Innocent human life must be protected
It is indeed sad that Italian Luca Gianaroli (August 27) has put in his two pence worth again in the IVF issue as his performance before of the ad hoc Parliamentary Committee on IVF left much to be desired ethically.
At that committee, he never mentioned the possibility of egg freezing as a viable alternative and was highly in favour of regular embryo freezing with the resultant disposal of the unused embryos given over for research purposes or adoption. In a newspaper interview he even advocated the eugenic selection of embryos in a process called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, by which embryos with the best genetic and physical characteristics are chosen and the rest discarded.
It is quite obvious that he does not think early human life worthy of any ethical respect. I remember Eleonora Porcu adding very attentively at one of her lectures that in centres where the eggs are not carefully selected the results of egg freezing techniques are poor compared with those where embryo freezing takes place. However, in centres such as hers at Bologna, where the eggs were carefully selected for their quality, the success rate of IVF was as successful with frozen eggs as with frozen embryos. Not only that, but the success rate with frozen eggs even equalled that of fresh human eggs!
The Italian Register of Assisted Reproduction shows that the results achieved by oocyte freezing appear comparable to that with embryo crypreservation (17.1 per cent vs 18.7 per cent). The pregnancy rate per transfer in oocyte vitrification cycles varies between 32 per cent (Ubaldi 2010) and 65 per cent (Cobo 2008, Noyes 2010).
Oktay et al (2006) performed a meta-analysis showing 51 per cent pregnancy rate per transfer in cycles of oocyte vitrification while pregnancy rate per transfer in embryo cryopreservation was 36.9 per cent in the USA and 21.6 per cent in Europe (Mouzon 2012). The most important parameter is the cumulative pregnancy rate, which is 50 per cent with embryo freezing and 47.4 per cent in oocyte freezing (Borini 2008). So the results, especially in Italy, speak for themselves!
In his definition of “good clinical practice”, Dr Gianaroli obviously does not regard the safeguarding of the life of human beings in developing embryonic form as having any merit in the IVF medical equation! Where exactly does primum non nocere enter into the spheres of “good clinical practice” here?
It is also unprofessional the way that he is trying to discredit a professional colleague of his, Dr Porcu, who, in line with new trends, is offering IVF using only frozen eggs, with the result that no human life is discarded in the process.
That IVF using human egg freezing is possible and produces equitable results however, is not only attested to Dr Porcu but also to other renowned doctors such as Ana Cobo who presented the evidence at one of the meetings by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, of which he was formerly president, and Nicole Noyes of the New York University. There are, of course, others.
If these people are having success with now about 1,000 children born using egg freezing worldwide, why cannot we?
The regular freezing of embryos in IVF is not ethically acceptable because it presents a grave danger to the lives of the human embryos themselves and turns them into a commercial commodity.
Nobody today ever suggests that egg freezing should be systematically carried out for those women who want to postpone having children until later in life unless there are strong contingent strictly medical reasons for doing so, as any accident with the freezing processes, which are not unheard of, would destroy all the stored eggs forever.
Since Dr Gianaroli cautions that IVF within the present legal restrictions imposed by the proposed law (Am I assuming textually that he is referring to IVF done without the regular freezing of embryos?) would put Maltese patients at a disadvantage and thinks it would be a wasting of taxpayer’s money to do so, could he be so kind as to illuminate us how he would rate the very successful abilities of the two Maltese doctors, Josie Muscat and Mark Brincat, who, to their credit, have been privately spearheading IVF in Malta for the past 20 years or so without any freezing of embryos?
Have I also often heard that many patients choose to finish the rest of their IVF commenced pregnancy at state hospitals? I most definitely would not think that they were in any such way taking any advantage of their patients or wasting taxpayer’s money just because they were appropriately not freezing embryos!
I sincerely think that the new Embryo Protection Bill is a step in the right direction in that it seeks to preserve human life in a manner respecting the absolute right of all innocent human life. It also preserves the bonds of Maltese families in the process. Notwithstanding some necessary tweaking, it is most definitely a step in the right direction by the Government.
