MPs reject Gozo Bishop IVF appeal
Couples to be counselled on IVF
Politicians from both sides of the House have rejected the Gozo Bishop’s appeal against artificial fertilisation, which he controversially labelled “highly abortive”.
But the Health Ministry was non-committal, saying only that “the Artificial Reproductive Technology legislation will be based on full respect towards human life, from the moment of conception”.
In a homily last Friday, Bishop Mario Grech urged Catholic politicians not to encourage the culture of death when IVF legislation comes before them in Parliament.
Yesterday, Nationalist MP Jean Pierre Farrugia, who headed a parliamentary committee on IVF, said the Church had a right to pronounce itself against the procedure and Catholics could opt to follow these teachings. However, Malta, which suffers from a very low birth rate, needed a law to regulate IVF and give an option for infertile couples who today could not afford the process privately.
“The Church is against the whole process, even the very beginning of separating the sexual act from procreation,” he added.
Dr Farrugia said some wealthy couples were opting for IVF abroad to ensure a safer process in which fewer embryos were implanted, diminishing the chances of the more dangerous multiple pregnancies.
The Vatican’s Dignitas Personae document only referred to one aspect of IVF as abortive.
It said it was abortive to screen embryos for genetic and sexually-transmitted diseases to exclude the defective ones before being implanted.
But this procedure has already been rejected by the parliamentary committee chaired by Dr Farrugia.
However, the document did not evenuse the “abortive” term to refer to embryo freezing, which Dr Farrugia’s committee had favoured.
Meanwhile, the Labour Party said rejecting the IVF law, which has been “gathering dust” for more than a year, “is not an option”.
“Labour has consistently been in favour of the introduction of IVF legislation, regulating a procedure that already takes place in this country and which is to date unregulated,” Labour’s spokesman told The Times yesterday.
“A cross-party committee has agreed on a draft law, which has been gathering dust for more than a year. We remain open for the most ethical IVF techniques. But rejecting a law which gives new hopes to infertile couples is not an option.”
IVF practitioner Mark Brincat denied the Gozo Bishop’s claim that IVF is in any way abortive. “As a practising scientist I totally deny that IVF is abortive. The world consensus is that it is unacceptable to call this abortive.
“IVF practitioners go out of their way to help women become pregnant, they do not go out of their way to stop a pregnancy. This is the big difference,” he said, audibly dumbfounded by the Bishop’s statements.
“The thrust is always life,” he added, quoting the book A Matter of Life by Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe, which outlines the story of the first test-tube baby.
Prof. Brincat, the director of the obstetrics and gynaecology department at Mater Dei Hospital, said Bishop Grech’s comments as quoted on The Sunday Times were “scientifically and factually incorrect” and he also disagreed with them from an ethical standpoint.
Scientifically, he explained, the concept of IVF was the “opposite” of abortion because it sought to enable a pregnancy, not stop one.
Factually, it was simply untrue that only 100,000 of three million IVF babies were normal. “The facts are otherwise,” he said.
Ethically, he added, doctors who performed IVF were following good medical practice because their aim was simply to help suffering couples have babies.
But theologian Fr Rene Camilleri supported Mgr Grech’s statement and called on the entire Church to be more vocal on such issues. “If the Church took more of a stand, the comments of Mgr Grech would not stand out so much,” he said, commending the Bishop for giving a relevant homily to mark Our Lady of Sorrows.
While science seemed to have provided a remedy for couples who could have children, Fr Camilleri said the process had become exploitative, with couples spending thousands of euros and being given high hopes early on in the process, only to have these hopes dashed later on.
“This is causing enormous pain,” he said, adding that politicians were “irresponsible” because they had spoken about IVF since 2005 without taking concrete steps to regulate the sector, which he likened to a jungle.
He cautioned against taking decisions based on emotions and added that IVF could lead to abortive practices due to the accumulation of unused embryos which might eventually be discarded.
“If I have no intention to kill you but I kill you anyway I have still killed you. Otherwise we will be saying the end justifies the means.”
However, Dr Farrugia said the law proposed to the government would ensure constant counselling for couples so that they would be told the true implications of the process and make sure they do not rush into it.
Popular Stories
Old buses, drivers to return
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Three new Nationalist MPs elected –...
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
In Discussion
Old buses, drivers to return
Updated: Minister apologises for...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Protected birds shot and trapped as...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
PN postpones salaries as financial...
Updated - PM's offer to Opposition MPs...
