IVF – the last act – Steve Pace

It’s done. The Bill has passed and as expected Parliament was united in its opposing stand on the IVF law amendments as proposed by the government. Once again, a matter of national concern was spun into a political football and the intelligence of people was severely and perversely challenged. To those supporting the government’s stand, there was no need for deliberation, as their conscience was laid to rest by the soothing rants scripted by ministers Chris Fearne and Helena Dalli.

Another section of society remains bewildered as it attempts to comprehend why a visiting lecturer at the University of Malta and a doctor of law, systemically ignored the scientific facts demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that a human embryo is composed of the same 100 per cent DNA of born human beings.

In an extremely simplistic (and mostly unrealistic) explanation, a human embryo becomes an unborn human foetus when it successfully attaches itself to the uterus of the woman and incubation starts. It is at this stage that it gains momentum in development, leaving no further room for debate on what it is and what goes on from this first phase onwards.

In the part-time lecturer’s mind and mouth, the human embryo is still, however, no more than a bunch of cells, forgetting that his own body is composed of the same chemical elements of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus making him not much different from it, albeit being born and still alive. Let us face it. The discussion has been purposely degenerated to cell level. As in any pro-abortion debate, unborn human life must be treated as an object and as a composition of cells. This strategy distorts reality and places a human embryo and a human foetus at par with a plant seed, cancer cells or a tumour. It is only in this manner that any deliberate termination of unborn human life becomes consciously justifiable.

Yet no-one expects to see a medical professional deliberately mishandling embryos on their way to being implanted simply because they are deemed a bunch of cells. They are medically not treated as a cancer. No patient receives chemotherapy to remove any residual cells that might have been left in the body. On the contrary, an IVF client receives all medical care possible to prepare for the implant well in advance to give the best possible chance for that embryo to attach itself and develop into a human foetus, making the argument about whether these embryos are human beings or not totally irrelevant.

The matter must be related to choices. Many people talk about giving the women choices, talk about women’s reproductive rights and attempt at all costs not to involve men, forgetting one fundamental issue.

It is the medical professional who decides what is implanted in the woman and therefore any talk of a woman’s right to her own body ends with this fact

The reality of choices has also a hard landing. In the first instance, it takes a man and a woman to create an embryo. Therefore, as 50 per cent shareholders in the deal, men have every right to voice concerns, opinions and emotions on such a delicate matter. In the second instance, the couple undergoing IVF are not in control of the situation. They simply do not have a choice. They are at the mercy of the medical professional, who decides which embryos are most viable and which are not.

It is the medical professional who decides what is implanted in a woman and therefore any talk of a woman’s right to her own body ends with this fact. There is no right, but an invasion of the most intimate woman’s inner core, in both the emotional aspect as well as the physical realm.

These characteristics of IVF treatment have to be treated with respect. It is this human intervention which creates a highly debatable and controversial situation. The mere fact that IVF is an artificial process is already deemed borderline and ethical and science is steadily moving away from such issues. The Pope Paul the VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction works relentlessly in assisting infertile couples in a multitude of ways, which are far more beneficial and long-term than the present IVF procedure in use in Malta.

The institute works on the cause of infertility and addresses the issue and not the symptom. This in itself is far more ethical, humane and dignifying for the couple undergoing IVF and removes all doubt and ethical matters related to human embryo handling. So how come Fearne and Dalli did not consult with such an institute and consider the alternatives?

The stark reality is that this charade has nothing to do with children, nothing to do with improving the chances of success for IVF couples. These were just clichés used by the Prime Minister to cover himself, his team and appease the people’s sentiments.

These amendments were delivering an electoral promise made to the Malta Gay Rights Movement and there was absolutely no option but to pass the amendments as they were. Resolving heterosexual couple infertility problems would have not addressed the same-sex couples’ desire to bear children. There was no space for ethical consideration and there was no requirement of any regard for the children born from such procedures.

The wording was carefully scripted by Fearne and Dalli, in that they insisted this is about giving any prospective parents a better chance to bearing children.

