Author: lifenetwork

My attention was drawn to a report in this newspaper (May 27) on the President’s stand on the maltreatment of children. I was struck by her deep concern for children and the risks some of them face when they are subjected to corporal punishment and totally agree that society, through legislation, has a responsibility to safeguard children’s well-being.

Her attitude was also reflected in her concern for the life of the unborn when she made an appeal for the government to give time for a more serene and in-depth debate over the prospective legislation on IVF.

Her principled intervention on the grave risks to embryonic life, as proposed by this new legislation, is true to her character.

The proposed IVF legislation paves the way for embryo freezing and gamete donation, placing nascent life in very grave danger. It betrays a callous attitude to life and reduces it to becoming a commodity.

Just think of frozen embryos – what a state to be in! 

Will they, or won’t they, ever see the light of day? Will they be thrown away? Will they be given to anyone wishing a child, regardless of suitability? Will they be implanted in the womb of a surrogate mother and on birth given to any person or couple, ignoring the true interests of the child?

Is this the respect we have for life?

The mind boggles. No great wonder that it is not only the President who is concerned.

We were all embryos once, including her Excellency. In my youth, we were allowed to flower by our parents, nurtured even when there was a war on and great sacrifices had to be made to ensure our survival and development.

Why is it that 65 or so years later we are so callous about the gift of life and treat it as being expendable? What happened?

After the war people were glad to be alive and new life was welcomed and rejoiced over. Babies were met with joy and blessings. The 1960s came along and things started to change – for the worse.

A misconception of freedom without responsibility has led to a decadent culture of sexual licence. It resulted in widespread contraception, crazy music, films trivialising sex and fashion that with every passing year bared women’s bodies to the extent that today young women’s scanty clothing is de rigueur.

Drink is also another part of today’s culture. Even the youngest of teenagers indulge in alcohol, not to mention the ruinous drug culture.

In such a distressing scenario, the will is weakened and we are now faced with the consequences of widespread promiscuity. 

On the whole, even the Church has proved largely ineffective in addressing this wave of permissiveness as the misuse of sex has gathered pace. It did not give enough importance to this crucial subject and has not succeeded in teaching young people the importance of responsible sexual behaviour. 

What a sad world full of misinformation – supposedly free to make choices they do not understand

Despite the establishment of CANA, not enough resources were employed.

Even now, there seems to be a reluctance by the Church to preach and teach, maybe holding back because of its fear of not being politically correct or being considered offensive. 

I feel sorry for the teenagers who have had no sound advice given to them either by their parents, who seem too busy leading their own lives, or from the Church, who should be their spiritual mother. I dread to think what the content of future State-imposed sex education will include.

In the newspapers one reads that in the future, sex education will be compulsory and young people will learn all about being gay, male or female, contraceptives and all manner of anti-baby information.

Isn’t it time that young people were given the right kind of teaching, where they are encouraged to keep themselves pure till later on, when they can afford to get married, and not have sex at 14?

What a sad world full of misinformation – supposedly free to make choices they do not understand.

Look at the sorry result of today’s children, at those who get pregnant too young and do not know where to turn. 

Life Network, for which I work as a counsellor and a fundraising member of the team, is trying its very best to reach out to the youth of today, to give them a better chance of happiness.

The President faces a very grave moral dilemma and should use all her influence to bring the government to its senses.

Meanwhile, the Commissioner for Children should reconsider her position and not abdicate her responsibility to the whims of the powerful. She should stand up for the unborn, who she is meant to look after.

This matter is very important for the future of Malta and must be debated at length and with the experts who have studied the issue from every angle. 

The Malta we love is in its death throes, let us give it the kiss of life.

Mary Hilda Camilleri is a retired music teacher who worked in pro-life organisations in London and now with Life Network Foundation.

Ref:  https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180607/opinion/pro-life-appeal-to-the-president-mary-hilda-camilleri.681064

Congratulations to Family Minister Michael Falzon for introducing grants to childless couples who decide to adopt children from abroad to solve their infertility problem.

The government  has now shown there are alternatives to embryo freezing. Unwisely, the government had initially decided to promote only IVF and embryo freezing to help childless couples have children.   

Falzon announced the government would be giving €10,000 to childless couples “to cover the costs involving research, acquiring documentation, legal fees, interpreters, flights and accommodation” connected with adoptions of children from abroad.

The Malta Unborn Child Movement recently advocated  the granting of subsidies  to Maltese childless couples to adopt children locally, or from abroad, instead of resorting to embryo freezing.

The adoption of children from Russia had stopped abruptly a few years ago when the government passed legislation which the Russian government had considered not to be “in the best interests” of Russian children.

Hopefully the initiative will now boost the prospects of Maltese childless couples.

The government should now go a step further and adopt another very positive approach, proposed also by  the Malta Unborn Child Movement (MUCM) to Minister of Health Chris Fearne.

MUCM also sent the minister a draft clause for inclusion in the new amendments to the Embryo Protection Law of 2012.

