Opposition leader Joseph Muscat yesterday accused the Government of presenting a half-baked IVF Bill full of horrifying concepts and which was humiliating to parents, children and the medical profession.
Speaking in Parliament, Dr Muscat said the Opposition would be voting in favour of the Embryo Protection Bill in second reading not because it agreed with it as presented but because it agreed on the need to regulate. It would be moving crucial amendments at committee stage, which he proposed should be held in plenary. His side was willing to agree on a timetable that would cover the whole debate by the end of next week.
Dr Muscat praised the reports by the various parliamentary committees noting that the Bill departed from what was agreed there. However, the Bill could still be salvaged through amendments. He was ready to finally approve the Bill if changes were made.
Dr Muscat said he was proud to be labeled a liberal because he wanted to give the Maltese European values and ideas. When a former member of the European Parliament he had faced moral dilemmas but did not fear the situation and was proud to stand up against abortion even if this was considered a right in many countries.
The Bill could be a result of compromise and approved even if not perfect but it was crucial not to leave the country in a vacuum any more.
Dr Muscat said that the Bill introduced the concept of embryo freezing for the first time even if for exceptional circumstances. This enjoyed wide parliamentary consensus and destroyed the myth that IVF or embryo freezing was equivalent to abortion. No statements had been issued or demonstrations held to equalise this technology with abortion after the Bill was published.
A Labour government would ensure that this technology would be given to all couples free of charge under the National Health Service.
Dr Muscat said that the Bill insulted and humiliated families and medical profession but the Opposition would rectify this through amendments.
The Labour leader said the Opposition could not agree with the introduction of a planning authority for birth as the Bill was proposing that a couple had to apply for a permit to become parents. This was humiliating and intolerable – a vision of a big brother government the Opposition could not agree with.
The Bill was making couples opting for the IVF procedure out to seem like criminals, as if they wanted genetic engineering. All that these couples wanted was to have their own children, thanking God for this gift. Certificates for the procedures had to be issued by the consultants and not by the Embryo Protection Authority to avoid the possibility that a certificate would be issued according to who the couple was and which consultant they chose.
It was clear that the Bill was drafted by lawyers who had no knowledge of how the medical procedure worked. Medical specialists spent time with infertile couples, giving psychological support and counseling and trying other means before deciding on the IVF procedure.
The Bill was highly prescriptive and would induce specialists to advise parents to undergo the process abroad. It also showed lack of confidence in medical professionals, as if they were crooks, with penalties that included imprisonment.
Dr Muscat disagreed with powers given to the proposed authority to keep records on families seeking IVF and on the resulting births. The issue on the implantation of the embryos showed that the Bill was half-baked. The first draft mentioned two embryos but this was changed in just one week to three when no new medical advances had been registered. This limitation was a strait jacket and, Dr Muscat said, professionals should be left to use their best medical judgement in deciding on a case-by-case basis according to particular circumstances. The Opposition agreed on the limitation of embryo freezing in certain circumstances, but what were these circumstances?
The authority should only be the regulator to monitor abuses and clamp down on abusers including naming and shaming, but not going in for micro-management, threatening the patient-doctor relationship.
Dr Muscat said that he expected clarifications from the Government on the issue of adoption and the principle of a curator appointed by the Family Court. He agreed that conscientious objectors had to include paramedics without suffering any discrimination.
It should also be clarified that professionals giving advice and couples seeking the service abroad would not be considered as breaking the law.