In 1959, the United Nations General Assembly declared: "... the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth". Almost half a century has passed since then and it would not be an exaggeration to state that the rights of the child are being trampled on as never before, especially in the crucial, vulnerable stages after conception.
Over the past 50 years, thanks to the revolution in sexual morality, the progressive coarsening of conscience with respect to procreation and unborn human life has been astounding. We seem to have lost the ability to discern what is good and what is evil.
We have subconsciously absorbed ideas that favour our immediate interest at the expense of everything else. However, life is a fundamental good. Any act against it is immoral.
The rapid breakthroughs in medicine have introduced unheard of possibilities to influence life from its earliest stages. One need only mention in vitro fertilisation techniques, stem cell research and cloning. What was until not so long ago science fiction is now a reality and ethical decisions are becoming more and more complex and urgent.
Unfortunately, ethical considerations are too often overlooked. We have reached a stage where, worldwide, unborn children are aborted by the millions and their body parts are offered to researchers without the slightest ethical compunction.
Only recently, in the UK, Tony Blair crossed a fundamental moral line by allowing the cloning of human embryos for stem cell research. Pandora's Box has been opened wide and we are facing an ethical breakdown of unprecedented proportions.
The embryo and the unborn child desperately need legal safeguards. Ethical parameters are not there to hinder research and medical and social advances. Their purpose is to ensure that human dignity and the right to life are defended throughout.
For instance, in the interests of both morality and health, society should opt for non-embryonic stem cell research. Patients treated with stem cells from their own bodies need not worry about the rejection of foreign tissue. This is a huge advantage over embryonic stem cells and their products.
Malta does not live in isolation. The political, medical and religious authorities have long been aware of the ethical realities that were rapidly unfolding in biotechnology. A code of bioethics had already been fashioned years ago to cope with and control the runaway situation. Yet, precious years have passed without this code being made public, debated and adopted.
It is unacceptable that in a country professing to uphold Christian values, so much time has been taken to address this serious issue. Matters seem to be moving at last. Awareness of the rights of the unborn are once more being given more public prominence, to the extent that having the foetus's right to life enshrined in the Constitution has also been proposed.
In his New Year's message, Archbishop Mgr Joseph Mercieca, who has repeatedly spoken unequivocally in defence of human life in all its stages, again made an appeal for the need of legislation that regulates assisted procreation and protects the rights of the newly conceived.
The Archbishop was supported by the chairman of the Bioethics Consultative Committee, Nationalist MP Michael Asciak, who has been working assiduously to regulate biotechnology and introduce legislation that protects the unborn.
Ironclad laws that respect the sanctity of life in all its stages have to be introduced and upheld without delay. This is the litmus test that distinguishes a civilised society, worthy of the name.