The author is chairman of the Bioethics Committee.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
15 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Marie Claire Vella
Sep 21st 2012, 13:45
I take exception to the use of the word ínnocent' human life. EVERY human life must be protected. By using the word ínnocent' you are making it seem that if anyone is guilty of any wrongdoing, her life is somehow less precious.
Gerry Cowie
Sep 22nd 2012, 11:44
Why take exception to the word "innocent"? It reinforces the fact that every human life is by definition innocent. I think perhaps you have misunderstood the intention of the writer. It is the vulnerability of the unborn human which attracts that word.
Gerry Cowie
Sep 21st 2012, 13:32
Sadly S Vella still demeans the early stage of human life. "There is nothing to demean" he or she says! Well, I do not wish to be included in that petty definition which does not afford the kind of respect which should be shown towards the unborn human.
It is up to us humans to ensure that life is viable and protected and respected. I am sure that S Vella's own dear parents did not refer to the unborn S Vella as being, and I quote: "less viable than an amoeba".
Ramon Casha, though a humanist, continues to make IVF a solely religious issue when it comes to opposing IVF. As he is fully aware there are other methods which preserve the dignity of the unborn human embryo, so surely as a humanist - one who supports humanity - I would expect him to add his support to such a method. He has a fixation with religious people as being the only people on the planet who respect human life.
Nadir Sammut has had the wool pulled over her eyes by the humanist lobby. She thinks that "Pro life" means that life may be freely manipulated and possibly destroyed simply because the net result may be a new human being. Is she not also aware of the other methods of assisted procreation which maintain the dignity of the unborn human being? I pity her lack of understanding of the human race. I am sure also that her own dear parents never thought of her as anything less than important from the moment they were aware of her presence in the womb. I would say that she is the one here who does not understand the meaning of human life. Cells in a petri dish which are in fact the result of the fusion of egg and sperm are human. Unborn humans are human beings with potential and not "potential human beings".
Also this is not a solely religious issue. Again another disingenuous point designed to detract from the reality of IVF and other related issues.
It is disingenuos to confuse this important issue with that of migrants landing in Malta.
CJohn Zammit
Sep 21st 2012, 23:54
So, Mr. Cowie, when are you going to tell us how infallible Popes, prior to H.H. Pope Leo XIII, condoned abortion?
A
nd when are you going to explain the production of the movie, "Eclipse of Reason" in which a real late-term foetus was aborted to show the horrors of abortion? That was not a dramatization; it was a real abortion!
Andy Farrugia
Sep 22nd 2012, 12:10
Precisely, "Eclipse of Reason" shows the horrors of abortion in the most graphic detail..........pernicious evil. Further comment would be superfluous.
Ramon Casha
Sep 22nd 2012, 14:06
First, the opposition to IVF *IS* a purely religious issue - and a Catholic one at that. The egg-freezing method is an experimental and error-prone method which greatly reduces the chances of a baby from being born. The number of embryos discarded with egg freezing is HIGHER than with embryo freezing. The difference is that they would be inserted into a womb before being discarded.
There is nothing dignified about egg freezing.
David Pace
Sep 21st 2012, 12:03
Using Dr. Axiaq reasoning, can he please explain why both Dr. Josie Muscat and Mr. Paul Sultana who are the only practitioners of IVF in Malta have repeatedly declared that if the Embryo Protection Act passes, they will close shop?
Joe Zammit
Sep 20th 2012, 16:22
The dignity of a person must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death. This fundamental principle expresses a great “yes” to human life and must be at the centre of ethical reflection on biomedical research, which has an ever greater importance in today’s world.
Nadir Sammut
Sep 21st 2012, 04:04
You don't explain why human life starts at conception?
A process that guarantees greater chances of creating life is pro-life...
