Bioethics committee against regular freezing of embryos
The government-appointed Bioethics Consultative Committee said today that while it backed most of the recommendations on assisted procreation made by a parliamentary committee, it disagreed with the regular freezing of embryos.
Once a human life was produced in a laboratory, this should be protected and respected and no genetic or arbitrary decision should be made between the life of one human being and another, even in an early stage of development, the committee said.
It was, therefore, against the freezing of embryos in a regular manner as part of the IVF process since this would lead to an accumulation of millions of frozen embryos which could then be discarded or given up for experiments.
In this context, the committee said that one could agree with the adoption of frozen embryos by childless parents under proper regulation which saved the life of the embryos that were orphaned because of some incident during the IVF process and not through some regular process. However, it was ambitious to think that all frozen embryos could be adopted, even because many of them would have genetic anomalies.
The committee said the number of multiple pregnancies after IVF was relatively small and did not justify the destruction of so many human lives through freezing. Furthermore, this danger could be limited by having only a small number of embryos planted in the womb.
The committee said it felt that the parliamentary committee had not given sufficient importance to imminent developments for the freezing of women's ova.
The committee said it agreed that IVF treatment should be available on the NHS to heterosexual couples who were married or regulated by a law on cohabitation.
The bioethics committee is presided by former Nationalist MP Dr Michael Asciak.
Its members are Ms Maryanne Ciappara, Dr Brigitte Ellul, Dr Christian Scerri, Dr Ray Galea, Rev Prof Emmanuel Agius, Rev Dr Ray Zammit, Dr Alexandra Buttigieg, Dr John Torpiano, Dr Mary Anne Lauri, Ms Nikolina Farrugia, Dr Cedric Mifsud and Dr Denis Soleri.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
21 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Jesmond Micallef
Oct 27th 2010, 12:50
If I could humbly ask somebody to read the following two articles and maybe explain what is going on here:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101019/world-news/doctor-implanted-12-embryos-in-octuplet-pregnancy-case
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101026/world-news/singer-celine-dion-gives-birth-to-twin-boys-as-a-result-of-ivf
Although just two cases but they do seem to hint the "problem or not" of multiple pregnancies associated with IVF. Furthermore, why is it that more then one intervention is required in order to achieve a successfull pregnancy ? I guess that each intervention requires the implantation of embryos into the womans womb, no, so what happens to the implanted IVF embryo/s in the case of a non successful pregnancy ?
There also seem to be issues of professional conduct related to the use of IVF.
Philip Hili
Oct 27th 2010, 14:13
Kull min laghab man-natura DEJJEM hareg tellief.
Dr Patrick Zahra
Oct 27th 2010, 16:45
most implanted embryos are naturally rejected/aborted and that is why Gynaecologist tend to implant multiple embryos giving rise to risk of multiple pregnancies. Each cycle is very expensive hence freezing of embryoes allowes for implantation of 1 or 2 embryoes and in the likely event that implantation fails one can use the frozen embryos without the parents having to incur the exorbitant fee of a repeat cycle.
Christian Sciberras
Oct 27th 2010, 17:13
Philip Hili - Speaking of Dodos...they killed each other in civil wars using cyber-weapons, but of course you knew that already!
Anthony Galea
Oct 27th 2010, 12:34
Isn't the committee here colouring the finding with the belief that an embryo is a human life.
Some would argue that at this stage it is just a few cells with no awareness and therefore needs to be considered differently from an aware human being.
Joseph Aquilina
Oct 27th 2010, 15:07
Those few cells you mention have the potential to become a human person, and may I remind you that you too where once just a few cells. Luckily for you a doctor or mother did not decide to flush you down the toilet when you where at that state!
Christian Sciberras
Oct 27th 2010, 17:15
Weren't we all lucky? Or was this kind of luck an "Act Of God"?
Dr Patrick Zahra
Oct 27th 2010, 12:13
Freezing of embryoes is the cornerstone of efficient and safe IVF. Multiple pregnancies on the other hand are a danger to the mother and to the infants with high incidence of death and lifelong severe disability. I cannot understand, on the other hand, by what stretch of the imagination can a conglomeration of a few cells be called a living human being! Let's not be extremists and reason things out in the interst of the patient and of society rather than in the interest of a few unflexible dogmas and opinions!
P. Vincenti
Oct 27th 2010, 18:59
So Dr Zahra, at what stage of development would you say it is a human life and up to what stage of development do you think we should be allowed to destroy an embryo or fetus?
What determines human value to you? Having a recognizable body? I feel it is rather extremist of those people who attach an incremental value to human life. This gradualist approach is very very dangerous. It is what opened the doors to all manner of obscenities against human life.
Jesmond Micallef
Oct 28th 2010, 01:36
This is very deep territory here. Even deeper than one might think at first. Defining a human being !! Genetic disorders embedded in Human Life Cells, I mean where would all this lead to - Genetically produced human beings or other derivatives such as human clones, etc... !! This line of thought can get really messy after a while. Still, humans have succeeded in controlling disease, curing illness through a variety of non natural human interventions -artificial means. Antibiotics destroy most of our natural protective fighters found in our blood stream yet they cure us from infections and other ailments - the human immune system is not strong enough on its own. We also inject ourselves with carefully selected bacterial doses which strengthen our immune system making our bodies more repellant to known influenza bodies. Scope should allways be the safegaurd of life so priority of the mother and her safe pregnant outcome have to prevail in these arguments. The current state of the art is risky here.
Considering the physical risks involved together with some very strong and deep ethical questions in the background, the adoption of babies or young children has very good potential over artificial fertility treatment.
P. Vincenti
Oct 29th 2010, 09:49
To Dr Patrick Zahra.
You mentioned that 'Freezing of embryos is the cornerstone of efficient and safe IVF'
The Nazis claimed that burning starved and gassed Jews was also an efficient method which accelerated their final solution. Does the efficiency of the method condone the destruction of human lives?
The gradualist or utilitarian approach to human worthiness is a very dangerous road to embark on.
It is not a position that can be defended logically by any stretch of the imagination. A person’s worth lies not in their ability to contribute to society, to walk or to be able to talk, love, give love or work. It lies in the essence of our very human nature. Once we lose sight of this truth, we are destined to repeat the horrors of the past, except that we will mistakenly reframe this and call it progress. The aim to help women become pregnant should not come at the expense or the destruction of their eventual child’s siblings. The end does not condone the means. This is unethical.
charlie cauchi
Oct 27th 2010, 11:54
fejn ser jasal il bniedem?????????? rispet ta xejn u lejn haddddddddddd egojizmu sfrenat.
DGalea
Oct 27th 2010, 11:48
For people who believe that life starts at conception , the very idea of freezing a human life and leaving its soul in suspended animation in a freezer indefinitely is abhorrent. Those who belive that the weakest in our society are to be given maximum protection because it is them that need it most ,are not necessarily religious either. The weakest in our society needing such protection include unborn children, frozen embryos, severely disabled persons, the old and chronically sick. Hadd ma hu ghar-rimi jew tajjeb biss biex jintuza ghal human spare-parts in our civilized society .
albert spiteri
Oct 27th 2010, 11:47
And for these learned gentlemen earth remains flat and the centre of the universe! Keep it up!!
Mark A. Sammut
Oct 27th 2010, 12:09
The Earth might not be at the centre of the physical universe, but Humanity is at the centre of the Universe.
Teddy Cilia
Oct 27th 2010, 12:25
Where can the third dimension be found?
Peter Korsten
Oct 27th 2010, 12:36
So, until what age is it OK to throw away an embryo?
Chris Fenech
Oct 27th 2010, 13:50
@Mark A. Sammut - I find your statement to be somehow megalomaniacal. Humanity is not the centre of the universe. What does that even mean? I'm curious what made you think humanity is the centre of the universe in the first place.
Also, there is a high probability that our universe is not the only universe that exists. So, yeah, you could say that humans are just a very rare phenomemon in a very vast cosmos. There can also be beings which are as sophisticatedly developed as we are, or even more, evolutionarily speaking.
We know very little about the cosmos.
Jesmond Micallef
Oct 27th 2010, 15:36
Chris Fenech, We know much more about the cosmos then the deepest oceans on our very own planet. The "Periodic Table of Elements" relates to a very specific order in nature. Somehow I tend to think that it spans across the universe/s too.
Christian Sciberras
Oct 27th 2010, 17:18
Jesmond Micallef - That's just a blatant misuse of quantities, and you know it.
We can't know more about the cosmos than the oceans, since the ocean is already a part of it!
Jesmond Micallef
Oct 27th 2010, 18:09
Greetings Christian Sciberras !!