On November 22, Parliament debated a motion against the legal incoherence of a legal notice that grants 100 hours special vacation leave for those undergoing IVF treatment both locally and abroad. The legal notice is about leave not on whether one can or cannot undertake medically-assisted procreation abroad. The motion did not deal with the leave issue but the definitions contained in the legal notice.

The incoherence emerges when comparing the definitions of ‘prospective parent’ and ‘medically-assisted procreation’ in the legal notice with those in the Embryo Protection Act.

The Embryo Protection Act defines ‘prospective parents’ as two people of the opposite sex and ‘medically-assisted procreation’ as including an intervention specifically in the reproductive system of the receiving female.

The legal notice changed the definition of ‘prospective parents’ to include any two persons united in marriage, civil union or cohabitation while ‘medically-assisted procreation’ was changed to be an intervention within the reproductive system of the receiving person.

The motion is not opposing the legal notice and neither stopping infertile women from going abroad for IVF. However, the legal notice promotes the circumvention of the law extending the leave allowance to couples who do not fall under the definition of prospective parent as per the Embryo Protection Act. It allocates such leave even to make use of practices like surrogacy and gamete donation, which are illegal in Malta though they may be legal abroad. Would you grant leave for someone to undergo abortion abroad?

The Embryo Protection Act is being undermined. While the legal notice does not amend this law, it includes clashing definitions that prevent coherence in the legal system and promotes circumvention of the law.