I can't understand why freezing embryos to ensure the highest chance of birth (i.e. creation of life), is not pro-life in your mind...
I think you must have gone to church a lot and have been told that the soul enters existence at conception, and you have therefore linked life to start at conception.
Do you cut your nails? Or you hair? Do you donate blood? Do you do anything in which you lose/remove/kill cells from your body? Those cells are not defined as 'human life' I assume.
So why are a bunch of cells on a Petri-dish so different?!
Wake-up and stop thinking with brainwashed minds!
Ramon Casha
Sep 20th 2012, 16:11
"It is indeed sad that Italian Luca Gianaroli (August 27) has put in his two pence worth again in the IVF issue..."
It is a characteristic of fundamentalists and tyrants to want to prevent the public from being informed. Luca Gianaroli provided unbiased information to counter the propaganda being spread. Egg freezing is not the right solution for Malta.
P. Vincenti
Sep 20th 2012, 14:13
Thankfully it would seem that thus far the government and the opposition are in tune on protecting human life from fertilization. The Maltese should be grateful that both major parties remain pro-life.
Patrick Zammit
Sep 20th 2012, 12:37
Without entering the debate about whether or not embryo freezing is ethical, a final decision has to be taken when all the facts are known.
It has been suggested that Dr Porcu's success rates with egg freezing is due to the relatively younger age of the women she worked with. In women not so young, it appears that the success rates following egg freezing go down.
Also, it has recently been shown that not only is egg freezing less efficient than embryo freezing but it is now being suggested that still better results can be obtained if all embryos are first frozen and implanted afterwards.
"A review of 11 studies from around the world, involving more than 37,000 pregnancies, found frozen embryos to be safer for mother and child."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2197670/Women-having-fertility-treatment-benefit-freezing-embryos.html#ixzz25flgDooA
Nadir Sammut
Sep 20th 2012, 12:28
"However, in centres such as hers at Bologna, where the eggs were carefully selected for their quality, the success rate of IVF was as successful with frozen eggs as with frozen embryos. Not only that, but the success rate with frozen eggs even equalled that of fresh human eggs!"
I am afraid you also left something else out. Her study involved young patients. And the biggest factor to have children is age. If her clinic had older couples, or a result was done comparing older mothers, then, unfortunately, embryos are the better choice.
Then to you and Gerry Cowie, you guys do not understand the meaning of human life...
We support (as a country) sending back illegal immigrants who are seeking safety.
We are allowing people to die around the world.
But you want to protect a bunch of cells. And yes! That is all they are cells.
If you remove the concept of the soul (which is purely religious), then those cells have only a potential to become human. As long as they are in a lab, they can never become a human. Therefore they are barely a potential.
After that, even after being put in a woman's womb, their potential has yet to be unlocked through successful birth.
I will say one thing though, IVF's disposal of human cells and abortion by far are not on the same level.
Because the potential level of life is different.
An unborn child in a mother is likely to be a successful birth, and therefore the destruction of that potential is possible.
A cell on a petri-dish is nothing more than cells on a petri-dish.
Gerry Cowie
Sep 20th 2012, 10:50
The humanist community continues its campaign against this bill. They are happy to demean the human embryo as a meaningless bunch of cells, in the same way that abortionists have managed to do in order to continue their "work". They even deny their own humanity into the bargain! Some have openly stated that human life deserves no protection at all!
Many anti-bill commentators seem unhappy to accept another method whereby life is respected and they also suggest that only those with religious beliefs. along with the Church, are in favour of life.
This bill, though not a perfect piece of legislation, would put Malta at the front in terms of protection of the human embryo and accepting that human life does have value from the scientifically undeniable moment of conception. If human beings are not prepared to defend their own kind, who else will?
S. Vella
Sep 20th 2012, 23:30
There is nothing to demean - the simple scientific fact is, an early embryo is just a bunch of cells. In the 'life' scale, it is less viable than an amoeba.
Please choose the reason of your report below: