Even though it seems as if the die has been cast and the final vote on the amendments to the Embryo Protection Act are a foregone conclusion, I still believe that on further reflection, one might decide to reconsider the proposed amendments in the light of reason, common sense and above all ethical and moral responsibility.
While it is up to society to voice its opinion, it will ultimately be up to our elected representatives to give or withhold their assent, and for the head of State to finally endorse the decision taken by a majority in our Parliament.
Being a member of Parliament carries with it both prestige as well as responsibilities. After a career in politics one aspires to move out satisfied at having done one’s best for the common good, and without harbouring any remorse or regret at the way one would have used one’s executive powers .
Malta is changing, and changing fast. Changes in mentality. Changes in our quality of life. Changes in our moral norms. Changes in the aspirations of our young generation. Certain changes are planned and duly implemented. Others just happen with little if any planning or control, whether one agrees with them or not. Most of the latter are imposed by international mores or changes in politics, social attitudes, as well as economic development.
One particular sector in which cataclysmic changes have happened is the sector of civil rights, minority rights, and measures to attain an egalitarian society, where everyone enjoys the same rights and is given the same opportunities.
Being equal does not mean being the same. Everyone should have access to the same opportunities in life, but one has to realise that not everyone has the tools needed, be they mental or physical, to achieve what others can achieve.
As politicians our duty has always been to make available the best of opportunities to everyone, facilitate access to such opportunities, offer help to whoever needs it, and eliminate all threats of abuse, hindrance and discrimination.
Whether we like it or not, we have to realise that whatever decisions we take fall under the wide umbrella of ‘delegated power’, which is not absolute, is very limited, and falls within prescribed limited parameters dictated by correctness, ethics and morals. These parameters are found beyond the confines of any one particular religion, and are inscribed in the ethos and the mentality of any person having a ‘formed conscience’.
In our quest to offer equal conditions to everyone, we have adopted measures and attributed rights to many who were deprived of these same rights; rights which were theirs anyway. This is not only good; this is the administration of what one should understand by the word ‘justice’.
In our commitment to push these ideas of equality the furthest possible, however we have come to issues that carry along with them ethical and moral problems we have not encountered up to now.
In vitro fertilisation, commonly referred to as IVF, is one such development. This wonderful medical procedure offers couples who because of particular difficulties, experience difficulties to beget children through the natural methods of conception, the chance to have children of their own to love, nurture and shower with affection.
It is a well-known fact that the process of IVF, is always being perfected, and one would wish the success rate to be always better than that presently achieved.
The law we have today, the Embryo Protection Act of 2012, is very balanced, and one fundamental point is not to fertilise more ova than the number one plans to implant in the mother’s womb.
The rationale behind this is to avoid having supernumerary embryos, which create a problem as to what their destiny is going to be. Freezing such extra embryos is tantamount to aborting (stopping) the nascent life in these embryos, and committing them to degeneration and death with the passage of time.
My appeal is to shelve this draft legislation temporarily
The question that comes to mind is: from where does any member of Parliament acquire the power and the right to legislate in favour of the slow killing of embryos in freeze? These are not musing resulting from the teaching of any particular religion. Killing is killing whichever way one looks at it, and whichever religion one professes.
Apologists point out that freezing of embryos, is already permitted in the present law. That is true, but if one were to be honest it must be pointed out that this was included as a ‘best of two evils’ solution in extreme case where in the period between fertilisation and implantation, something sinister happens to the mother which makes such implantation impossible.
I strongly believe that no legislator faithfully following the dictates of a formed conscience can ever approve the introduction of such practices in any legislation.
Even more so when there is an alternative to avoid introducing such practices. I am referring to the freezing of ova (Oocyte vitrification) which is already giving very good results. With this procedure ova which are not to be implanted are not fertilised, and stored as frozen ova. The ovum per se has not as yet nascent life in it, and therefore such procedure will do away completely with all the ethical and legal issues that may and do arise with the freezing of embryos.
What also troubles me is the fact that arguments in favour of extending ‘equality’ to same-sex married couples, might be construed to mean that same-sex couples also have the right to have children. This would mean that in the obvious absence of the necessary gametes (male and female reproductive cells) as present in heterosexual couples, one will have to legislate in favour of sperm and ova donation by third persons, and going as far as legalising surrogacy especially in same-sex male married couples where this would be a must.
This will be opening up a Pandora’s Box of problems, both immediate and in the future, with gross ethical and moral implications, let alone social and medical difficulties, especially on the children ‘created’ by such measures.
Let me make myself clear that I harbour no ill feeling towards the gay community, and loudly proclaim with no ifs and buts that gay members of our community have all the rights in the world to express their love to each other, and be recognised by society, as they are now, both socially and legally, with all the attendant rights pertaining to an enduring relationship between two consenting adults whatever gender they profess.
I also do not have any qualms about adoption by loving, same-sex couples craving to shower their love and affection to a child. I have full faith in the overarching control that the authorities deciding on adoptions, be it by heterosexual or same-sex couples, exercise prudence, caution, and authority in decisions that put first and foremost the best interests of the child to be adopted.
Having said all this I am mostly perturbed by the effect such measures, as sperm and ova donation, surrogacy, and other methods of conception, would have eventually on the psychology of the children born out of these procedures. These children will eventually ask who they are, where they came from, who are their biological parents, and many other questions any human being is entitled to ask.
We have huge responsibilities and obligations towards these children we will be procreating. Unfortunately, we already have enough problems with children experiencing the breakdown of many modern families. The least we would want is to add to these growing numbers of frustrated, unfortunate children who are victims of circumstances they have not contributed to.
My heartfelt appeal to our legislators is: would you be ready in the future to face children with these psychological problems, and confess to them that it was your decisions back in 2018 that have authorised and made legal the measures that have contributed to their problems? Would wehave the courage to own up and assume responsibility?
As members of Parliament, our powers are limited. We should ensure that the limited powers bestowed on our legislators should be used for the betterment of society in full cognisance and respect of the fundamental precepts dictated by ethics and morality that guide the society we represent towards a better future.
Without in any way impinging on the right to legislate by the majority of our members in Parliament my appeal is to shelve this draft legislation temporarily, issue a White Paper, have an honest, informed, deep debate on a national level on the benefits and the problems that would result from such decisions, and eventually in a serene, informed environment legislate on what would be in the best interests of society, now and in the future.
George Vella is a retired specialist in family medicine and former minister for foreign affairs.