As a group of Professionals Against Embryo Freezing, we wish to reply to a letter by Jean-Pierre Farrugia (January 11).
Dr Farrugia’s argument in favour of embryo freezing is that this is a better alternative because it decreases the risk of multiple pregnancies during the IVF procedure. It also avoids having to hyperstimulate the mother on multiple occasions, which can cause serious harm to her health. In fact, some local supporters have described embryo freezing as the “lesser of two evils”. Their argument is that it is better to have frozen embryos than to have multiple pregnancies with the attendant medical risks of prematurity, cerebral palsy etc.
The problem with this form of argumentation is that it looks solely at the endpoint of having an uneventful pregnancy and a healthy child. While these are noble aspirations, we cannot ignore the method by which this is achieved. One cannot justify an “evil” in order to prevent another.
The world over, there exists a significant problem of surplus embryos. If unclaimed by their genetic parents, and no prospective parents willing to adopt them are found, these embryos will be kept in a frozen state or ultimately discarded. It is relevant to note that while locally there may be a strong demand for the adoption of children, little is known about what demand, if any, there will be for the adoption of embryos, especially if these are “second choice embryos”, the first choice or healthiest embryos having been implanted in the biological mother’s womb.
We feel that even if one embryo is discarded, then this is equivalent to the wilful interruption of that individual’s right to life by another person’s decision. Human life should be respected at all levels, even when still in microscopic form.
Embryo freezing may be viewed as the lesser of two “inconveniences” but we strongly believe that concerns about inconvenience should not really enter into the discussion involving the creation of a human life. While as professionals, we are fully aware of and appreciate the heartache suffered by childless couples, this does not justify playing games with human life. If one would never consider placing a child or an adult indefinitely in a frozen state, then neither should one consider doing that to a microscopic human being.
In his letter Dr Farrugia conveniently justifies the committee’s report that advises the freezing of embryos, on the advice given by certain local medical experts. He fails to mention the opposite advice given by a number of other local experts, including members of the medical profession on the Bioethics Committee, whom he only refers to disparagingly in his online comments as having confused the issue with abortion. Dr Farrugia also claims that Dignitas Personae does not equate embryo freezing with abortion.
Nevertheless this does not change the fact that when an embryo has been frozen, a new human life has been wilfully interrupted, possibly permanently.
As a group of professionals that includes a number of consultants practising at Mater Dei Hospital, as well as lecturers in the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, we beg to differ from his committee’s position.
We are committed to defending human life and promoting the health of all individuals, including the weakest and the most innocent… those still without a voice.