malta annex with the Holy See? Like that we wouldnt need to go through all this hassle!
Better late then never… Apparently a first page coverage was required to move things around.
I would discagree with what you have said. The Church has a duty to inform the conscience of Catholic politicians. Malta is a Catholic country, and most Maltese politicians are Catholic. So, if Catholic politicians wish to inform their conscience before voting on an important matter, the Church's teachings are extremely relevant.
Consider this statement by His Holiness Pope Benedict, after meeting Nancy Pelosi, leader of the US House of Representatives: "His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of .....the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work .....in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.
As for being spineless - on the contrary, Maltese politicians have shown incredible courage in a European parliament that is extremely anti Catholic.
"The church cannot remain neutral"? The church can remain wherever it pleases so long as it keeps its business to itself and its members and its nose out of secular governmental affairs.
Whatever documents the Holy See puts out should have nothing to do with a Parliamentary Bill.
What a joke! What a spineless bunch of politicians!