The “Professionals Against Embryo Freezing” has information that in Malta all embryos in the process of assisted procreation were implanted into the woman in order to afford better chances of pregnancy.

PAEF group coordinator Miriam Sciberras, a qualified dentist and currently reading for an MA in bioethics, told the House Social Affairs Committee an embryo was already a whole living member of society and not just a clump of cells.

Speaking during the first of a number of hearings in response to the recommendations of the House Select Committee on Assisted Procreation, she said the state was duty-bound to protect every human being, irrespective of its stage of development, so any forthcoming legislation in Malta should not include embryo freezing.

Labour MP Michael Farrugia said completely eliminating embryo freezing would be madness while Nationalist MP Jean Pierre Farrugia said the fertility rate with frozen embryos was almost better than with fresh eggs.

Putting together a sperm and an egg did not necessarily result in an embryo, he said. Implanting two embryos into a woman could still result in failure to get pregnant. With this in mind, gynaecologists sometimes implanted up to four embryos in the hope that one at least would result in pregnancy, but luck could lead to three foetuses.

Assisted fertilisation had a success rate of some 20 per cent, which meant that the frozen embryos could be utilised by the unsuccessful 80 per cent. The select committee’s recommendations had been as conservative as possible but without closing out potential developments.

Pierre Schembri Wismayer, Head of the Department of Anatomy at the University of Malta, spoke on the “few benefits of embryo freezing” and the main objections, as well as suggestions of the PAEF. He said each embryo was already a human being, while an oocyte (an unfertilised egg) was not yet so.

Donia Scicluna who runs a support group for childless couples, said it was painfully evident that most couples did not fully understand what was happening with parts of their bodies, and this could sometimes have adverse effects on their relationship.

One major question mark was why, if the man was the problem, it was the woman who was undergoing treatment.

Ms Scicluna said it was paramount that couples involved in assisted procreation should be given more explanations to fully understand the situation, and why treatment sometimes was successful and at other times it was not.

Adjourning the meeting SAC chairman Edwin Vassallo latched on to Ms Scicluna’s comments and asked the professionals to keep in mind that “there are people out there”, not just techniques, technicalities, morals and ethics.

Before the start of the hearing, Dr Michael Farrugia, the only member of the SAC who had also been on the select committee, disagreed with reopening all the discussions on the topic following the extensive publicity the work of the select committee had received. He said nobody had been held back from attending and participating in the committee’s meetings if they had so wished.

Dr Farrugia, a medical doctor, said he felt it was only fair that if the SAC took time to listen to the lobby group, it should re-invite at least some of the professionals it had heard to let them have their say on what the PAEF would have said.

In its discussions the select committee had kept before it all the tenets of the medical and legal professions, as well as morality and ethics. Any or all the recommendations made by the select committee had been arrived at because others had not spoken up then. If the discussions were reopened it would mean that the committee’s work had been a waste of time and the government was not willing to legislate.

Dr Jean Pierre Farrugia, himself a medical doctor, who had chaired the select committee, said he fully understood Dr Farrugia’s frustration and agreed with him. In its five months of discussions the select committee had met hands-on professionals who had initially been on conflicting courses about assisted procreation but had ­eventually started to converge. All proceedings had been streamed online for public information.

On the other hand, Dr Farrugia said, he could understand the lobby group’s anxiety, but only the executive had the power to legislate.

Mr Vassallo said that while he did not agree with reopening the select committee’s completed work, as chairman of the SAC he would entertain any group wanting to talk about assisted procreation. Holding more meetings would not mean the drafting of legislation was being held up.

The hearings of the PAEF would constitute additional consultation in view of scientific developments, and both MPs should not think the SAC was prejudging anything.

Dr Michael Farrugia said that if the SAC did not see its way clear to inviting a representative of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology because of costs, he was sure a teleconference could easily be set up.

Mr Vassallo said he would refer the idea to the Minister of Health.