IVF only for couples who suffer from sterility, impotence – Cana
In-vitro fertilisation should only be available to married couples who suffer from “sterility and impotence”, according to the Cana Movement.
The law should be restricted and the movement criticised the proposed parameters that widen availability to “all heterosexual couples in all circumstances”.
The position paper, titled Critical Analysis of the Embryo Protection Bill, was drawn up by lawyer Robert Tufigno, a Cana council member. In a highly contentious statement last month, the Cana Movement said IVF opened the door to abortion.
“The Bill is giving the idea that the wanted child is a commodity that may be procured, albeit at a high cost... from a clinic,” Dr Tufigno said, adding this approach implied the embryo was a product of technology that could be disposed of at any time.
In a scathing review of the Bill regulating IVF, the Church organisation yesterday said the proposed regulatory authority was powerless.
The 19-page document was published two days before Parliament reconvenes from its summer recess tomorrow. The IVF Bill, released for consultation last month, is expected to be one of the first pieces of legislation to be debated.
Dr Tufigno said the current state of lawlessness in the field of medically assisted procreation was going to be replaced by “inadequate means to ensure the enforcement of the law”.
He said the regulatory authority proposed in the Bill was not vested with the power to suspend or revoke any licence if the law was breached and its functions were generic.
“The general impression is that the authority is mainly an agency of moral value but with no real power to regulate medically assisted procreation and protect the embryo,” Dr Tufigno said.
He noted that much was left to supplementary regulation and augured that any consultation on such rules be undertaken during “normal times of the year when people are not in vacation”.
He also called for a proper definition of the embryo as a distinct entity vested with rights. Experts in the field have drawn a distinction between fertilised eggs and embryos (not all fertilised eggs go on to develop into viable embryos), something Dr Tufigno did not.
The Bill defined the embryo as a process of fertilisation, he added. “The Bill is very careful in not recognising or granting to the fertilised female egg any status of a subject or person.”
The Bill limits the number of fertilised eggs to two but Dr Tufigno insisted the limit could be exceeded by a practitioner unintentionally.
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 4 - Eddie Fenech Adami stable...
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
In Discussion
Old buses, drivers to return
Updated: Minister apologises for...
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...
No appeals board for first part of power...
16 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
W Cassar
Oct 1st 2012, 09:37
Cana Who?
C. Sammut
Sep 30th 2012, 16:21
Everybody wants to put their foot in it... it really is nobody's business except those of the parents, as long as no intentional harm is done to either parents or fetus.
E. De Marco
Sep 30th 2012, 16:17
People in general don't especially care to what Cana says. People who wish to have children to love and cherish will do their utmost to have them, whatever the 200 year-old backward Church says. Thank you Cardinal Martini,,
Mr Edward Caruana Galizia
Sep 30th 2012, 13:59
Does anyone really care about what CANA has to say about the issue? Why on Earth do we need a report from them to tell us what is and what isn't correct? Seriously, they are the most irrelevant organization that exists.
And what's worse is they actually bothered to prepare a 19 paged report. 19 pages of dribble and boring high and mighty rubbish where they exerted their perceived power over "the family", because of course we have all voted for them and their opinions to be put into force since the population of Malta, the most densely populated country in Europe, is in peril and we need someone to regulate our family.
M Cachia
Sep 30th 2012, 13:36
If couples are infertile how can they have IVF, you still need viable sperm and egg. Or is cana ok with the use of sperm or egg outside the couple, because that sounds a bit of muddled morals to me.
So another question: How about people who will find it difficult to concieve because of medical problems like polycistic ovary syndrome? These aren't infertile, shall we shut them out too?
Cana should stop trying to interfere with couples' desire to have children, this after all is the want for life. Rather than a moral issue I think this is the usual knee jerk by the ultr religious to any scientific progress. I have a feeling that if this was the 1880's Cana would be writing against the evils of anaesthesia in childbirth, as the bible says you should birth in pain after all!
C Briffa
Sep 30th 2012, 12:03
What is most annoying here is that they discriminate against people who are not heterosexual or who are unmarried. What a child needs is nurturing and loving caregivers regardless of their sexual orientation or legal status. Marriage and heterosexuality are no guarantee for that.
Steve Pace
Sep 30th 2012, 12:02
"The Bill is giving the idea that the wanted child is a commodity that may be procured"
Doesn't adoption give a similar idea ?
Victor Rodenas
Sep 30th 2012, 11:35
I wonder what Abraham would have said,...there was no IVF at that time,...but he used his maid as a surrogate mother,.....prosit tassew,..the Bible teaches us that we have to use our brains to achive something which is impossible by normal means.
Gerry Cowie
Sep 30th 2012, 11:09
Whilst this proposed legislation would not be perfect, at least it would put Malta at the forefront of respect for human life from conception, giving the human embryo for the first time the dignity it deserves as the first stage of human life.
Needless to say, some of the early comments below show the usual venom, sarcasm and lack of understanding of the facts and demonstrate that some have not really read what has been said, have not researched it, and are just putting on their anti hats! No doubt there will be more.
Martin Saliba
Sep 30th 2012, 12:03
Until the church and its organisations starts to address its comments specifically to its faithful there will be anti comments , yes. They should not even think of interfering with the lives of people who are not in their fold.
A. Mizzi
Sep 30th 2012, 10:37
CANA can never be in the childless couples shoes and their efforts, ALWAYS WITH GOD'S WILL, to hold a baby in their arms!
Let God's Will be done with the help of science and cut the rhetoric!.
Victor Rodenas
Sep 30th 2012, 10:05
A long walk starts with just one step.
Mr Terry Gosden
Sep 30th 2012, 10:01
If they do not get it here, due to restrictions, people will vote with their feet and get it elsewhere. Like abortion. Whatever restrictions you put on such matters are at best simply useless. Rant and rave as you will, it sounds verry 'Cannut'ish
Alfred J. McEwen
Sep 30th 2012, 10:01
Alfred J. McEwen
The usual myopic and narrow minded views expressed by a medieval organisation that have no right to interfere with civil liberties and should keep their technological backwardness within the confines of their organisation.
Glen Micallef
Sep 30th 2012, 13:00
The words of Mr McEwen, a modern man who treats life as just another commodity and is fine with everyone playing God!An excellent example of all that's wrong with modern society where consumption is the order of the day.
Alfred J. McEwen
Sep 30th 2012, 16:12
Alfred J. McEwen
@ Glen Micallef
Very well put Mr. Micallef,,, in that you have indeed a medieval mentality and ``with everyone playing God ``don`t you think that you and your like are doing exactly the same thing by trying to ostracise common people and preaching nothing but unadulterated drivel about who has and who has not the right to seek out the medical possibilities of having children by way of an IVF program..and what gives you the God given right to do so anyway. If that is your belief then so be it, but trying to ram your beliefs down people`s throats whose opinions are perfectly aligned with childless couples whether they be married or not is only adding to the ludicrous stance of your position.
Please choose the reason of your report below: