Two meetings will be held this month to revive the discussion on embryo freezing, which, despite having been recommended by a bi-partisan committee, has sparked strong opposition even from the Health Minister.
The Social Affairs Committee, headed by Nationalist MP Edwin Vassallo, has scheduled two meetings for February 22 and 23. According to Mr Vassallo, the meetings were called on the suggestion of the newly formed lobby group Professionals Against Embryo Freezing.
He insists there is still a chance IVF legislation be introduced this year because embryo freezing is a “very important but small” aspect of the rest of the legislation, which has largely found consensus.
The select committee headed by Nationalist MP Jean-Pierre Farrugia, which recommended embryo freezing last year, will join the discussion together with Michael Asciak, who chaired the Bioethics Consultative Committee.
Dr Asciak said recently there was an alternative to embryo freezing which should be seriously considered. He referred to oocyte vitrification, a process where premature eggs are frozen for fertilisation. Although largely experimental, this method is being seen as a more ethical alternative to embryo freezing.
The method was also endorsed by Health Minister Joseph Cassar who declared he too was “against” embryo freezing. Dr Cassar is the person most likely to forward an IVF Bill to Parliament, so his agreement is deemed crucial.
His comments sparked a strong reaction from Labour leader Joseph Muscat who, on Sunday, asked why the government wanted to reopen a “package” that had been agreed on by both parties.
When asked whether the government wanted to resurrect the discussion, a spokesman for the Office of the Prime Minister simply said: “At this stage the government is analysing different proposals.”
Meanwhile, Mr Vassallo said the law must take into consideration recent medical advances in the field of oocyte freezing and the “experts” wanted to explain what these were.
“We have been told that science has improved to the extent that we can get the same result of embryo freezing but without the ethical incorrectness... Now we will listen to the experts and take it from there.”
Asked whether the renewed discussion would set back the urgently needed IVF legislation, Mr Vassallo said there was still a chance a Bill would be introduced this year.
One possibility, he added, was that the Bill would deal with all the points agreed upon leaving the more contentious issue of embryo freezing to a later stage. “This is just a possibility, not necessarily the way forward,” he added cautiously.
“We are dealing with human lives, not just a chemical reaction,” he said, pointing out that any contentious issues had to be treated with the required attention.
Dr Farrugia is supportive of the meetings because the medical developments raised by Dr Asciak came about only after his select committee had concluded its work, which took six months. “We weren’t aware of these developments, which, in all fairness, seem to be neither here nor there.”
He said it could be a good idea to postpone the legislation until the medical and ethical side of the debate “converge”.
IVF practitioner Mark Brincat recently said oocyte vitrification would never totally replace the need for embryo freezing because several eggs would have to be fertilised at each go to reduce the trauma and costs involved. Embryos, he explained, would, therefore, have to be frozen not to transfer too many into each woman.