Human life is sacred and inviolable. It is to be welcomed, treasured and protected at all costs. This is the clarion call of all those who cherish life from conception to natural death. The pro-life movement is all about respecting human life from conception to natural death. This respect implicitly upholds the right to life, which is the most fundamental right of all, which all human beings are entitled to, whether born or unborn.
In her short visit to Malta, Gianna Jessen spoke precisely about the sacredness and inviolability of human life from the moment of conception. The testimony of her life had the effect of galvanising all the Maltese people who met her so as not to be complacent in the defence of human life. Her principal message was that life is always worth living and that physical and psychological illnesses, conditions and impairments in no way decrease the intrinsic dignity and worth which each and every human being has from the moment of conception onwards.
That is why pro-life movements are so concerned about envisaged changes in the Embryo Protection Act that so far offers maximum safeguards for the embryo in IVF therapy for infertile couples.
No doubt, infertility is a cause of immeasurable pain and anguish for couples yearning for a child. This suffering is often borne in silence and in solitude. People suffering from infertility deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, all the more because their suffering speaks of their noble desire to bear children and raise them with love and responsibility. The Embryo Protection Act, as it currently stands, provides effective help to couples and upholds the best interests of the child conceived.
From conception, it is well established that this very young human being, who owing to his or her very young age, cannot express himself or herself is, first of all, human, and secondly, alive. This embryo is the son or daughter of a couple. Each and every human being, irrespective of age, has a right to be loved and a right to life. These rights are placed in jeopardy by the freezing of embryos. The act of wilfully freezing an embryo means that an embryo would be exposed to the risk of dying as a direct result of being frozen.
Why should we introduce embryo freezing when it leads to so many complex medical, legal and ethical issues?
The loss of an embryo in the process of embryo freezing cannot be dismissed as a natural consequence. There is a world of difference between the natural discarding of an embryo as an act of nature and the planned and premeditated exposure of the human embryo to a hazardous environment that may result in harm or death. To deny this difference would be to say that there is no difference in culpability between the death of a person, independent of the will or action of another person, and the death of a person, as a direct cause of the will and action of another person.
Why should embryo freezing fraught with such negative possibilities be considered when IVF involving ova vitrification offers a much safer way to treat infertility? Why should we introduce embryo freezing when it leads to so many complex medical, legal and ethical issues?
Currently, the existing proposal is to introduce embryo freezing in such a way that a maximum of five ova can be fertilised, but only a maximum of two can be implanted in a prospective mother in one treatment cycle. This means that three out of every five would end up in a frozen limbo. It has been suggested that should the biological parents not wish to make use of their frozen embryos, these would be up for adoption. However, various problems arise here.
First of all, no one can force another couple to adopt embryos and eventually give birth. Secondly, if another couple suffering from infertility were to use IVF, they would naturally want to conceive using their own genetic material, instead of adopting someone else’s frozen embryos. It is naive to imagine that all unused frozen embryos will be freed for adoption and that therefore all will be well.
Besides, why should these embryos be discriminated against and denied being raised by their natural parents? In every facility worldwide where embryo freezing is available, there are stockpiles of unclaimed, unwanted surplus embryos, most of which end up being discarded. This certainly does not respect their human dignity.
People suffering from infertility should be made aware of the unnecessary and unreasonable realities of embryo freezing when an ethical, safer and equally effective IVF treatment is available. The humanity of the life created at the moment of conception should not be doubted, and neither should it be devalued, disrespected and violated through the act of freezing.
Ramon Bonett Sladden is a lawyer and member of Life Network Malta.