The Office of the Commissioner for Children was abdicating its legal duties to safeguard children’s rights when declaring its support for government’s IVF proposals, a pro-life organisation said.
Questions were raised on the motives behind the Commission’s change in position from October 2015, when it came out against such proposals in principle.
The Life Network Foundation was reacting to a statement issued on Monday in which Commissioner Pauline Miceli gave her full backing to the proposed introduction of embryo freezing and adoption.
Ms Miceli, who until her appointment in November 2015 was a Labour Party local councillor in Naxxar, endorsed the proposed amendments to the Bill on the grounds that they would increase the IVF treatment success rate.
She declared that, under these proposals, those babies conceived in such a manner, even those born from anonymous gamete donors, would be on a par with other children.
The Commission did not refer to the issue of surrogacy, which the government is also mulling.
In a harshly worded reaction, the Life Network Foundation denied claims that embryo freezing would increase the IVF success rate, saying it would expose embryos to fatal risks. It noted that, under existing legislation, freezing was only allowed in exceptional circumstances, whereas now it was being recommended for introduction as a common option.
What could have changed for her to consider the proposals as good?
It said the Commissioner was completely wrong when stating children born from a donated embryo would have the right to know the identity of their biological parents when they were 16 years old.
The Bill only allowed for anonymous medical information to be divulged, the NGO noted.
Concern was also expressed about the possibility of medical complications associated with relationships between half-brothers and sisters.
The Life Network Foundation was also critical of the Commissioner’s statement that the changes reflected the broader definition of family enshrined by recent legal changes. The amendments would be encouraging single parenting, as the law would deem as being beneficial the state of having a known mother and an unknown father.
It pointed out that in countries where same-sex marriage was legal, surrogacy was still banned, as in Finland, Germany and Iceland. Consequently, the Commissioner’s argument that IVF treatment must be automatically widened in line with other legislative changes did not hold, it added.
As for embryo adoption, the NGO pointed out that there were no provisions in the Bill to ensure a thorough vetting process similar to that in place for couples interesting in adopting a child.
From a wider perspective, the Life Network Foundation pointed out that in October 2015, the Commissioner had issued a position paper on the subject, the conclusions of which contradicted the position adopted now by Ms Miceli. “What could have changed for the incumbent Commissioner to consider the proposals as good?” the NGO asked.
The Commission was bound to safeguard children’s rights from conception, in line with the law that regulated the entity, the foundation remarked. In this respect, it called on the Commissioner to be loyal to her office.