MUCM is proposing that the government should set up a consultative committee, as that set up by the Healthy Lifestyle Law of 2016,  and a corresponding fund, to help and subsidise childless couples who, again, opt not to go for IVF and embryo freezing but choose the natural method to fertility.

This by seeking the counselling services of nutritionists, dietitians and psychologists, among others, to become pregnant. 

These professionals normally help childless couples to reduce stress in their lives connected with today’s ever-growing work pressures, which greatly affect fertility, to make lifestyle changes, to eat proper diets and to take nutritional supplements which, again, science is increasingly showing, help infertile couples conceive their own children, in a much less costly and painful manner, and much more quickly than IVF and embryo freezing.

MUCM is already doing all this.   

This newspaper should again be congratulated for its feature ‘Lifestyle changes may increase chances of pregnancy’ (May 15) which, first, made reference to a study linking infertility to dietary habits, and then interviewed gynaecologist Mark Formosa about the  work which needs to be done on lifestyle education to guide women wishing to have children.

These initiatives by the government will help childless couples avoid the “stress, strain and suffering” involved in the IVF process.

They also avoid the possible involuntary death of so many embryos, unborn children in the very beginning of human life, through the thawing process connected with embryo freezing.

This is a very good example of the commodification of human life at its very beginning

They avoid  the inhumanity of freezing embryos and the unethical choosing between good and not-so-good embryos, which renders them a commodity. They avoid the callousness of discarding, or throwing  away, frozen embryos which are not needed.

They also avoid the highly impersonal anonymous adoption of unwanted embryos. Children born without an identity.

In February 2000, Bernard Nathanson, a gynaecologist of world fame, testified before the US Congress on reproductive technologies. He said: “There is a very large market in frozen embryos. There are about 50,000 embryos in various cryobanks across the country. What are we to do? Freezing can only preserve an embryo five or six years. Some entrepreneurs have the answer: sell them.”

One enterprising reporter showed that if you go to Colombia University you can tell them what kind of baby you want, matching your physique, your ethnic background and educational background, and they will pick out a frozen embryo that perfectly matches what you want and sell it to you and implant the embryo in the womb of your wife or girlfriend for all of $2,750. 

This is a very good example of the commodification of human life at its very beginning. It resembles the sale of slaves on the market of bygone years, also in Malta.

It is not “progressive” at all.

In his article ‘Legislators’ responsibility’ (May 23) Martin Scicluna tried to patronise Maltese legislators into passing all the amendments to the Embryo Protections Act as initially proposed by the government.

Although Scicluna did suggest that “IVF treatment (should be) sensibly regulated”, he did not say how at all. 

Instead, he shouted that our “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.”

He has again made it very  clear that to him, embryos, unborn children, have no rights at all. He also forgot that the word embryo, which means human life at its very beginning, still shows in  the name of the amended law. 

Again, Scicluna battered all pro-life organisations and institutions who constructively criticised the amendments.

He did not say that these have always declared that they, also, want to help childless couples have children.

Scicluna  made no mention of the latest government offer of financial grants to Maltese childless couples to adopt children from abroad. He must have known about this offer from the government. Surely, he could have added a last-minute sentence or two to his article about these grants to childless couples before publication. Last month, the government voted in Parliament in favour of the principles behind the proposed amendments to the Embryo Protection Act.

The controversial amendments will now be considered in detail in committee stage. 

Considering the willingness shown by the government, first to extend the consultation period, then to offer financial grants to childless couples to adopt children mostly from abroad, the committee stage is where the government, especially  the Family Minister, can and should consider seriously, again, helping in different ways childless couples who opt to use the natural method to fertility.

Gynaecologist Mark Formosa, who has already commented favourably on the natural method to fertility and has shown what should be done next, should be called by the government, especially by the Family Minister, along with other professionals like those who have already worked with MUCM on this matter, to extend further salutary services to childless couples to have children of their own without resorting to other very risky, costly and stressful measures.

Tony Mifsud is coordinator, Malta Unborn Child Movement.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180605/opinion/adoptions-for-childless-couples-tony-mifsud.680870

As to be expected, the shocking result of the abortion referendum in Ireland has been greeted with gleeful gloating by the likes of Martin Scicluna. Meanwhile, Women’s Rights Foundation director, Lara Dimitrijevic, proudly reaffirms her pro-abortion stance.

Such outcomes do not happen overnight and have a long incubation period. For years, the media in Ireland has been intensely anti-clerical and hostile to the Church. The Church has been portrayed as the embodiment of evil and paedophilia almost presented as  a phenomenon of the Catholic priesthood.

Here in Malta, the deep seated and ingrained animosity of the Labour Party political apparatchiks to the Church has shown no signs of abating over the years as their anti-family ideology comes inexorably to fruition.

Meanwhile, the leadership of the Church in Malta is not succumbing to the cowardly stance of that in Ireland. No matter what the failings of the Church, one must not confuse issues.

