Freezing embryos is in itself ‘not wrong’

Freezing embryos is in itself “not wrong”, according to theo-logian and professor of philosophy Fr Peter Serracino Inglott, and the government should not be looking at the Church’s stand on this but focus on its impact on society.

“Freezing per se cannot be considered to be a way of killing the embryo since it is keeping it alive. It is wrong only when freezing is done with an ulterior motive to destroy the embryo,” he said, during a discussion on in vitro fertilisation organised yesterday by AŻAD, the centre for political studies.

Fr Peter made it clear he was against the practice where “a lot” of embryos – fertilised egg cells – were frozen as this left no doubt these would be destroyed.

The Church, he said, spoke out against embryo freezing because it assumed these would be either discarded or killed, and it was its duty to advise against this temptation of having a surplus.

The Vatican’s 2008 document on bioethics, Dignitatis Personae (Dignity of the Person), condemns all artificial fertilisation techniques which “substitute the conjugal act”.

Despite this, Fr Peter still feels embryo freezing could not be absolutely prohibited just because this temptation existed.

He also felt if three eggs had been fertilised it should be couples who choose, with the expert guidance, whether they wanted to implant two embryos in a mother’s womb and freeze a third; the government should not be the one to legislate on this choice.

Fr Peter’s views come as Parliament’s Social Affairs Committee, which released its recommendations on assisted procreation last October, reopened discussions on embryo freezing.

The committee had recommended allowing embryos to be frozen under strict protocols, but it sparked strong opposition, even from Health Minister Joe Cassar himself who last month said he was against this practice.

Asked if he was completely ruling out embryo freezing, Dr Cassar told The Sunday Times there were only two instances where he felt this would be acceptable – if a mother died before the embryo was implanted, or if a mother turned up on the day and refused to have any embryos implanted.

In all other instances he believed oocyte vitrification – freezing just the woman’s egg, a practice that does away with the ethical and moral implications associated with embryo freezing – was the way forward.

Dr Cassar, one of the speakers, said he was waiting for the committee to conclude its meetings – which were expected to be rounded up shortly – before presenting the Bill to Parliament.

During the discussion, Dr Cassar and Prof. Mark Brincat, Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department director, had a lively exchange on whether oocyte vitrification should completely replace embryo freezing.

Dr Cassar said he had questioned why the experts briefing the parliamentary committee on the options available had not delved deeper into oocyte vitrification, which had become so advanced in the past two years it was even being offered on some countries’ national health service. He also slammed comments made in the past that this was merely experimental.

While accepting that freezing oocytes was an option, Prof. Brincat insisted this should not come at the expense of embryo freezing.

“We are experts in working without embryo freezing seeing we’ve done this for 20 years, so we can continue without it. But while we’re keen on oocyte vitirification there should always be the safety net of embryo freezing,” he said.

Bioethics Consultative Committee chairman Michael Asciak also spoke in favour of oocyte vetrification and said it was important to never lose sight of the patient.

During the debate consultant neonatal paediatrician Paul Soler spoke in favour of embryo freezing, as he saw this to be the “lesser evil” option when it came to dealing with a surplus of fertilised eggs. The other choices were leaving the fertilised eggs to die a natural death in the lab or implant them all at the expense of the associated risks for mother and child.

But the University’s head of the theology, Rev. Prof. Emmanuel Agius, disagreed the lesser evil should be brought into a moral argument, especially since the Council of Europe’s Oviedo Convention considered the embryo to be a human being.

“Some consider the embryo to be simply a mass of cells, but we need to ensure we safeguard the value and dignity of human life, which has always been the case in Malta. Freezing embryos is playing with human life,” he said.