47 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Kenneth Cassar
Apr 16th 2012, 14:51
@ Gerry Cowie:
"This adds weight to the scientific fact that life begins at conception...".
Name me one person who disputes that fact.
Clifton Carl Barbara
Apr 4th 2012, 15:48
Mr Renato Borg, I think you are confusing zygotes (which are not even embryos) with babies.
Renato Borg
Apr 3rd 2012, 11:46
Roughly 127,977, babies are killed each year through the process of in vitro fertilization — at least if one accepts the definition that discarding a fertilized embryo amounts to abortion and murder.
Pro-choice groups obviously don’t see it that way. More interesting, pro life groups do see it that way but rarely discuss in vitro fertilization either, perhaps because it’s a popular technique.
The statement from the Vatican makes it clear that the Holy See views embryos discarded during in vitro as being abortions.
The document — Instruction Dignitatis Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions — refers to embryos disgarded during the in vitro process as abortions.
Responding to the argument that in vitro isn’t as bad because it involves incidental murder as a side effect, rather than as the main goal, the document states, “in many cases the abandonment, destruction and loss of embryos are foreseen and willed.”
Referring to the practice of creating multiple embryos to increase the odds of one leading to a birth, the document declared:
“One is struck by the fact that, in any other area of medicine, ordinary professional ethics and the healthcare authorities themselves would never allow a medical procedure which involved such a high number of failures and fatalities. In fact, techniques of in vitro fertilization are accepted based on the presupposition that the individual embryo is not deserving of full respect in the presence of the competing desire for offspring which must be satisfied.”
The full statement on In Vitro:
In vitro fertilization and the deliberate destruction of embryos
14. The fact that the process of in vitro fertilization very frequently involves the deliberate destruction of embryos was already noted in the Instruction Donum vitae.
There were some who maintained that this was due to techniques which were still somewhat imperfect. Subsequent experience has shown, however, that all techniques of in vitro fertilization proceed as if the human embryo were simply a mass of cells to be used, selected and discarded.
It is true that approximately a third of women who have recourse to artificial procreation succeed in having a baby. It should be recognized, however, that given the proportion between the total number of embryos produced and those eventually born, the number of embryos sacrificed is extremely high. These losses are accepted by the practitioners of in vitro fertilization as the price to be paid for positive results. In reality, it is deeply disturbing that research in this area aims principally at obtaining better results in terms of the percentage of babies born to women who begin the process, but does not manifest a concrete interest in the right to life of each individual embryo.
15. It is often objected that the loss of embryos is, in the majority of cases, unintentional or that it happens truly against the will of the parents and physicians. They say that it is a question of risks which are not all that different from those in natural procreation; to seek to generate new life without running any risks would in practice mean doing nothing to transmit it. It is true that not all the losses of embryos in the process of in vitro fertilization have the same relationship to the will of those involved in the procedure. But it is also true that in many cases the abandonment, destruction and loss of embryos are foreseen and willed.
Embryos produced in vitro which have defects are directly discarded. Cases are becoming ever more prevalent in which couples who have no fertility problems are using artificial means of procreation in order to engage in genetic selection of their offspring. In many countries, it is now common to stimulate ovulation so as to obtain a large number of oocytes which are then fertilized. Of these, some are transferred into the woman’s uterus, while the others are frozen for future use. The reason for multiple transfer is to increase the probability that at least one embryo will implant in the uterus. In this technique, therefore, the number of embryos transferred is greater than the single child desired, in the expectation that some embryos will be lost and multiple pregnancy may not occur. In this way, the practice of multiple embryo transfer implies a purely utilitarian treatment of embryos. One is struck by the fact that, in any other area of medicine, ordinary professional ethics and the healthcare authorities themselves would never allow a medical procedure which involved such a high number of failures and fatalities. In fact, techniques of in vitro fertilization are accepted based on the presupposition that the individual embryo is not deserving of full respect in the presence of the competing desire for offspring which must be satisfied.
This sad reality, which often goes unmentioned, is truly deplorable: the “various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life”.
16. The Church moreover holds that it is ethically unacceptable to dissociate procreation from the integrally personal context of the conjugal act: human procreation is a personal act of a husband and wife, which is not capable of substitution. The blithe acceptance of the enormous number of abortions involved in the process of in vitro fertilization vividly illustrates how the replacement of the conjugal act by a technical procedure – in addition to being in contradiction with the respect that is due to procreation as something that cannot be reduced to mere reproduction – leads to a weakening of the respect owed to every human being. Recognition of such respect is, on the other hand, promoted by the intimacy of husband and wife nourished by married love.
