The starting point for any discussion on the proposed review of the Embryo Protection Act must be that there is no such thing at law as a right to a child. A child is not an object to which a person can have a right. On the contrary, as a human being, a child is itself the subject of rights, foremost among which is the right to protection, and is entitled to its own dignity.
Even the fundamental human right to family life, which is limited by the respect due to the rights of others, does not inherently entail a right to a child.
Biological science has factually ascertained that human life, like all other mammalian life, begins at fertilisation. At this particular moment in time, when the one-celled organism called a zygote (Greek for ‘joined’) results, a new being that is biologically human, comes into existence. It is completely different from the ovum and sperm gametes from which it originated, containing all the genetic material and instructions necessary to direct its future development.
After fertilisation, through a process of cell division called mitosis, the zygote rapidly develops into an embryo. However, nothing new is added to the genetic package of this new living entity.
In relation to the assisted reproductive technology known as in-vitro fertisiliation (IVF), it is at the early stage of embryonic life, normally after three days, that the new being is implanted in the female uterus.
If nourished and protected, the development of this being will proceed uninterruptedly though all the other phases of development in human life, namely, foetus, newborn, toddler, child, teen, adult and aged adult until death puts an end to natural life. This new being will not develop into a sheep, goat or cow. Therefore it is by very definition a human being, and should accordingly be treated as a person from the first moment of its biological existence.
Human life should be protected, valued and treasured equally during all its stages of development, and any attempt to effect a gradation in moral value depending upon the particular phase of development of any individual human life is not only completely morally unacceptable, but also bereft of any rational or scientific basis whatsoever.
The Catholic Church does not approve of IVF for reasons which go even beyond life-related issues, treating as they do with the moral question of how procreation was intended by God to occur, namely as the natural result of an act of lovemaking between a man and a woman bonded together in a marital relationship. This is, of course, a position which as a Catholic I respect, although I would happily welcome the day when an exception be admitted, within the boundaries of adequate safeguards, such as are currently contemplated by Maltese law, in favour of married couples sincerely wishing for an own child and having no other natural possibility to do so.
There is no such thing at law as a right to a child
In such well-intentioned cases, which could cause no foreseen harm to any innocent being, medical science ought to be allowed to give a helping hand to nature. However, my concern here is limited to life-related issues which any liberalised IVF legislation would perforce give rise to.
As its very nomenclature suggests, the Embryo Protection Act is concerned with the protection of the human embryo. In fact, the law establishes an Embryo Protection Authority whose function it is to ensure that highest standards of ethics are maintained and that compliance be made with the provisions of the law. The emphasis is quite rightly set on the human embryo and its protection.
Most importantly, the Act strives to safeguard against the major life-related problems which IVF typically gives rise to by limiting the number of egg cells which may be fertilised within any one treatment cycle to two (three in exceptional cases), all of which must be implanted; and by prohibiting inter alia embryo selection, embryo disposal, embryo storage (except in extremis when implantation may no longer be possible post-fertilisation), embryo dealing, embryo experimentation and research, and even surrogacy.
The law also proscribes as a criminal offence the wilful causing of death to any embryo, thereby recognising the fundamentally important scientific reality that an embryo is a living entity.
Arguments such as I have seen made by the president of one particular organisation pushing for change to the effect that we ought not continue forcing families to seek treatment abroad are not only sentimental but are actually based on misplaced empathy. They are no rational arguments at all, but promotional hype, and may be applied just as well in campaigning for abortion and perhaps the more so, given that this is not locally available at all, whereas IVF treatment is.
Those who now clamour for further reform, to the extent that live human embryos may as an immediate consequence be subjected to undignified treatment, harm or even outright death, actually seek to remove all form of protection from the Embryo Protection Act.
The same president of the particular organisation I have generically referred to above has already proposed “a change in the formal heading of the current legislation”. If that is what would actually be required for such organisation’s proposals to be seen through, then this is already appearing to be rather ominous and ill-boding, even as I still hope I may have understood its intentions.
Rather than a question of justice for those wishing to have a child, it is a question of causing an even graver injustice to unborn children. As civilised human beings, endowed with the capacity of reason and having a keen moral code elevating us in stature well beyond any other creature on earth, we show that we are worth our salt when we stand up and unsheathe our swords in valiant defence of the weak, the defenceless and the innocent. The living human embryo perfectly fits that bill.
Kevin Dingli is a lawyer.