Whether same-sex couples should have the same rights to bear children as heterosexual couples is a matter of personal opinion, but the matter of regard towards children should have had universal consensus. The whole messa in scena was rotten at the core, as it saw the interests of the adults once again, placed ahead of the interests of children, using the same children as marionettes in the hands of the puppet master.

May those MPs who voted in favour of these amendments find inner peace and feel that they can sleep at night knowing what they created.

As a side note, I just look forward to the day that the Catholic faith is removed from the Constitution and that the Church and State indeed separate. I just cannot stand watching hypocritical MPs attending Mass and then setting their faith aside to appease their electoral manifesto, especially when it comes to dealing with the most vulnerable in our society.

Steve Pace is a strategic thinker.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180713/opinion/ivf-the-last-act-steve-pace.684256

Heralds of human life – Bishop Mario Grech

On June 24, the Catholic Church celebrated the feast of the birth of St John the Baptist. This festivity offers us a good opportunity to reflect on the extraordinary experience of those who are expecting a child as well as of those who were blessed with the advent of a new child.

As the friends of Elizabeth and Zacchary rejoiced on learning that Elizabeth was pregnant, so I rejoice with expectant parents for accepting to cooperate with God the creator by conceiving a child. It is very positive that in a society “suffering from a period of dramatic sterility”, we still have married couples who are open to life.

The conception of a child is a great mystery. In contemplating this mystery man cannot but bow in deep reverence and awe. Science can explain the process of conception but it can never explain why at one particular moment in time a new life is conceived. Every conceived child is an act of God’s love.

 As Pope Francis writes: “Every child growing within the mother’s womb is part of the eternal loving plan of God the Father: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you’ (Jer 1:5). Each child has a place in God’s heart from all eternity; once he or she is conceived, the Creator’s eternal dream comes true… A pregnant woman can participate in God’s plan by dreaming of her child. For nine months every mother and father dreams about their child… Once a family loses the ability to dream, children do not grow, love does not grow, life shrivels up and dies” (Amoris Laetitia).

Every conceived child bears the message that God still has faith in humanity. Every child comes with the message that God is not yet discouraged of man (Tagore). Children are always a unique and irreplaceable gift even in tough circumstances.

There were times when I stood in wonder witnessing the happiness of parents who have just learned that they are to bear a child. A few weeks ago I was at Ta’ Pinu and I met a couple whose eyes radiated joy. They told me that they had been to the shrine to confess for berating God for not giving them a child. They had been trying to conceive for a long time but with no success. Sometime after their pilgrimage, the mother was pregnant. Now they were again at the feet of Our Lady to thank her.

We should hold you parents in great esteem. You have chosen that your love be open to a new life and indeed in some cases to more than one life. As we know nature at times can be generous and one act of love can yield more than one life. I am aware that when a couple first learns that instead of one child they will be having twins, they are at first taken aback. This was not in their plans but then the parents embrace all the lives conceived.

I personally know a number of parents who have undergone this procedure and have some of their embryos waiting in a freezer. These parents experience a great regret

No parent will ever think of keeping one child and abandoning the other. The parents know that these are flesh of their flesh and bone of their bones. Above all else they know that all human life is sacred and we cannot tamper with it. We know that parents grieve when nature rejects life in a miscarriage.

 It is difficult at times to help the mother come to terms with the fact that she has lost her child even if the pregnancy was still in its early stages. At present I am accompanying a couple who after waiting for a long time to conceive, the mother is now expecting. But unfortunately according to medical staff’s diagnosis the child has a very scarce chance of being born alive. I can attest to the martyrdom this couple, especially the mother, are going through knowing that their conceived child will probably not live.

The account of Elizabeth and Zacchary reminds me of those couples who are faced with the problem of infertility. I can understand their pain and grief. They not only are unable to have their wish come true but the gossip of others throws upon them a sense of shame, as happened in the case of Elizabeth (Matthew 1,25).

