The debate on embryo freezing has so far been “misguided, not based on facts and sensational , according to gynaecologist Mark Sant, who says the current system will not help couples who are failing IVF.
The aim of IVF was for a couple to take a baby home, not get a positive pregnancy test, said Dr Sant, who sat on the working group that assessed how the Embryo Protection Act was functioning in practice.
Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s plan to introduce embryo freezing, which is currently banned under the Act, has been heavily criticised by the pro-life lobby and the Church, with former prime minister Lawrence Gonzi also weighing in. They maintain that embryo freezing leads to the annihilation of human life.
The debate has been marked by the use of conflicting statistics, with some experts saying that Malta’s practice of oocyte cryopreservation (egg freezing) is yielding good results and others arguing that the success rate from IVF is too low. The statistics, as often happened, did no justice to the people being discussed, Dr Sant said.
Since January, a total of 105 in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles have been carried out at Mater Dei Hospital. Thirty-four women became pregnant but 13 miscarried.
“The aim of IVF is for a couple to take a baby home not to get a positive pregnancy test. Also, the ones that fail are likely to continue to fail if this system carries on as is. If one were to include the government-funded procedures carried out at St James Hospital, the projected live birth should be around 18 per cent, Dr Sant said.
“This is assuming that the ones who have reached the second part of their pregnancy will go on to have a live birth. This is definitely significantly less than the results obtained abroad.
The aim of IVF is for a couple to take a baby home, not to get a positive pregnancy test
“Abroad statistics are subdivided into those women under 35 years and those over. I don’t believe we have those figures. I personally think that the discussion is premature as it should only have started after the parliamentary group discusses the report that we issued from the inter-ministerial group. People are speculating on what happens abroad, which is not what has been proposed.”
Dr Sant also believes that, unfortunately, the debate has also become a political one.
“We are discussing a group of people that are desperate, with the women desperate to fulfil a very basic but demanding need from nature. This is definitely not a ‘wish’, as many people call it. And although infertility affects one out of every six couples, very few of them will ever come out in the open and speak about it.”
Charles Savona Ventura, head of obstetrics and gynaecology, said the freezing of embryos has created problems worldwide about what to do with the “unwanted” extra embryos abandoned by their potential parents.
These were often discarded or used for research purposes, he said, adding that the morality of destroying potential humans must be considered in these situations.
“It is very true that there is more experience and scientific knowledge related to embryo freezing rather than ovum freezing which is performed in Malta under the current legislation, but that is only because most centres have gone down the easy path of freezing embryos.”
Egg-freezing abroad is generally done for those women who were about to have both ovaries removed following, for instance, malignancy at a young age.
Health Parliamentary Secretary Chris Fearne has stressed that embryo vitrification would be used responsibly and only be made available to those women who have repeatedly failed to get pregnant through IVF.