The Church of Malta has given an enormous positive contribution both locally and abroad. Besides, it has taken draconian measures to address any abusive misconduct by the clergy.  However, it rightly does not expect to be silenced because of past shortcomings, because it irritates the powerful, or by the rants and shabby partisan manoeuvring of pseudo priests.

The abortion campaign has to be seen in context. In a talk given early this year by Joseph Meaney of Human Life International, when invited by Gift of Life, he referred to a comment made in 2007 by Archbishop Emeritus Paul Cremona who had said: “The culture of death is both ancient and new.”

This penetrating comment says it all. Before the dawn of Christianity, all the pagan and primitive civilisations practised human sacrifice. They lacked the Christian vision of the right to life. One need only mention the sacrifice of thousands of children by incineration to the Canaanite god Moloch.

In the US public opinion is changing. The grass roots, mostly young people, are now challenging the culture of death

The conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity marked the turning point. Abortion and infanticide were outlawed. According to Meaney, the Judaeo-Christian pro-life stance became so influential that legal abortion disappeared. This changed in the 20th century.

The first country to legalise abortion was Soviet Russia in 1920. This was the atheistic strategy of Vladimir Lenin who was determined to destroy Christianity and the family by legalising divorce and abortion. The next country, in 1935, was Nazi Germany. Abortion and sterilisation were used as powerful eugenic tools to cull the non-Aryan races. Abortion is the hallmark of the pre-Christian and Post-Christian world.

So, in promoting the killing of nascent life, the likes of Lara Dimitrijevic are not as avantgarde as they think. No appeals to conscience can present evil as good and vice versa. Sadly, the evil of atheistic totalitarianism has been taken over by the new gurus who parrot the slogan of freedom of choice and reproductive rights that in reality are a new type of slavery and self-imposed sterility.

St Pope John Paul II, who was instrumental in raising the true awareness of human dignity that led to the fall of the Iron Curtain, gave this stark warning: “Capitalism, undisciplined by morality will ultimately self-destruct.”

Although richer, healthier, and more secure than ever before, the Western world is failing to reproduce itself.

Ironically, while the Western, post-Christian world greets abortion rights with jubilation, matters are quite different in Eastern Europe and in the US. The former are acutely aware of the consequences on family life and the current governments of Poland and Hungary, so criticised by the EU, are doing their utmost to promote family friendly policies and encourage child bearing.

In the US, after 50 of State-imposed abortion, public opinion is changing. The grass roots, mostly young people, are now challenging the culture of death.

The Maltese have nothing to be ashamed of. The challenge today that eclipses all others is the fight against the spectre of Moloch. Countries that embrace the culture of death may be ecstatic but they have no future.

As St Mother Theresa said in 1994: “Abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace. If you cannot tell a mother not to kill her own child, how can you tell anyone not to kill another person.”

Klaus Vella Bardon is deputy chairman of Life Network Foundation Malta.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180605/opinion/the-spectre-of-moloch-klaus-vella-bardon.680873

I have recently come to the conclusion that rationality is no longer enough to form a basis for political and other social debate. When man removed God and theology from his calculations for decision-making on political action, it was assumed that rationality would be the new liberator for proper decision-making. Today with the amount of spin that exists and the level of subjective thinking, rationality has lost its own place as well and emotions seem to be the new political god. Soon of course, emotions will wear thin too, and be replaced with god knows what. Something that can be a scapegoat for man’s ultimate aim; to give vent to his ego and subjective opinions and, ultimately, to do as he likes. There is no good or bad ultimately, because everybody can choose to do as one likes; choice is another new god that allows us to give vent to our subjective ethical reasoning.

I will continue using rationality again and again as the basis for any political or other decision, because rationality is the ethical basis of natural law. We can distinguish what is right and what is wrong through our reason alone. However, one should understand that there are other value judgements that are based on revelation as well. Revelation is what God has shown us to be his plan and tool for deciding what is right or wrong. We cannot arrive at it with reason alone. It is not good because God wants it, but God wants it because it is good Therefore in the future I will also start to state my judgements on value issues based on revelation because by quoting my personal values people will also have to accept the whole background for my final ethical positions. Francis Schaeffer the theologian says that one cannot claim to be Christian and at the same time practise existentialist behaviour, unless one also follows the ethical dictates established by divine revelation. Kierkgaard states that we can be existentialist and Christian. Schaeffer qualifies this sharply to not contravening or keeping in line with the ethical dictates of revelation and I tend to agree with him.

In the past weeks and months I have stated and clearly shown scientifically why I believe that life starts at fertilisation from the scientific rational perspective and therefore life ought to be protected and safeguarded from that stage onwards. Any human being in whatever stage of development ought to be protected from intentional harm and prima facie has a right to life. I must confess that I have stopped there but this is obviously not enough to convince the hedonistic and subjective government that we currently have, and also many members, maybe the majority, of society who wish to subjectively follow their own dictates on this matter.

I have not yet expressed my own complete value judgement on the matter. As a Catholic who takes part in political discourse and decision-making, I am obliged to follow the ethical dictates of revelation both in the Old Testament and in the New, as well as other sources such as the teachings of the Church. Moses and the 10 Commandments make it clear that killing human beings is an ethical watershed as does Christ and the teaching of the New Testament fathers make clear that we cannot destroy innocent human life because it goes against the law of love, true agape love that is, which formulates the basis of the New Testament. One cannot be a Christian and voluntary kill other innocent human beings even if this means that we have hard choices to make about our daily lives. Even if this means we are discarded socially as a marginal minority. All this hogwash of some politicians or other individuals stating that they are Christian and wanting to help others but are in favour of killing or freezing human embryos is pure hogwash. It is subjective relative ethical thinking and behaviour at its best, aimed at satisfying a poorly informed, maybe invincibly ignorant conscience at best or more likely satisfying a particular voter base or one’s political masters and the money, power or political patronage he or she would be gracing one with.

For the Christian however, there is another reason to oppose the killing of an innocent member of the human species, a reason many do not often consider. It is because one member of our species sits in the Godhead. We often speak of the Trinity as a mystery which it verily is. The Trinity of three persons in one God, three totally different persons but who constitute one nature, one essence, one soul, one God maybe by perfect unity of will. The second person of this Trinity, Jesus Christ, is no less a mystery. He is a human being, a member of the species of man. This also is a mystery, the mystery of Jesus Christ. Man, is a substance constituted by his rational essence (nature, soul) and his material constitution composing a human living substance an individualised person. Man is a substance that is created as an image of God but an imperfect image at that as he only contains some of God’s attributes. This human being, this man Jesus Christ however who, having a human nature and rational essence, has had this human essence superimposed on and assumed by the essence or nature of the Word, the second person of the Trinity, the perfect image of God. Christ has both the essence or soul of a man and the essence or soul of God. He has two natures with the human one being the lesser one subsumed by the greater nature, that of God. This is a difficult concept to understand and it is in fact a mystery which the real Christian must accept as revealed but cannot ever comprehend. It is more so a mystery because although Christ has two natures, one of God and one of man, he constitutes just one person and the person is a divine one at that. I like to think of this as man the essence being an imperfect image of God, being completed and assumed by the essence which is the perfect image of God, the Word! Ultimately one can never understand this but the fact remains that a human being of a divine nature sits in the Trinity, means that human beings have a special place in the order of creation and therefore every human being in whatever stage of development has to be respected at least by those of us who say we are Christian. Christ had a divine nature as an embryo in utero and ex utero; he was a divine person in utero and ex utero.

Therefore, besides my scientific judgement as a doctor of medicine, you now have my value judgement as a Christian as well. Human life should be protected from the beginning of its existence to its natural end. This is true for scientific rational and revealed ethical reasons. In the present debate, one cannot state that one is a Christian and ignore these facts otherwise one is being an existentialist who ignores revealed sources. In short, one is not being a Christian at all.

michael.asciak@parlament.mt

Dr Asciak is Senior Lecturer II in Applied Science at MCAST.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2018-06-03/newspaper-opinions/Fully-human-fully-alive-6736190924

In May 2016, in Stratford upon Avon, a woman lunged into the path of a huge car transporter to push her little daughter, riding a scooter, out of its way. She saved her daughter but she was crushed to death.

Two months ago at Trèbes, in France, police officer Arnaud Beltram offered himself up in exchange of a woman who was being held hostage and ended up being shot and killed. His mother said his love for his country made him do this.

A courageous act is recognised by everyone and like love, that motivates it, courage brings the person closer to others. Being courageous is offering to others whatever you risk by the courageous act: be it your life, your job or your health. Through your love you make yourself a servant of others.

Politics brings the opportunity of courage of a special kind. Politicians hold power and prestige in society. A politician’s public position gives an ideal platform for courageous acts against injustice.

President John Kennedy, who was awarded the Purple Heart for courage, wrote Profiles in courage to document acts of political courage. He showed how eight US senators defied their party or constituents to hold to what they believe was right.

For example, he showed how Senator Thomas Benton’s stand against slavery made him unpopular and ruined his re-election to the Senate and the US House of Representatives. Because of his courage, however, the world is now a better place and his statue stands in the US capitol.

What causes individuals to be courageous? A courageous act in a mother may be instinctive but, like the French policeman’s, it is based on love. It is said that love drives out fear. If that is true, then is cowardice due to a lack of love?

In the 1700s, Irish statesman Edmund Burke said: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” In 1910, Pope Pius X wrote similarly that “the greatest obstacle in the apostolate of the Church is the timidity or, rather, the cowardice of the faithful”.

A politician’s public position gives an ideal platform for courageous acts against injustice

I think we are all inherently born with a self-preservation instinct and an aversion to pain. However, some, like the mother and the policeman, lift themselves out of this and are able to act despite this deep instinct and this is what makes up courage.

Being a courageous person is usually defined by a single particular event, just as being cowardly is defined by refusing to act when we clearly should.

Events do define us by the way we respond to them.

In the Biblical Book of Esther, Esther was a Hebrew commoner who was chosen as queen because of her stunning beauty.

A genocide was planned against her people and she was the only one who could stop it but she had to risk her life to do so.

Her stepfather, Mordecai, told Esther that her high rank may have been given to her by God just so she might save her people at this critical time.

If she were to refuse to do so, deliverance would still come from elsewhere but she would perish. Esther did risk her life and saved her people.

We now have a parallel before us as future generations of vulnerable Maltese embryonic lives lie in the hands of elected Members of Parliament.

The Maltese are known for their courage during World War II. When I was at school in Africa, I used to take pride in relating the story of how the George Cross was awarded to Malta and about Maltese courage in the siege of 1942.

Can we say the same about the Maltese in 2018? Are we willing to stand up and be counted in support of the most vulnerable, for what is right?

Patrick Pullicino is a neurologist studying for the priesthood.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180604/opinion/of-courage-and-cowardice-patrick-pullicino.680817

Minister Chris Fearne’s contribution to your newspaper on the imminent changes to the law on IVF, with the title ‘Let’s talk – but respect our principles’, on 21 May, gives rise to further questions that have to be answered with a clear conscience  before a final decision is taken by our parliamentarians and eventually by the Head of State.

As I stated elsewhere in one of my contributions on this matter, I am still in favour of a period of reflection, long enough for the debate to mature at citizen level, and for expert opinion and advice to be put forwards for consideration. Besides, I also believe that it would be useless going into such a period of reflection, with already formed opinions, and entrenched positions from which we know beforehand that whatever arguments are brought forwards, we are not prepared to budge. This applies to either side of the debate.

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’ (‘inkomplu nwessghu u nestendu dan is servizz’) this service without including any details whatsoever.

Dr. Fearne says that patients speak on the subject with passion and urgency. I do understand and empathise, especially if they, or their near ones are involved. On the other hand, doctors, however sensitive to the issue, should keep their calm, reflect, weigh the pros and cons, and apply whatever medical knowledge and practise is available, always within specific ethical and moral consideration and parameters. Much as we would wish too, we cannot always meet the aspirations of our patients, for obvious reasons.  As physicians we always do our best to understand and empathise with people who are suffering, physically and emotionally.

There are limits to what we can do: limits imposed by nature itself, and limits imposed by morals and ethics, first amongst which is the principle enshrined in the Hippocratic Oath of ‘Primum non Nocere’ (First of all to do no harm). We cannot ignore moral issues, otherwise we would soon be cloning humans as we do with the clones of Dolly the sheep.

Dr. Fearne writes that ‘our amendments will be increasing the likelihood of embryos reaching maturity than is the case with the current system’. What my esteemed colleague fails to point out is the increased number of discarded embryos  that result from adopting this system.

He states correctly that ‘a facility like embryo freezing has been introduced in many European countries’. Not in all European countries, and for good reason. Many have been seriously debating the issue for years, and did not rush into certain decisions. But even so, since when have European standards in morality and ethics become our lode star? Are we aiming to reach EU standards also in abortion, euthanasia, and drug liberalisation?

Much has been said about freezing of embryos, that I am sure the man in the street is justifiably confused. Freezing of an embryo in itself is not ethically, or medically wrong, if, and only if, resorted to only in particular emergency situations. Preferably it should be avoided, but in certain circumstances (as provide by the present legislation) one will have to resort to it. The process itself is harmful to the embryo and should be avoided as much as possible. The exception in our present legislation does not justify this practice becoming the rule. Freezing as part of the normal process of IVF is objectionable.

It is to be noted that up to now no one has come out to state clearly and without equivocation what will be the eventual fate of those extra embryos that languish for years in deep freeze without being implanted.  

I shudder to think of the concept to be introduced in the new law, with frozen embryos becoming the property of the state to be put up for adoption, after years not being used by their biological parents.

Inspired by the overarching concepts of ‘discrimination’ and ‘equality’ the honourable minister points out the inequality created by ‘those can afford treatment abroad do so and come back to Malta as happy parents. Those who cannot are denied that same right’. This argument sadly does not hold water. I have to ask: Will the same argument be brought forwards eventually in the future to justify the procurement of abortion, or legalisation of euthanasia, and consumption of drugs? This is a very slippery slope, down which one should rather avoid going.

We should all join forces in fighting discrimination, however we should first and foremost agree on what we mean when we speak about discrimination, and where we draw the lines.

I appreciate Dr.Fearne declaring ‘we are open to any and all suggestions. Fine, but how flexible is government going to be? On surrogacy ‘we are open to the widest discussion possible’ he said. Does he envisage agreeing on not including surrogacy in the new law? Does he consider standing up to criticism from the LGBTIQ of denying ‘parenthood’ to male same sex couples if surrogacy is not legalised?

Dr.Fearne states that ‘I have dealt with my conscience’. In all sincerity, knowing Dr. Fearne personally for many years, I am sure he has done his discernment. I might not agree with him, but I respect his decision.

My only concern here is whether enough space, time, respect and consideration,  has been given to fellow legislators, who after dealing with their own consciences on the matter , may  have come to different conclusions from those reached by Dr.Fearne.      

My able and esteemed colleague, Dr. Fearne ended his piece by a monitum to those who according to him stand in the way of infertile couples, advising them to deal with their consciences.

I am sure that anyone who has a defined stand on this issue has dealt with his or her conscience, and came to his or her own conclusions. My only concern is lest the rigid position taken on this matter by the honourable minister on behalf of government, has in any way ‘stood in the way’ of fellow members of parliament who have reached a different conscientious position on the matter.

George Vella is a former Labour minister

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2018-05-28/newspaper-opinions/Let-s-talk-but-do-not-stand-in-the-way-6736190635

I write about the law on embryo freezing being discussed in Parliament, on social media and in every corner of the island at this time. Before now, I could not put words to paper as I feared being criticised for attempting to impose my opinion and interfere in other people’s lives. Such are the arguments that are currently being thrown at whoever takes such a stand.

But after some reflection, I realised I have no need to withhold my opinion for the following reasons. With the war raging in Syria, do we take a passive stance based on the argument that it is not my life, not my country so I will decide to look on passively and not interfere? We don’t.

Those who have a minimum level of civic duty will try to think of ways of how to help, how to take a stand to stop it. We do not stand back because it doesn’t concern us, rationalising our apathy with the mantra ‘it’s not my country and not my family’.

When that happens, we often judge such persons as apathetic and self-centered living in their cozy bubble, not giving a hoot about anything else except their own level of comfort. In my opinion, the same can be said in response to this argument being thrown at anti-embryo freezing lobbyists.

It is argued: if it is not affecting my embryos, or my life, why should I interfere? Well the answer is simple: if it attacks human life, whether it is eight cells, a foetus, a baby or an adult, with all due respect, then the issue stops being a private matter, it becomes public; it stops being a personal one but becomes a national one. 

Several deceptive tactics are being used to manipulate popular opinion. Firstly, it is ludicrous how the argument about human life is being reduced to a discussion about eight cells. As if the number is important.

By constantly quoting the number ‘eight’, does one want to imply that since one is only talking of eight cells, ‘what is all the fuss about?’ Really? Nothing could be more deceptive.

Furthermore, some go further as to compare these cells to any other eight cells in our body, following it up with the argument: if all cells contain our DNA, even skin cells and hair follicles, is it being implied that those should also be saved? How ridiculous!

When I reflect about my existence, does it really make any difference that in the beginning those eight cells were only a ‘potential me’?

Is this totally inaccurate and incorrect scientific information being used to justify such arguments and draw final conclusions?

Who has a basic knowledge of biology knows that while all cells share the same DNA not all are programmed to develop into a human being. Coincidentally, these eight cells do. There is little in the point that they are just eight. It may be inconvenient and uncomfortable to some? Maybe, but this doesn’t make it less true.

In a statement, local geneticists and molecular biologists came forward to confirm that whatever the number, those cells are the beginning of a human life (in fact, of no other species) and if left to follow their process have everything necessary to develop into a human being.

Demarcation lines between different stages are artificial and relative, the rest is a scientific truth. So where is the confusion? Even more farcical they say, “outside of the womb, these eight cells would not survive, so this would confirm further that they are not a person”.

But I would not go down that road. Would a baby survive out alone in the cold? Of course not, but no one questions whether a baby is a person.

Others have thought to strengthen their argument by quoting Fr Peter Serracino Inglott who had stated that what is “potentially human is not human”. But let’s call a spade a spade and not get lost in philosophical rationalisations even quoted from a person who carried a reputation of being intellectually gifted.

In the same way that I was taught to question and not to swallow whole whatever is given to me, no matter the source, I hope that just by quoting Fr Peter does not mean we have to accept all that he has ever said, just because he said it.

When I reflect about my existence, does it really make any difference that in the beginning those eight cells were only a ‘potential me’ even though perhaps Fr Peter’s philosophical thinking brought him to make this distinction? Beyond these highly intellectual philosophical rationalisations, if someone meddled with them would I exist today? No.

So what is the confusion? It’s truly simple. If everybody made this question, truly personal, they would realise that embryo freezing is not only someone’s private matter, it’s a universal one. If we all recognised that those eight cells were crucial for our existence and if meddled with, we might not be alive today, I am convinced that more would thoroughly defend these eight cells because such a reflection would return to these eight cells, their rightful dignity.

I appeal to lawmakers to realise that in the passing of this legislation, it is the future of these eight cells that is being decided, ironically, the future of human life.  In this way, I sincerely ask those who are passing the law to make a true examination of conscience before choosing the ethical principles that will guide their decisions.

Louisa Mifsud Houlton works in the education sector.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180526/opinion/Eight-unique-cells-Louisa-Mifsud-Houlton.680018

Regrettably, the article ‘IVF and human rights’ (May 17), penned by Silvan Agius and Gabi Calleja as government appointees, was loaded with unfounded assertions presented as human rights or scientific certainties.

The authors choose to completely ignore professionals in the field, psychologists, social workers, medical doctors and scientists who asserted the opposite. Worst of all, they arrogantly assert that “We now [as officials] need to ensure that the amendments proposed go through…”, irrespective of what everyone else thinks – including those whose rights we infringe and whose life we put in danger – and the moral and ethical issues at stake.

Interestingly, they make this statement when the minister piloting the Bill has promised to widen consultation. Are the authors implying the process is a sham, like when the Equal Opportunities Minister Helena Dalli boasted of deceiving the Maltese people when speaking at an international forum?

They claim that “scientific consensus is that embryos should not be considered the same as fully developed human beings”. How wrong and very dangerous are the stereotype pro-abortion arguments. By that same argument we can allow the killing of teenagers by their parents because they too are not fully developed.

Twenty-four local scientists have unequivocally stated the complete opposite; no genuine doctor will make such a statement unless blinded by money. Health Minister Chris Fearne himself admitted in Parliament that the embryo is a human life, though, shortly after, he trivialises that by speaking of only eight cells to justify freezing.

Embryo freezing infringes a fundamental scientific fact: life starts at conception and, as humans, we have an obligation to protect it. A recent survey by MaltaToday indicated that 95.2 per cent of the Maltese population believe so. This would include the vast majority of Labourites too.

Many have spoken, others have remained silent, fearful of being seen as dissenting. There are then those who prefer to believe government rhetoric without questioning.

Agius and Calleja claim their approach is human-rights based and not seeking to trespass the rights of others.

Fact: the proposed amendments do not protect all people, certainly not the frozen children, born from ‘donations’ and being denied their parents, and surrogate mothers who will simply be commodified under the guise of altruism.

In the UN declaration for human rights preamble we read that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. Note the word “human”; no limitation on stage of development, this including all members of the human family, even the embryo. So much so that, in the recent debate on the Gender Protection Act, the government gave repeated assurances that the unborn child was still protected under the law as the definition of family includes descendants that also refers to the unborn.

Furthermore, article 2 refers to “Everyone… without distinction of any kind”. Ironically, the second paragraph of the preamble states that “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind”.

The list is endless: genocides, the holocaust, slavery, trafficking of people and the modern barbaric act of abortion.

The conscience of the Maltese population is outraged against embryo freezing because its justification is founded on the same premise as abortion.

From a secular perspective, if science tells us that life begins at conception, then the embryo is human. If so, then article 3 of the convention applies: “Everyone has the right to life”. How do I enjoy my right to life if you freeze me? Does not freezing breach article 5, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment?

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in its preamble clearly affirms the rights of the unborn child when it states that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”. Allow me to repeat “before as well as after birth”.

The UN convention is very clear. Because it is not fully developed, the unborn needs protection. If anyone wants to ignore these rights, as the proposed amendments do, then the rights of children are being trespassed. Another mind-blowing assertion was that there is “no international consensus that there is the right to know the identity of one’s biological parents”. Since when do we need international consensus to tell us that we need air and food to live, that being born of the same parents makes us brothers and sisters and that a child belongs to its biological parents? Conventions are not there to state the obvious.

Children are not a symbol of equality but a gift to love

On the other hand, when it came to education, because past governments abused the education systems to brainwash children, the convention says clearly in article 26.3 that “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”. Such is the sense of belonging and the close relationship between the children and their parents.

The fact that a single mother chooses not to declare who the father is does not weaken the rights of children; they would have been violated as a worker’s right to work is violated when s/he is unemployed.

In article 3 1 of this UN convention we read: “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

Can it honestly be said that the best interest of the child is to be frozen, put in suspended mode, with possibly no hope of continuation? Is it the best interest of the child to intentionally be created an orphan through embryo adoption and gamete donation? Is it the best interest of the child to be deprived of its natural parents, be treated like an object that can be given away, ignoring the psychological risks the child is exposed to, including the emotional hardship so evident in many stories of children born out of such donations?

In reality, there is no convention that states that people, whatever their status, have a right to have children. This applies for heterosexual couples, same-sex couples and single men or women. There is clearly no discrimination, not even indirect, as claimed by the authors, because the disadvantage is proportionate and justifiable, that is, there is good reason.

Single persons cannot have children because they need the opposite sex, just like same-sex couples. This is not discrimination, this is nature’s design. Even when a heterosexual couple consent, a child is not guaranteed.

Not having children does not make a person less dignified or less equal to those who have children. Children are not a symbol of equality but a gift to love and love is not about my rights but the child we want to love. That is why the embryo needs to be loved and protected.

The Embryo Protection Act is not only constitutional but in line with the UN convention for the protection of children, putting the best interest of the child at the centre of legislation. The proposed amend­­-ments significantly fall short of a compromise. That is why they remain unacceptable.

Tonio Fenech is a former finance minister.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180525/opinion/No-symbol-of-equality-Tonio-Fenech.679923

Il-Life Network Foundation qalet li min se jivvota favur l-emendi proposti għal-Liġi tal-Protezzjoni tal-Embrijun se jkollu jerfa’ responsabbiltà kbira li tinkludi l-mewt tal-embrijuni u kull effett negattiv li tispiċċa tbati s-soċjetà minħabba t-tibdil.

Il-proposti fl-Att jinkludu li l-embrijuni se jiġu ffriżati jekk il-koppja tagħti l-kunsens għall-addozzjoni u li l-kiri tal-ġuf ma jibqax kontra l-liġi f’xi każijiet.

Fi stqarrija, il-Life Network Foundation appellat lill-Membri Parlamentari biex jirriflettu fuq l-implikazzjonijiet serji tal-emendi proposti għal-Liġi tal-Protezzjoni tal-Embrijun.

Skont il-Fondazzjoni, hemm qbil bejn il-professjonisti li huma konta l-emendi. Qalet ukoll li hemm eluf ta’ Maltin mħassba dwar il-proposti. Rat ukoll attentati għad-disumanizzazzjoni tal-embrijun u li d-drittjiet tat-tfal twarrbu għal ġenb.

Il-Fondazzjoni stqarret ukoll li l-esperti ma tħallewx jindirizzaw lill-Parlament.

Il-Life Network Foundation qal li studji u osservazzjonijiet oħra juru li:

• Il-bniedem huwa organiżmu uniku
• Il-ħajja tibda mal-konċepiment
• L-embrijun fl-istat bikri tiegħu huwa bniedem uman
• Il-krijopreservazzjoni tpoġġi l-ħajja tal-embrijuni f’riskju
• Il-problema tal-embrijuni ffriżati żejda għadha ma ssolvietx
• Mhemmx studji li juru li l-kiri tal-ġuf, donazzjoni tal-bajda, l-isperma, jew tal-embrijun m’għandhomx effetti psikoloġiċi negattivi fuq it-tfal u fuq l-ommijiet bijoloġiċi
• Mhix ġustizzja soċjali li ttaffi l-ferita tal-infertilità tal-koppji ta’ din il-ġenerazzjoni billi tneħħi d-dritt tal-ġenerazzjoni ta’ wara li tkun taf min huma l-ġenituri tagħha

 

Ref: http://www.newsbook.com.mt/artikli/2018/5/23/emendi-embrijuni:-min-jivvota-favur-responsabbli-ghall-mewt-taghhom-life-network.75513/

A disability scholar is warning that choosing an embryo over another because of possible disabilities is based on a myth that a disabled life is a lesser life.

“When you choose between embryos, you don’t really know what you are choosing. You might discard an impaired embryo and choose one that looks perfect, but that perfect child might give you much more trouble than a disabled child,” Eva Feder Kittay told this newspaper.

“A disabled child might give you much more happiness and have a much better life. We make the immediate assumption that a disabled life is a lesser life… This is a myth,” she insisted.

Prof. Kittay was in Malta to deliver lectures and meet with stakeholders in the disability field. Her visit coincided with a nationwide discussion on the divisive amendments to the IVF law.

Among others, Pierre Schembri Wismayer, who contributed to drafting the existing legislation, has noted that embryologists will select the “best two” embryos of the permitted five for IVF treatment to have a higher probability of success.

Prof. Kittay notes that choosing the healthiest embryos raises similar questions to that of prenatal testing. Living in an ableist society, it seems inevitable that people will want to choose embryos. However, she insists, people with a disability claim as much satisfaction with their lives, “except that they have to deal with a lot of nonsense from society”.

Prof. Kittay is one of the theorists who worked to develop the idea of ‘the ethics of care’, first introduced by American psychologist Carol Gilligan.

While several disability activists stress the idea of independence, she believes dependency is at the heart of society. “Dependence is a feature of all human life. But the dependency of those of us who are more privileged is less visible. You and I think we are independent, as we earn a wage, however we are dependent on our employer, who, in turn, is dependent on their customers.”

Looking at it this way, one realises that dependency is not necessarily a bad or a good thing. “Some very rich people are dependent on their housekeeper, chauffeur and maid. What happens when you take those people away from them?

But that is not the kind of dependence that we stigmatise. “I’m emotionally very dependent on my daughter. Hopefully, she can go on without me. It would be terrible if I had to go on without her,” she said.

For Prof. Kittay, independence is not an end in itself but rather a means to a more flourishing life. Sometimes, dependence is a means to a more flourishing life.

During her stay, Prof. Kittay was a keynote speaker, sponsored by the US Fulbright Programme, at a conference themed Emerging Disability Issues and organised by the Department of Disability Studies.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180521/local/a-disabled-life-is-not-a-lesser-life.679608