May I express my gratitude to the people of science for their work, in helping these couples, while respecting the principles of ethics and morals. In fact, I appeal to science to continue its research thus providing these couples with a ray of hope. Since today we have several points of view regarding what ethics is all about, I recommend, especially to Christian couples, that they seek scientific solutions in the light of the teachings of Christ.

These married couples usually seek medical advice when faced with the problem of infertility. Therefore I appeal to the doctors, especially Christian doctors, to give counsel and to propose solutions which respect human life and which do not put at risk this same life.

If it happens that in our pluralistic and albeit dogmatic context, Christian doctors and nurses find themselves in conflict with their personal principles they can always invoke the right of objection of conscience.

Some parents who have had recourse to science to conceive a child suffer the same dilemma of those parents who grief their unborn child I referred to above. Science helps these parents conceive more than one embryo in the laboratory, leading to the implantation of some of them and the freezing of the rest.

I personally know a number of parents who have undergone this procedure and have some of their embryos waiting in a freezer. These parents experience a great regret because they feel as if they have abandoned their children. A mother told me that she dreams of them but cannot see a way of releasing her children from this prison. These situations imply heavy psychological and moral dilemmas and we pray to God to help us.

I am grateful to all expectant parents because it is really uplifting to see young couples who are open to life despite today’s challenges. These couples are the heralds of the good news of human life and the beauty of family life. At the same time, I urge all to show solicitude and stay near those couples who are suffering because of issues related to life.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180703/opinion/heralds-of-human-life-bishop-mario-grech.683421

And then… she signed

It appeared to start off well. In the heat of the debate on the controversial amendments to the Embyro Protection Act, President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca stood up and told politicians to slow down and think it well. The issues being discussed were extremely serious, concerning life itself.

The government appeared to listen. It pretended to make changes. Altruistic surrogacy was pulled out of the Bill to be presented at a later stage and the anonymity previously proposed for gamete (sperm and egg) donation was partially lifted. Those were not the only problems, perhaps the most controversial. There still remained embryo freezing, which inherently puts the life of a number of frozen embryos in danger. That did not change.

Embryo freezing was voted for unanimously by all government MPs with the Opposition, significantly, all voting against.

The President comes from the Labour fold. A former social policy minister, she took her leftist, social thinking to the presidency. She was not alone in being against the Bill. Former foreign minister George Vella, another Labour stalwart, was vociferous against the amendments.

Labour’s old guard are clearly alienated from Labour’s new thinking. The pseudo-liberal agenda that has helped the party win so many previously Nationalist-leaning votes often does not go down well with the party hardcore. But impressive electoral successes have muzzled any internal dissent.

The parliamentary vote in favour was uncompromising but it was hardly based on values, considering the Bill devalues life. Labour sells and people like Ms Coleiro Preca and Dr Vella find themselves out in the cold from the party they helped to build.

Yet, Ms Coleiro Preca is also the President. She raised expectations when she sounded the alarm on the amendments. It gave pro-life activists hope. They found a sympathetic ear in the Office of the President but, in the end, the President signed the Bill.

The President made clear she signed the Bill solely out of loyalty to the Constitution meaning she did not agree with it. She said she sought ethical, moral and legal advice and, after long reflection, decided to sign the new law. She made clear the Constitution did not confer upon her legislative functions except that of assenting to Bills. Of course, this was not any Bill.

Saying she is not one to shirk her responsibilities, the President said the challenge society was facing was to protect the weak, “including vulnerable embryos”. The island’s moral fibre was at risk if society disrespected human life and any stage of development. She said all that and signed the Bill.

Truly, the President could not have stopped the Bill, or even change it. She did stand up, an unprecedented event, to speak up for the voiceless. That is all to her credit. But then she signed and the only thing that Health Minister Chris Fearne, who piloted the Bill, would say was that it was the President’s opinion, nothing more.

President Emeritus Ugo Mifsud Bonnici said he would not sign something that went against his conscience. Ms Coleiro Preca did not go that far. She says she had a duty to sign but conscience is a duty too. Public figures enjoy the public’s trust because the people know that, at the end of the day, they would abide by their conscience.

And the President signed the Bill.

This is a Times of Malta print editorial

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180629/editorial/and-then-she-signed.683064

Standing for embryonic fellows – Peter Micallef-Eynaud

Stand up for our embryonic fellow. Now is the time. More are hearing the anguished cry of our fellow embryonic human beings and discerning it to be the cry against inhumanity. Fore-planned embryo-freezing isthe cardinal criterion for inhumanity. Renounce it.

This was laid out in my article (May 18): the embryo is denied inherent humanity, declared to be “a blob of cells” of nicht-menschen status; the withdrawal of human status could be effected at any stage of life; the non-human being, is vulnerable to becoming a medical cobbler’s plaything; with eugenics, the human race becomes the plaything.

To those who deny the humanity of the embryo, I say the onus of proof of their hypothesis lies with them. They are to show incontrovertible proof of the (non-existent) “becoming human” point. All the scientific papers amount to nought when pitted against the reflection and logic of truly great minds and souls down the ages.   

Those who hide behind the diaphanous veil of “I don’t know” must heed the precautionary principle: when in doubt as to whether human or not, treat as human. “Do no harm” should have been branded on the medical student, as also “When in doubt, desist”.

I appeal to the goodness and nobleness of those in whose hands this matter of such monumental importance lies. Your legacy is in your hands.

Are you to be remembered for embryo-freezing, the heinous attack on a fellow human being? A human being is what the embryo is, whether you acknowledge it or not.  

It takes true greatness and leadership to admit to one’s error and change course.

Failure to do so is followed, sooner or later, by the downfall. Helicopter flying has an analogy. (I am a former military helicopter pilot too).

One can find oneself in an (air) updraught and enjoy the lift. Should this updraught be a powerful thermal the pilot must exit. Otherwise the helicopter, having been pushed high up into vortices and turbulent airflow, drops down in a dangerous downdraft.

Satan is like that. Dance with the Devil and he will drop you (and damn you). They say a feature of Hell is Satan’s mockery. 

Abortion is not round the corner; it is there before us, staring us in the face in all its evil ugliness. Abortion is what Hippocrates specified as ethically forbidden. Hippocrates had us take an oath.

The medical butchers (fellow members of the surmised Rogue College of Medical Cobblers and Butchers) are salivating in anticipation of opening up ‘abortoirs’ for their practice of scraping/sucking tiny human beings out of the womb and out of this world.

What an exquisite expression of care and ‘charitas’ of the sacred art of medicine. It is not so at all, not even for the mother involved. The honest and good woman involved will admit to “something dying in her”; her physical, psychological and spiritual milieu having been adulterated.

Screwtape (C S Lewis, The Screwtape Letters) must have held a banquet to celebrate the ‘victory’ in the Irish Republic. Children were celebrating the killing of children. Contemplate that. Coming to think of it, the breaking of cover must have alarmed the tacticians. Scenes like these could well alert deniers of the truth to the evil nature of the overarching strategy of the evil empire.

It is under test that one shows one’s true worth. Now is the time to prove your true worth. Save Malta’s soul

What a foul, putrid odour of necrosis emanates from the body of the Maltese nation. This nation, once Catholic, courageous and confident, repelled the evil empire in the form of Ottoman Islamism, Italian/German/French fascism and our nation rejected French tricoleur Jacobinism.

Among those who heroically did their duty in World War II were two doctors, who are the post-war predecessors of the prime minister and the minister of health. They would, without doubt, have been utterly appalled that the evil they resisted is coming to pass.

On June 5, 1958 (Corpus Christi, I believe) I received my First Holy Communion in Wales, and my maternal grandfather was buried in Malta. Relativism had not yet then taken root in the Catholic world. My grandfather, a surgeon, but first and foremost a doctor, would have been appalled at today’s situation. Relativism has taken root. Situation ethics is the common currency. Morals are “adulterated”. Faith is fading fast.

