Thirty years ago I introduced IVF in Malta in the hope and belief that I would be helping married couples suffering from infertility problems. A few years later I introduced ICSI for couples having a male fertility problem as these, at the time, had no chance of having children barring donor insemination.

For 25 years we, at St James Hospital, were unregulated but still we followed strict ethical standards. We only tried to fertilise three oocytes (eggs) in women under 35 and up to four oocytes in women over 35 or those with repeated failed IVF cycles.

Thirty years ago IVF/ICSI were still in their infantile stages and much less was known than today. Great strides forward have been made and we now use methods and materials not dreamt of at that time. Our first success at IVF was welcomed neither by the government of the day, nor by the Church, which both took a hard stance against what we were doing. We were limited by what we then had available and by the fact that oocyte freezing at that time had an extremely low level of fertilisation and implantation success.

When three embryos fertilised we transferred three embryos. We had a few triplet pregnancies which neither we nor the SCBU doctors were happy with. But such cases were rare. Seventy per cent of pregnancies were single pregnancies, 20 per cent were twin and only 10 per cent were triplet pregnancies.

It occurred that on one occasion we happened to strike about  four triplet pregnancies and to make matters worse all four mothers went into premature labour at roughly the same time, creating havoc at the SBCU which could not cope. This one incident in 25 years raised hell and calls for regulating IVF procedures started in earnest. Politicians and the press, without even asking or bothering to attend and see how we worked and what protocols were followed, branded us ‘cowboys’ practising immorally and abusively.

Infertility treatment has made great strides forward with regard to the method, protocol and medicine used. The aim became less multiple pregnancies as success rates increased and safer methods were introduced. In fact, today it should be unheard of to have hyperstimulated women.

For 25 years we followed strict ethical standards

I remember attending an ESHRE (European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology) meeting where the Japanese claimed that they transferred all embryos produced in one session: if they produced 10 embryos they used to transfer 10 embryos. Since then, protocols have changed and success rates have increased to the extent that today the trend in some centres is towards SET (single embryo transfer). However, these centres freeze the extra embryos to give couples further chances should one transfer fail, thus reducing expense and suffering – financially and psychologically.

In 2012 the Embryo Protection Bill was passed and unfortunately it set to please all stakeholders and NGOs, giving the least possible importance to the couple undergoing the procedure. Huge fines and infringement clauses were introduced for doctors and laboratories performing IVF procedures that didn’t abide by the most restrictive law worldwide.

The Embryo Protection Law allowed only the most basic procedures in IVF. This was further compounded by regulations brought forth by the established authority to regulate the same procedures. It really ignored advances being made in artificial reproductive technology (ART), such as PGS (pre-implantation genetic studies), which doesn’t solve all problems but does avoid the pain and suffering of aborting defective embryos which will never implant or which will normally result in miscarriage at nine to 10 weeks gestation – a moral and psychological disaster for the woman and her husband/partner after having heard a heartbeat at six weeks gestation.

Another unfair imposition was the refusal to allow a woman of 43 or over to undergo the IVF/ICSI procedure even though the blood result gave the women a chance of success. Faced with this situation, we advised our patients to go and do the interventions (PGS and IVF) abroad. This imposed on them a huge financial burden and inconvenience.

I followed the post-election parliamentary debate about the government’s intentions to change the IVF law. It seems that Parliament intends to go from one extreme to the next; from a super-conservative approach to a most liberal one without giving much thought to long-term results and effects such as further diluting our family values and ties. Statistics and studies are used to justify radical arguments, conveniently ignoring that these are all subject to different interpretations to suit specific scenarios. It hurts me to see that what I introduced 30 years ago in good faith turned into a political ball with little or no consideration for the long-term consequences of the procreated children and the well-being of the traditional family.

Yes, we must help couples with infertility problems but let us not cross red lines to boast we are more liberal than most liberal countries. If we truly believe that the traditional family is the ideal foundation for a strong society, let’s make use of scientific progress to strengthen the family not destroy it.

I’m positive that if both extremes resort to sensible and well-meaning solutions then we can draw up a law based on an equilibrium of ideas. An important proviso would be to review the law every three years or so to be able to analyse results. We can use the same system adopted for the National Minimum Pay and its review: a statutory set-up that will review practices in IVF to take account of advances in the field. My plea to all is to move forward in a way that makes best use of scientific advances for the benefit of families wanting children, but let’s not rush for the sake of political advantage. Let’s not forget that it’s useless to close the stable door once the horse has bolted.

Josie Muscat is chairman of the Saint James Hospital group.