For some, freezing an embryo, with the risk of destruction it entails, is tantamount to the annihilation of a human life. Photo: Matthew Mirabelli

Changes to the Embryo Protection Act, which propose to usher in embryo freezing, are not envisaged to take place before April as Health Parliamentary Secretary Chris Fearne insists the discussion will not be rushed.

“We want to give infertile women the opportunity to create a new life where it doesn’t exist, and address injustices created by the current law. It’s a sensitive subject that is bound to spark a furious debate so we are not going to hurry this through,” he said.

News that Prime Minister Joseph Muscat planned to forge ahead with embryo freezing, which was banned under the Act in 2012, sparked an outcry, but Mr Fearne believes most of the criticism is premature.

The proposals have come under heavy fire from the pro-life lobby, the Church, and former prime minister Lawrence Gonzi, who hold that freezing an embryo, with the risk of destruction this entailed, was tantamount to the annihilation of a human life.

However, Mr Fearne stressed that embryo vitrification – a more successful method than slow freezing – would be used responsibly and only be made available to those women who had repeatedly failed to get pregnant through in vitro fertilisation.

In these cases – affecting about 40 would-be mothers a year – it is being proposed that the number of eggs that can be fertilised increase to five from just two, and the rest can be frozen and reused for another cycle.

“If embryo freezing is opened up immediately to all IVF cycles the risk is we’ll end up with numerous unused embryos, which would even make adoption a problem,” he said.

Mr Fearne ruled out that embryos which are not adopted would be given up for research purposes – a highly divisive issue – and the Embryo Protection Authority would be assuming responsibility. If the couple does not wish an embryo to be adopted the matter will be taken to court.

As a paediatric surgeon working abroad I was always against terminating pregnancies if defects were detected in the foetus

“Embryos will be adopted on a first in, first out basis, so no embryo will be left vitrified indefinitely,” he said. Another suggestion put forward is increasing the age that women can avail themselves of IVF to the age of 45 (the current limit is 42).

One contentious proposal is pre-gestational diagnosis, practised in some European IVF centres, where the embryo is screened for chromosomal abnormalities and genetic disease before it is implanted. Mr Fearne is personally resolutely against introducing this practice, because he feels the process should be as similar to the natural pregnancy process as possible.

“As a paediatric surgeon working abroad I was always against terminating pregnancies if defects were detected in the foetus so I feel this practice should not be allowed for embryos. This is just my perspective and we obviously have to wait for the final opinion,” he said.

Neither would surrogacy, another proposal, be introduced. Mr Fearne felt this had to be studied further to ensure the best practices were adopted as countries that had introduced this still faced legal challenges.

The proposed amendments were drawn up earlier this year by an interministerial group tasked with examining the existing law, as well as combing through European court sentences connected with IVF to ensure the new regulations avoided any potential ethical minefields.

The draft changes are now being weighed by Malta’s bioethics committee and Mr Fearne said he was expecting feedback by December. Once everything was in hand, the discussion would move on to Cabinet and the parliamentary group and eventually opened up to the public.

Mr Fearne said the law was being revised so soon after its introduction to eliminate all forms of discrimination. It will ensure single women and gay women have an equal opportunity to access the services available.

Under the current law, sperm donation is illegal but Mr Fearne said this together with ova donation would be revised.

The live birth rate from State-provided IVF stood at just eight per cent, which was why the government was working to change the law and provide the best assisted reproductive technology to those yearning to start a family.

“We will listen to everybody’s opinion and each one is relevant, but at the end of the day we have to weigh all the pros and cons and decide.”