Faith and morals are conjugally related. So that an erosion in morals leads to an erosion in faith, and a lack of faith brings on an implosion of morals. You cannot give of what you do not have. You can only give of the type and quality that you do have.

If yours is a pick ’n’ choose morality and faith then that is what you pass on. You lack credibility and that is what the other will perceive in you.

The scandalous rebellion against, and rejection of, Catholic moral doctrine sets the pattern, derision and division, confusion and chaos, contradiction and civil war.

Nevertheless, there are today, by the grace of God, genuine, faithful and heroic clergy and laity who do pass on the true faith.

The situation report is a tale of lack of leadership. The situation is grave, but not hopeless. Be of stout heart and know that the stones will proclaim God’s truth and that good will triumph in the end. Satan is a liar and a loser. Will you end up with the winners or losers? Your destiny is in your hands. It is your choice.

Reject the lie. Embryo-freezing is not pro-life. For in pro-creating human beings you insult and assault the life of some of them. Every procurer of IVF babies must face the fact that she is the reason why some of her embryonic sons/daughters will be frozen, insulted and assaulted.

Now Malta, stand up for the embryonic human being. Some will ask: what can I do? The answer is… pray, promote, preach and petition.

Pray earnestly, and with faith, for our nation. Pray especially for all those involved in promoting/propagating/ pressing through Parliament and voting for the legalising/decriminalisation of embryo-freezing and its signing into law: that they desist.

To these I appeal. Stop and turn. Abdicate worldly office. Abandon worldly chattels and acclaim.

Be courageous. The courageous may suffer but one physical death and then gains glory. The coward suffers a continual stream of psychological and spiritual deaths day by day by day and are driven down into despair.

I would rather die standing than live on my knees.

Now Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, now is your chance for greatness. Renounce embryo-freezing as a procedural practice. Repeal the Act.

Now is the test that our St George Preca alerted us to. It is under test that one shows one’s true worth. Now is the time to prove your true worth.

Save Malta’s soul.

Peter Micallef-Eynaud is a medical doctor and a moral theologian.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180629/opinion/standing-for-embryonic-fellows-peter-micallef-eynaud.683063

Lawyer calls on constitutional court to declare Embryo Protection Act violates ‘right to life’

Pro-life lawyer Tonio Azzopardi has filed Constitutional proceedings asking the court to declare that the 2018 Embryo Protection Act violates embryos’ right to life.

In a Constitutional application filed against the Attorney General, Azzopardi argues that life is protected from conception in the Maltese legal system, punishing those who endanger life with prison. “The freezing of embryos, as it exposes unborn human life to clear danger, constitutes an evident breach of Article 33 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights,” reads the application.

If the courts uphold the request and declare the proposed law illegal, it could force Parliament to rethink the issue. Parliament will be voting on the new law today.

The proposed law allows the cryo-preservation of germ line cells in authorised cell banks, a fact which Azzopardi says is a money-spinner for the fertility industry. It also amounts to “a breach…of protection from inhuman and degrading treatment…in that there would be stockpiling in authorised banks of embryos with the loss of all dignity for the person.” The fertilisation of five eggs, with three ending up frozen, left the frozen embryos denuded of their dignity, aside from placing them in danger, he says.

The defendant Attorney General, as representative of the State, “has a positive obligation to defend life,” Azzopardi added.

“Procreation should take place in the context of a relationship between a man and a woman only. The concept of single parents intentionally giving birth to children who are not going to have a father or a mother is not only not in the interests of the children but also constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment.”

The practise of freezing embryos could result in children being born as orphans, because their parents would have died while they were in suspended animation, remarked the lawyer, whose staunchly conservative views on embryo protection are well-known.

Two years ago this month, Azzopardi had publicly taken it upon himself to defend the interests and rights of unborn children against “every violation of their right to life,” taking legal action against the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality for its position on the debate on whether to legalise use of the morning-after pill.

In that case, Tonio Azzopardi had filed a judicial protest against the commission, calling on the entity to desist from giving support based on “scientifically and legally incorrect considerations.”

The application filed yesterday asks the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction to declare that articles proposed in the draft Bill violate the human embryo’s rights, if it is frozen or used in IVF, and to declare the relative articles in the Bill null and void.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2018-06-19/local-news/Lawyer-calls-on-constitutional-court-to-declare-Embryo-Protection-Act-violates-right-to-life-6736192004

Pro-life Americans – Tony Mifsud

In his article ‘Pro-choice Irish’ (May 30) Martin Scicluna said: “In an overwhelming and defining vote – which may hold lessons for Malta – Ireland has dropped its near-absolute ban on abortion following a referendum last Friday” implying, very clearly, that Malta should now follow Ireland and pass laws permitting abortion in Malta.

In fact he also said: “Only one corner of the European Union now forces women with unwanted pregnancies to travel abroad to obtain one.”

He finished his article “Melita contra mundum” which means: Malta against the world.

In another article, ‘Pro-choice on abortion’ (October 18, 2017), Scicluna  said something very different: “My approach is, therefore, entirely pragmatic. Is there a burning need for abortion in Malta on practical or humanitarian grounds? The figures don’t appear to suggest there is”.

He continued: “While I can see that, as a matter of principle, the humanitarian and compassionate arguments to bring Malta into line with the laws of other advanced Western democracies is compelling, my own advice to policymakers – if I were asked for it – would be that this is overridingly a matter for Maltese women to decide.”

Let me go back to Scicluna’s Melita contra mundum, implying that Malta is now isolated. I see it differently. I see it as: Melita cum America – Malta is with America.

Very recently the US Supreme Court rejected a Planned Parenthood challenge to Arkansas pro-life law that could close two abortion clinics. Planned Parenthood is a very big provider of abortion services all over the world.

Recently, the World Health Assembly held its annual meeting in Geneva. A that event, the US delegation spoke up clearly and strongly in defence of unborn children and in opposition to abortion.

Commenting on a report on women’s, children’s, and adolescents’ health, the US called for improved healthcare, especially during the first 1,000 days of life, but rejected the report’s favourable statements toward abortion.

“The term ‘sexual and reproductive health’ does not include the promotion of abortion, nor do we recognise an international right to abortion,” the US statement read.

The statement further emphasised: “We have stated clearly, and on many occasions, consistent with the International Conference on Population and Development’s Programme of Action, that we do not recognise abortion as a method of family planning, nor do we support abortion in our reproductive health assistance.”

Earlier at the WHO Assembly the US criticised recent efforts by WHO to promote abortion through its Human Reproduction Programme. “We remind our fellow delegates,” the statement said, “that the International Conference on Population and Development forged international consensus that abortion should in no case be promoted as a method of family planning.”

It makes it appear that the Malta position on abortion, now,  is closer to the Irish position

Melita contra mundum could have meant also that Malta, now, after the Irish referendum, is the only country in the world that, proudly, still protects early human life from conception especially if we go by what Minister Helena Dalli said at the UN General Assembly in Geneva in 2013.  

The Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review on Malta said:  “The [Maltese] delegation [led by Dalli] reiterated the [Malta] government’s belief in the need to protect the right to life, including that of the unborn child.

“It expressed the view that, as human life begins at conception, the termination of pregnancy through procedures of induced abortion at any stage of gestation, was an infringement of this right.”  

The thing is that Dalli, and the government, in 2016 introduced the morning-after pill irrespective of the fact that many in the medical and pharmaceutical professions, locally and abroad, still consider it abortifacient.

This approach contradicts her “no abortion” statement in Geneva in 2013. It also makes it appear that the Malta position on abortion, now,  is closer to the Irish position. But, paradoxically, the call is not by the people of Malta, as in Ireland with the referendum and Hungarian billionaire George Soros pumping millions of euros to the pro-abortion lobby in Ireland. It is a deliberate move  by certain members of the government.