The Church recognizes the legitimacy of the desire for a child and understands the suffering of couples struggling with problems of fertility. Such a desire, however, should not override the dignity of every human life to the point of absolute supremacy. The desire for a child cannot justify the “production” of offspring, just as the desire not to have a child cannot justify the abandonment or destruction of a child once he or she has been conceived.
In reality, it seems that some researchers, lacking any ethical point of reference and aware of the possibilities inherent in technological progress, surrender to the logic of purely subjective desires and to economic pressures which are so strong in this area. In the face of this manipulation of the human being in his or her embryonic state, it needs to be repeated that “God’s love does not differentiate between the newly conceived infant still in his or her mother’s womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the elderly person. God does not distinguish between them because he sees an impression of his own image and likeness (Gen 1:26) in each one… Therefore, the Magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the sacred and inviolable character of every human life from its conception until its natural end”.
j camilleri
Apr 2nd 2012, 21:22
The bishop should concentrate about the paedophiles that harmed those poor kids forever. If a responsible couple wants to plan for a family that is nobody's business. There are millions of kids that were born naturally and are leading a miserable life whilst in this case there are millions of parents that are desperate to have a child and wants to give them all their love. Who are we to stop them from doing this?
Clifton Carl Barbara
Apr 3rd 2012, 21:41
well said !!
Gerry Cowie
Apr 2nd 2012, 20:02
All eyes will be on the government to ensure that it lives up to its assurance that life will be respected from conception. This adds weight to the scientific fact that life begins at conception and therefore deserves the utmost respect.
Victor Pulis, in all seriousness, Catholics believe that the soul is there from conception. How silly of Victor Pulis to tell the bishop what is "more in line with his vocation" when he knows full well that respect for human life from conception is clearly part of his vocation!
Ramon Casha tries his level best as usual to try to trip somebody up who is simply expressing a profound respect for human life from conception. Following Ramon's "logic" the entire human race is here due to distortion of nature! But then he must follow the humanist point of view at all times!
Victor Pulis
Apr 2nd 2012, 20:53
Gerry again you evade my question even though I sought an answer from the bishop. Perhaps you can answer me. But I doubt it. When resurrection of bodies takes place during the last judgement what will happen to embryos since they possess a soul and are human?I really would appreciate an answer.
Marie Roberts
Apr 2nd 2012, 19:15
Its amazing that the Church in Malta sees fit to deny a woman of her chance to be a mother and to have children. In the UK the Church was and is fully aware of IVF treatment and anyone who went tto a Catholic Priest for guidance on how far one could go as a Catholic in order to achieve motherhood was received with compassion and Christian love. The advice was always that as long as the process was approached with love, then one could proceed. There was always a line one did not cross, and that was artificial insemination from an unknown donor and that line was respected by thousands. So why is it in this Country that the Catholic Church goes to such extreme. I always believed that the Catholic Church had the same respect and love for all, throughout the universal (catholic meaning universal) ) but alas the Church seems to have so many faces, it is difficult to know which one to follow.
Victor Pulis
Apr 2nd 2012, 18:13
May I ask the good bishop a question regarding matters more in line with his vocation?
When an embryo dies will it be resurrected at the last judgement since it it has a soul as well as a body?
In case it does what form will it have? I am asking this in all seriousness.
c p agius
Apr 2nd 2012, 17:28
Our politicans are realising that WE want a secular state and extremist positions like those expressed by mgr Grech are outdated and deserve wide condemnation...Our Yes vote on 28 May 2011 is paying offOur politicians have since then removed any doubts what our nation deserves...RESPECT and TOLERANCE.. No bishop, No imam no rabbi no atheist, no humanist has the right to impose his values on the rest of society
Alfred Gatt
Apr 2nd 2012, 15:37
My comments on the comments expressed so far:
The Bishop of Gozo has a right to speak;
He is responsible to God and to the faithful;
The Church always defends life, no matter at what stage it is;
The abortive aspect is evident when the embroyos are destroyed;
Ethical reasoning cannot be sacrificed because of pain and suffering;
The right to have a child is not an absolute but a fundamental one;
Acceptance of situation is of paramount importance;
Trying to solve their problem in an ethical acceptable manner should be sought;
Dr Jean-Pierre Farrugia has a very difficult and delicate job.
.
Stefan Zammit
Apr 2nd 2012, 16:04
The church always defends life my foot.... the bishop goes about with a sedan and a chauffeur, while others can barely find a job in Malta at least (elsewhere they're starving to death)... and don't let me get started about the pope!
They defend what they feel is in their best interest to defend, no better than a mere politician.
Claudia Galea
Apr 2nd 2012, 14:07
The insensitive comments made by higher members of the clergy leave much to be desired in the sensitivity stakes. Facing up to infertility is traumatic in itself. Condemming people who try to find a way to manifest their union in the creation of a child is certainly disrespectful. Couples facing infertility need all the support and respect they can muster to go through IVF. Even though the success rate is relatively slim, infertile couples are ready to take the risk. Tolerance and understanding is what the Church should be proclaiming!
Joseph Grech Attard
Apr 2nd 2012, 13:58
The Church (and by that I mean the hierarchy) takes care of the spiritual needs of its followers and makes its laws and it has all the right to do them. The state needs to take care of ALL citizens and also has the duty to make laws to protect ALL the citizens - democracy is about the majority rule BUT taking into consideration the rights and needs of the minorities, if not it is dictatorship ... and we have already enough of that! This is where Science and Faith should meet! The signs of the times are truly important. Condemning and passing judgments is wrong. Dialogue, in the true sense of the word, is a real answer. Surely, aborting an embryo in a womb and using the so-called abortive means (the day-after pill, the coil, side-effects of IVF, etc) is not the same thing. It's like killing in wars or in self defense and murder. The danger, however, lies in the fact that such means of helping the childless, could lead via the usual slippery-slope, to abuse, including full-blown abortions in the womb!
Anthony Azzopardi
Apr 2nd 2012, 13:28
Yesterday, Nationalist MP Jean Pierre Farrugia, said that Malta, suffers from a very low birth rate (and) needed a law to give an option for infertile couples.
A low birth rate and a low infertility rate are completely different issues. If Malta needs to raise the birth rate it must make it easier for couples to have more children, As it is mothers are almost forced to go on working. Paid adverts encourage them to return to work. But how easy it is for them to have more children when there are inadequate child care facilities? How family friendly is the labour market?
Christabelle Bonnici
Apr 2nd 2012, 12:47
IGNORANCE AT ITS BEST!! mhux ta' b'xej n-nies dejjem qed jitbeghdu mil-knisja!!
Steve Pace
Apr 2nd 2012, 12:42
"While science seemed to have provided a remedy for couples who could have children, Fr Camilleri said the process had become exploitative, with couples spending thousands of euros and being given high hopes early on in the process, only to have these hopes dashed later on.
“This is causing enormous pain,” he said,
so it's not the abortive argument in this case is it Fr.Rene ? - So predictable.... one argument is slashed down so now we use 'pain' ... what's next ? the children's well being ?
P. Vincenti
Apr 2nd 2012, 12:39
Embryo freezing is unacceptable. It degrades the human person to the level of being a commodity and a means to an end.
One cannot ignore the fact that IVF is inherently inefficient. The law must not permit embryo freezing to accommodate success rates.
The full respect and dignity of every person should be respected. IVF already brings this into doubt. What we are left with is the next best solution. No freezing.
DORIS SULTANA
Apr 2nd 2012, 19:57
You decide whats efficient or not? Why inherint. Success rates in IVF have increased considerably in the past years. Embryo freezing may not be acceptable to your self but may be acceptable to others. I think you and the bishop should respect the infertile couple's problems and be more sensitive to their needs. This the same attitude the church took with regards to divorce.
J Debrincat
Apr 2nd 2012, 12:38
The church should not have a role in this decision making. If you are a die hard catholic and feel that you must accept everything the church says than so be it...the church’s stance is clear. If you disagree then IVF should be allowed. There is no place for the church to impose itself on politics and freedom to make up your mind on whether to pursue an IVF route should be yours and yours alone without some bishop looking at one side of the argument.
Alfred Galea
Apr 2nd 2012, 12:37
IVF and stem cell has nothing to do with religion, morality or ethics; it is whether one believes in God or not. I cannot understand how we are living in a world where people are more conscious about the environment and the ecosystem, we want to protect animals, birds, trees etc and then we want to play gods.
Some people want to abort while other people want to force nature in having an offspring. Maybe it would be more sensible to have a Prolife Institute where both categories could be satisfied where married couples can adapt the unwanted children.
We are destroying the family which is the basis of Creation and no church going and Gospel reading is going to save us.
We are heading for built it yourself unnatural family with offspring in a muddled nest. We are selfish and arrogant and we do not have any respect for the offspring.
Stefan Zammit
Apr 2nd 2012, 13:17
Go and talk about "basis of Creation" to someone who is sterile. Medicine is all about playing god in the end. Nothing is natural of what medicine does. It modifies whatever creation does wrong.
Dominic Chircop
Apr 2nd 2012, 11:18
Bishop Grech, I am the proud grandfather of an IVF baby, and would like to thank you for making me resolve never to attend church whilst it harbours people like you in its midst.
A big beware to all liberal-minded PN supporters. Be on the lookout for those of our MP's who are raedy to kowtow the Curia line of thought, even if it is the primus inter pares. Make sure not to favour them with your preference come election time !!
David Smith
Apr 2nd 2012, 12:05
Do you know how many other embryos were killed in the process of creating your grandchild? Are you also proud of that fact?
Luke Lanzon
Apr 2nd 2012, 12:29
@David Smith
I don't know if any embryos were killed in Mr Chircop's case but anyway the end result was fantastic, thanks to science they have extended their family and isn't that what really matters?
David Smith
Apr 2nd 2012, 13:07
Mr. Lanzon...I suggest that you reread your comment again, slowly this time. You don't care how many embryos are killed to help produce one single baby???
Luke Lanzon
Apr 2nd 2012, 13:56
Read my comment again slowly nowhere there does it say that I don't care, but if you mean that I agree that some embryos had to die to make just 1 baby so a family can be happy, well if you think that means I don't care good for you...
Franco Farrugia
Apr 2nd 2012, 15:22
@ Luke Lanzon: You are in error. The end result is NOT TO MAKE A FAMILY HAPPY. The end result is or should be something else. You are completely out of line.
Luke Lanzon
Apr 2nd 2012, 15:51
Do explain what this something else is Franco
Karl Borg
Apr 2nd 2012, 10:40
and the religious fanatics wonder why people attending churches in Malta are always declining..
Mr Christopher Xuereb
Apr 2nd 2012, 10:38
If the Church had its way, the Earth would still be flat
W Cassar
Apr 2nd 2012, 10:25
The Bishop needs to walk in the shoes of those childless couples before opening his mouth. Its easy to point fingers and condemn.
Actually its irresponsible, just like the condom issue!
Joseph Camilleri
Apr 2nd 2012, 10:18
The Church in this matter has a stand that is worth considering, whether one is a practicing Catholic or not. Having touched fertility issues at first hand, I have not been impressed by the ethical standards of many of the medical profession in htat field. The facile way in which scientific solutions to ethical problems are put to the vulnerable client are shocking to say the least. Respect for life, respect for the patient should be formost; they are not always so. Moreover, however burning the desire to have children, is it right to pursue this desire at any cost? Is the mother just a vehicle for procreation?
On the other hand, for those who do not feel burdened by these questions, the state has to consider options in terms of the Res Publica. Adaquate legislation with full respect to life should govern this immensly delicate and vulnerable area where expolitation of helpless people, be they adults or empryos, can very easil happen.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Apr 2nd 2012, 10:08
It is undeniable that "I have no intention to kill you but anyway I am still going to kill you" would undoubtedly still be a murderous and immoral act.
It is much more arguable whether "I have no intention to kill but I will let you die" is just as much a murder and an immoral act. Switching off a life-support system in consequence of which the blood circulation stops and a patient inevitably dies is not considered an illegal or immoral act anywhere I can think of. Is not the same reasoning applicable to letting IV fertilised ova die rather than incinerating them?
Raymond Camilleri
Apr 2nd 2012, 10:05
Congratulations Mons. Grech. You are the only one to speak out clearly and firmly against a distortion of nature. This has got nothing to do with the Church as many people seem to believe. It is all about respecting nature. The only caveat I would make is never to use statistics. As everyone knows, with statistics you can prove anything, if you manipulate them accordingly. "Professional" people would rush to tell you that your statistics are wrong or outdated. That's the only thing they can say. The truth is not statistics. The truth are the facts of natural life. And once you open the door to such manipulations of nature, you will not control the consequences and the follow-ups. Just look at divorce. First it is divorce, now it is gay marriage. What next? It's the same with this issue.
Mike Abbot
Apr 2nd 2012, 10:09
statistics can be manipulated in the same way you manipulate the facts of natural life.
