The government has been absolutely right to review the efficacy and effectiveness of the Embryo Protection Act, which was passed six years ago. It has a duty to ensure that a law, once passed, achieves what it was legislated to do.

As legislators go to Parliament this evening to vote on the second reading of the Bill proposing amendments to the Embryo Protection Act (effectively to vote it in or not, as the case may be), prior to discussion at committee stage and the subsequent third reading, they should keep firmly in mind the main objective of the Bill before them.

It is to ensure that Malta has an assisted fertilisation law (IVF legislation) that reflects the needs of modern science and provides the most effective medical support to alleviate, to the greatest extent possible, the health issue of infertility.

In the context of IVF, scientific advances have given parents unprecedented medical choice and control. The “egg vitrification system” introduced in 2012 has failed to deliver the level of results which can be obtained by “embryo freezing”. Fortunately, science has the answer to this problem.

Legislators should therefore focus on whether the amendments to the Embryo Protection Act will achieve the better fertilisation results society seeks. 

At the human level, the objective of the new law is to address the very real pain of Maltese couples requiring assisted fertilisation technology by bringing them into line with what is already offered in many advanced European health services.

Amendments to the Act should concentrate on one key issue: to ensure that the latest advances of human fertilisation and embryology are permitted under our law so that Maltese women and same-sex married couples may benefit from them in line with those in other advanced societies.

This does not mean the use of any possible means. On the contrary, the legislation has to ensure safeguards are put in place to prevent abuse. Morally and legally it is accepted that we should not be able to do whatever we want with the embryo. But it does mean using all the tried and tested means already available from the recent great advances in scientific knowledge in this field.

Tonight, legislators should shut out the noise which has been generated by a well-organised group of social conservatives, who have based their opposition to the new legislation on a range of  issues centred round the so-called recognition of “the rights of the unborn child” from the moment of conception, where the public has been encouraged to regard scientific advances in medical procedures, including human reproduction involving the freezing of human embryos, as leading ineluctably to the introduction of abortion in Malta. It will not.

Legislators should focus on whether the amendments to the Embryo Protection Act will achieve the better fertilisation results society seeks

Legislators have many considerations in mind when they are enacting legislation. They have a duty to try to give citizens all the freedom that is consistent with the rights of others, as well as arbitrating between various interests in the name of the common good of society.

They have to seek the common good, in the widest sense, and to amend the law to achieve it. The law itself, which is binding on everyone in society, whatever their beliefs, is the embodiment of a common moral position. What is legally permissible is the minimum requirement for a tolerable society.      

Ultimately, legislators’ primary concern and responsibility should be for the well-being of all individuals within society – including same-sex couples – and the good governance of all citizens in a way which is reasonable, just and beneficial for society as a whole, while recognising that this often involves hard choices and imperfect answers.

The State, through its legislators, must decide what decision is best for the whole of society, striking the proper balance between the civil and human rights and the natural aspirations of individuals (including infertile families and same-sex couples) and the interests of the community and society as a whole.

A State which legislates only in the interests of the majority is setting itself against the principles of social justice. Genuine social justice requires recognition of the freedom and rights of all individuals and the right, which every individual has, to well-being under the law without any form of discrimination.

Our legislators have been elected to Parliament with a duty to cater for the needs of society as a whole, while at the same time recognising that minorities also have the right to the State’s support. In a democracy, Parliament’s decisions about what sort of behaviour should be lawful are not necessarily the same as what is considered morally right on a purely religious basis.

Legislators have a duty to work objectively for a better world. The position they adopt on the issues of IVF, embryo freezing and altruistic surrogacy, therefore, should transcend private religious or moral conviction and seek the best answer which will benefit everybody in Maltese society. They must therefore opt for the best technical solution available ethically and medically.

IVF treatment, sensibly regulated, offers the miracle of life to previously infertile couples. It leads in many cases to a married man and a woman, or a married same-sex couple, having a child, forming a family, enriching a marriage – the very state that the Church and society as a whole desires. It is vital that Malta’s IVF legislation encourages the achievement of this objective, not frustrates it.   

The final decision on the best way forward is a matter which rests with our legislators in Parliament, which is sovereign, acting in the best interests of society as a whole. Parliament must decide what is best for the whole of society, striking the proper balance between the human rights and the natural aspirations of individuals and the interests of the community and society as a whole.

The bottom line is this: the aim of the legislation before our members of Parliament tonight is to deal as effectively as possible with the medical condition of infertility in married couples and to provide same-sex couples or single persons the opportunity of becoming parents. It is a legislator’s duty to consider how best to achieve that objective.