In fact the government is again giving the same impression at the moment with its proposed amendments to the Embryo Protection Act of 2012. While it says that the amendments are pro-life, it proceeds as if embryo freezing, proposed in the amendments, and the consequent thawing which invariably kills embryos in the process, is of no big concern to the government.

We still have to see what Health Minister Chris Fearne meant when he said  (June 4) that: “Couples with frozen embryos would be granted an additional IVF cycle, free of charge, to encourage them to give birth to embryos and to give all embryos the chance to be brought to term.”

Dalli recently made a very big mistake  when at a UN conference she said, brazenly, that the Maltese government had misled (fooled?) the Maltese people into believing many things when the Labour Party used the word “equality” in its 2013 electoral manifesto. 

Which takes us back to the original question. Will the latest Irish referendum result affect Malta?

With these latest two instances by the government, yes abortion may, in the end, be introduced also in Malta. But not because the people want it. They have just declared themselves unequivocally against abortion by 97 per cent  in the MaltaToday survey held a few weeks ago.

The possibility in Malta becomes real if only one person, not 70 per cent of the population, decides to introduce abortion in Malta by claiming, wrongly, that he has a political mandate to do so, when in fact he has nothing of the sort,  as happened already with the amendments to the Embryo Protection Act lately.

In fact , former Labour minister George Vella, told The Malta Independent (May 28): “For those who are putting forwards the argument that they have a political mandate to fulfil, may I point out that the 2017 electoral manifesto of the Labour Party speaks only in the widest of terms on this matter, promising only to ‘widen’ and ‘extend’  this [IVF] service without including any details whatsoever.”

Scicluna may have good reason to be jubilant on the possible introduction of abortion in Malta in the present circumstances but only if “one person, out of 400,000 persons in Malta”, the prime minister, as I predicted in my article ‘Yes to entrenchment’ in this newspaper (June 18, 2005) will just decide to introduce it under one guise or another.

Hopefully by the time this may be arbitrarily tried our members  of Parliament would have matured to a significant extent that having reached a conscientious position on the matter they would also have the moral and political courage to stand up to be counted, literally,  in parliament. 

Tony Mifsud, coordinator, Malta Unborn Child Movement.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180619/opinion/pro-life-americans-tony-mifsud.682162

Consultation about IVF was not carried out in spirit as suggested by President – Life Network

The Life Network Foundation expressed their disappointment with the amendments that were approved during the debate on the Embryo Protection Act.

It said in a statement that discussions including meetings held with Health Minister Chris Fearne with organisations that expressed their concerns were ignored completely. This is not in the spirit as suggested by the President of Malta Marie Louise Coleiro Preca.

The amendments did not take into consideration the rights of the children that were born from the IVF procedures indicated in the Act, the foundation said.

The freezing of embryos is no longer going to be done in exceptional circumstances and this is not in the interest of the embryo. They further noted that the embryo is not being given the chance to live and even more so putting its life at risk.

The amendments now include the possibility of having five embryos with three being frozen in the initial treatment, which is much worse than the previous proposal which dictated a maximum of three embryos in the first cycle.

The foundation also highlighted the fact that the embryo can remain frozen for a maximum of 20 years until the woman reaches the age of 48. After this time the authority can then place the embryo for adoption.

The donation of an egg or sperm is also against the principles of the foundation as it is not going to be associated with any parental responsibility. Furthermore, children born from these donations are going to be intentionally denied their biological parent or parents. The consequences of this are suffering and confusion for the children when they understand that they were born in this situation because of someone else’s choice.

The concept of single parents, resulting from gamete donation, creates children that have to purposely live without their father or mother. This is not in the interest of the child and it definitely is not socially just that children can be born with their father or mother already being dead, thus making them orphans at birth.

The foundation said that these problems are not solved by the fact that children will be given access to their father or mother’s identity at 18 years of age or in exceptional cases of illness.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2018-06-14/local-news/Consultation-about-IVF-was-not-carried-out-in-the-spirit-as-suggested-by-the-President-Life-Network-Foundation-6736191731