Ramon Casha
Apr 2nd 2012, 10:18
@Raymond Camilleri: Every time you resort to medicine to treat an illness, every time you use a car to get from one place to another, every time you use the computer to read an article and fire off a comment on it, that is a distortion of nature.
Wenzu Vella
Apr 2nd 2012, 09:57
What a shame the Catholic Church in Malta is still living behind the times. All those who enter priesthood do so on the premise not to get married and have a family and yet they are always in the fore front to interfere with married people in the way they conduct their marriage.
“It said it was abortive to screen embryos for genetic and sexually-transmitted diseases to exclude the defective ones before being implanted.” It should be unethical for the medical profession to allow defective embryos to be implanted just to please the Church.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Apr 2nd 2012, 09:53
The Church may be against artificial fertilisation but who cares? Not today's Malta!
Joseph Mizzi
Apr 2nd 2012, 09:49
Most babies born by IVF are normal (the rate of congenital anomalies is very slightly higher than those babies that are conceived naturally). Babies who are born prematurely (in IVF due to multiple pregnancy) have a significantly higher risk of death and neurological problems. The purpose of IVF is not abortive. However, during the procedure usually more embryoes are formed than can be implanted. There is a process of selection involved. The fertilized ova which are not implanted are discarded (or frozen if this service is available). In this sense, IVF must be considered abortive as some embryoes are wasted. To my mind, this is the crux of the matter.
Mike Abbot
Apr 2nd 2012, 09:40
“The Church is against the whole process, even the very beginning of separating the sexual act from procreation,”
and there we have it... right back to controlling sex. What next should the bishop get his way? Sex becomes outlawed except for 2.4 times in your life time? (god forbid your body naturally aborts an unviable fetus). What next when it's plain that can't be controlled? Maybe gender segregation. the Woman of course will have to be covered up not to chance any form of sexual arousal. What next?
silly? read his statement again - and no, it's not out of context. We've seen enough examples of this scenario past and present when this sort of person get's to influence law.
David Smith
Apr 2nd 2012, 09:39
Yet again, the Church is being pushed into a cul-de-sac. The reason this time is because only one Bishop was courageous enough to call a spade a spade. Even when successful, IVF is a process which directly causes abortions, and should therefore be condemned unequivolcally. Dr. Brincat is playing with words - whatever the original intention of IVF, it still causes abortions to occur. Catholics expect a clear position to be taken by the Church, and that means all Bishops and the Archbishop should pronounce themselves collegially on the subject.
Louis Cutajar
Apr 2nd 2012, 09:30
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-103749/IVF-babies-twice-chance-defects.html
Victor Rodenas
Apr 2nd 2012, 09:27
Some years ago a Bishop in Gozo was also against the seperation of those twins who were joined together.
Louis Cutajar
Apr 2nd 2012, 09:26
U X'se nagħmlu bl-embrijuni żejda li jiġu kreati u mhux implantati fil-ġuf. Ħafna drabi meta ssir il-proċedura jiġu kreati embrijuni kemm jista' jkun biex ikun hemm suċċess u sabiex il-mara ma tgħaddix mil-fazi biex jiehdu l-bajd minn għandha, proċedura li hija ta' tbatija ħafna fuq il-mara u hemm effetti prikoloġiċi negattivi li dawn ħadd ma jsemmihom. Issa la darba ma rridux li jkollna dik li nsejħulha multiple preganacies allura mhux l-embrijuni kollha li jkunu kreati se jkunu implantati u allura se jkun hemm l-embrijuni żejda. X'se jiġri minn dawn l-embrijuni? Neqirduhom? Ma nafux li dawn diga huma persuna u li għandhom jiġu irrispettati wkoll.
Criss Camilleri
Apr 2nd 2012, 09:23
That's the way to go Gozo bishop. Just open up another 'war' after the Divorce from Civil Marriage WAR. Issa ta' Malta jonqos jindahal.
Paul Caruana
Apr 2nd 2012, 09:17
After all has been said and done, one simple fact remains: IVF is a reality which is performed locally, and has been so for too many years, in the complete absence of any legal or formal ethical guidelines. Considering the potential abuse that this might create, such a situation is totally unacceptable.
The bishop should really stop his pointless Quixotic battle with windmills. We desperately need a legislative framework in which this procedure would be allowed only under strict ethical rules, such as limiting the maximum number of embryos that may be implanted at any one time.
Please choose the reason of your report below: