Author: lifenetwork

Over two decades ago, Malta signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This lays down that the family, with particular reference to children, “should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance”.

The Convention also refers to the antecedent declarations of 1924 and 1959, which recall the need to extend particular care to the child. Crucially, the Convention 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”. This shows that the Convention’s recognition of the fact that the rights of the child begin not at birth, but at conception. It cannot be clearer.

The Convention demands that the safeguarding of the best interests of the child is given the highest priority.

In 2003, Malta enacted the Commissioner for Children Act, and the Commissioner for Children became the local guardian of the Convention. The law lists the functions of the commissioner, including the duty to promote and advocate for the rights and interests of children, as well as the protection of children from physical and mental harm, including exploitation.

The Commissioner for Children, for reasons incomprehensible and contrary to good sense, has chosen to support the Bill proposing to introduce embryo freezing, gamete donation and surrogacy. The statement issued by the commissioner’s office erroneously states that, at 16 years of age, minors born from donation will be allowed to know the identity of the donor, hence the identity of one of their biological parents.

This is unquestionably wrong. Article 7 of the Bill (which amends Article 9 of the Embryo Protection Act) states very plainly that only the donor’s anonymous medical records shall be accessible to the child upon the latter reaching 16.

The commissioner’s statement is further misinformed of the proposals she is bound to monitor in view of the Bill’s clarity on the severing of all bonds of filiation between donor and offspring.

Clearly, the commissioner has either not read the Bill or has not read it properly.

The commissioner, whose duty it is to be the guardian of children’s rights in Malta, has come out in support of a Bill that turns children into commodities and which should, to any sane public servant, be anathema to children’s rights.

Now, the commissioner is surely placed in the uncomfortable position of explaining to an awaiting public how she has managed to conclude that the freezing of embryos is conducive to fulfilling her mission to promote children’s rights and ensure all children are treated with dignity, respect and fairness. As those who have read the Bill know, it is neither dignified nor respectful nor fair to implant the best embryos in the mother and leave their siblings, deemed of lesser quality, in a freezer.

The Commissioner for Children Act empowers the commissioner to carry out investigations connected with her duties either following an individual’s complaint or from her own motion. However, it is pertinent to ask who has the power to investigate how and why the Commissioner for Children has chosen to endorse a Bill that clearly does not have the protection of children as its primary object.

The law also empowers the commissioner to issue a child impact statement relating to any decision or proposal on any policy that affects children. In a situation in which the commissioner has come out in favour of a Bill that harms children, to whom does the sad duty to issue a child impact statement fall?

What is the impact on children when the Commissioner for Children decides not to be on the side of children?

The Malta Paediatric Association and the Maltese Association of Social Workers have both encouraged the government to protect the embryo and to focus on the best interests of the child.

However, this advice from competent and dedicated professionals seems not to have been heeded by the commissioner.

I distinctly remember previous commissioners for children organising short summer courses to educate children on their rights under the Convention. In fact, I myself attended such a course in 2004.

All participants agreed that the first among rights had to be the right to life, without which all rights are useless.

I am genuinely curious what children will be taught at the next such course. When a brave young child asks the commissioner why she has come out in favour of freezing the youngest of children, how will the commissioner respond?

Personally, I hope the commissioner comes to her senses long before she has to disappoint a hopeful child.

Ramon Bonett Sladden is a lawyer.

The desire to bear and rear children is indeed a noble desire. The provision of IVF services to assist infertile couples to have children is therefore laudable.

Attempts to increase the success rate of IVF practices are also to be encouraged, but not at all costs and definitely not at the expense of the rights of the unborn child.

Children are gifts and not entitlements. IVF policies should therefore not relegate the rights of the unborn child to the desire to bear children at all costs, no matter how noble that desire may be.

The Embryo Protection Act, enacted in 2012, regulates IVF in a manner which strikes a balance between the noble desires of infertile couples and the rights of the unborn child by allowing the freezing of as yet unfertilised female ova but not the freezing of embryos.

The proposed amendments contemplate the possibility of embryo freezing, which inevitably leads to embryo stockpiling, and no amount of rhetoric can dispute that.

Stockpiling has been the experience of all countries where embryo freezing has been introduced.

The proposed amendments contemplate the imposition of embryo adoption on vulnerable couples opting for embryo freezing in an attempt to render embryo freezing more palatable, but it is unlikely that this will eliminate unwanted, unutilised, leftover embryos, with all the ethical dilemmas that come in their wake. 

Human embryos are therefore destined to become frozen orphans in violation of the dignity with which every unborn child should be treated. 

Besides embryo freezing, two other objectionable proposals are anonymous gamete donation and surrogacy.

Both practices deprive children of being brought up by their natural parents and the right to know the identity of their biological parents. The practices have been discouraged and banned in a number of countries, but in pseudoliberal Malta, fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

It is indeed painful to see the vulnerabilities of infertile couples being abused to promote pseudo-rights which have nothing to do with infertility.

A homosexual couple is unable to have children without the collaboration of somebody from the opposite sex, not necessarily because of infertility but because nature has dictated that it takes two persons of the opposite sex to procreate.

Two male homosexuals may be perfectly potent but are unable to procreate without a female ovum and surrogate mother. Lesbians may be perfectly potent and able to go through with gestation but they cannot procreate without male gamete donation.

Promoting surrogacy and gamete donation to homosexual couples within the context of infertility is typical of the deception which surrounds the entire debate relating to the current amendments to the Embryo Protection Act, which, in truth, have nothing to do with protection of the embryo but all to do with its objectification and commodification.

The proposed amendments attempt to cancel out differences endowed by nature at the expense of children.

Far from introducing equality, the proposed amendments are intrinsically discriminatory. They discriminate between embryos that will be given a fair chance to survive by being implanted in a mother’s womb and others destined for frozen, suspended animation. 

They discriminate between children who are destined to be brought up by their natural parents and those denied the basic right to know the identity of their natural parents. The amendments will institutionalise an unknown parentage, with the possibility of traumatising children indelibly.

Rather than rush to enact pseudoliberal laws which violate the dignity of life, our parliamentarians should take up the President’s invitation to meet all stakeholders with a view to holding a constructive discussion which is cognisant of the noble wishes of childless couples while not ignoring the delicate ethical issues relating to embryos’ rights and the best interests of our children, born and unborn.

Arthur Galea Salomone is president of the Cana Movement.

The Embryo Protection Act 2012 has the stated aim of “providing for the protection of human embryos” in procedures of medically assisted procreation. Since its enactment, the law has provided for and regulated practices such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and the freezing of gametes.

Among other things, the law as it currently stands prohibits the cryo-preservation (freezing) of embryos. The law defines an embryo as “the human organism that results from the fertilisation of a human egg cell by a human sperm cell which is capable of developing”. This definition follows the prevalent view in embryology that embryos are human beings in the earliest stage of their existence.

The aims of the Bill tabled in Parliament entitled ‘An Act to amend the Embryo Protection Act’, include “the freezing of fertilised eggs” (embryos) and the “de-criminalisation of non-commercial surrogacy”.

While the purpose of the principal Act it seeks to amend remains unchanged, some key provisions of the Bill effectively flout, undermine and contradict the very purpose of the law of which they will form part if approved, namely that of protecting the human embryo.

This defies the basic principles of logic and good legislation.

Amendments contained in the Bill effectively expose the human embryo to risk by opening up and allowing the possibility for its foreseeable and implicitly intentional destruction. It is a statistically known fact that a number of embryos die in the thawing process.

This is, of course, in no way comparable to a natural miscarriage, since their deaths result from a procedure that envisages this very likely possibility at its outset.

Moreover, the law can offer no guarantee that all frozen embryos will be adopted, or that no accidental or intentional malfunction of storage facilities will occur, resulting in their death. On this count, too, the proposed amendments fail to fulfil the purpose of the principal Act they seek to modify. Rather than protecting the embryo, they place it unmistakably at risk.

Beyond the cloud of rhetoric, these amendments introduce into our law the principle that the State, through its laws, may rescind its obligation to protect human beings and sanction procedures that effectively expose them to the risk of dying. Legislators who are being called upon to vote on these amendments ought to consider very carefully the implications and ramifications of what they are being asked to assent to. 

The Bill also includes a provision that would allow for “altruistic surrogacy”, which is understood as surrogacy for non-profit and non-commercial purposes.

In recent years, countries that can hardly be labelled as conservative, such as Finland, Germany and Sweden, have banned all forms of surrogacy after carrying out a series of studies and fully-fledged inquiries.

The European Parliament has not so long ago condemned the practice of surrogacy on the basis that “it undermines the human dignity of the woman since her body and reproductive functions are used as a commodity”.

Surrogacy has also been met with opposition by an array of human rights, women’s rights and LGBT rights activists in various countries.

Those promoting the Bill on the grounds of equality surely seem to be employing this concept in a rather myopic and constricted fashion.

Here in Malta, Parliament is being given neither the opportunity nor the time to carry out and evaluate studies on the implications of so-called “altruistic surrogacy”. Members of Parliament are simply being asked to agree to authorise a minister to issue a legal notice prescribing “the manner in which altruistic surrogacy shall be effected and for any matter incidental and ancillary thereto”.

Matters of substance aside, the manner in which the Bill is being rushed through the parliamentary process is appalling and questionable. Political decency and respect for the deliberative nature of the democratic process would have dictated that a legislative initiative of such consequence must follow the most rigorous and open form of scrutiny and deliberation.

Instead, Parliament is being asked to get it over and done over two weeks. In the meantime, experts, specialists and the concerned public keep voicing their apprehension.

Current legislation may indeed require fine-tuning to offer broader access to medically-assisted procreation. However, this cannot be achieved at all costs and certainly not through rash legislation which in certain cases contradicts the very purpose of the law while reducing human beings to objects and commodities.

The decent thing to do at this stage is for Parliament to reject the Bill or at least to stall it, pending in-depth and extensive consultations that would allow for properly informed decision-making.

Anything short of that would be utterly and tragically reckless.

Jean-Paul De Lucca is senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Malta.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180427/opinion/Contradictory-and-dangerous-Jean-Paul-De-Lucca.677520

26 April 2018

 

Dr Miriam Sciberras

Fr Martin Micallef

Distinguished guests

Dear friends

It is my pleasure to share some brief remarks at the opening of this important conference.

The theme for today’s discussion, “Every Life Matters”, is particularly timely. I am glad to see the participation of so many national and international experts, who will be sharing their research and insight.

Let me also take this opportunity to commend the conference organisers, namely, the Life Network Foundation Malta and Dar tal-Providenza, in collaboration with the One of Us Federation and LeJeune Foundation.

Thank you for collaborating to provide a safe space to share your expertise and information.

I believe that it is essential for us to always promote, prioritise, and protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person.

This is especially necessary at a time when our country is undergoing historical changes, in the spheres of legislation and policy, which deal with sensitive areas of reproductive care.

I believe that it is necessary for all of our professionals, civil society activists, national authorities, and also members of affected communities, to participate in respectful dialogue, around these issues of such ethical importance.

I also believe that it is necessary to focus on finding innovative ways to increase awareness about the need for sustainable inclusion, and the full participation of every individual, especially those who are living with disabilities or experiencing various forms of vulnerability.

When we promote inclusion and participation, we are celebrating the diversity which enriches our communities and our society.

It is this commitment, to the celebration of diversity, which creates a context for truly democratic values, and universal human rights, to flourish and grow stronger.

The inclusion of persons with disabilities, at all levels of society, is part and parcel of our commitment to uphold these democratic values, and safeguard universal human rights.

Furthermore, it is also the duty of our authorities to create opportunities for the full participation of each and every member of society, within the life of this nation.

Legislation and national policies, to ensure inclusion are important, however, I also believe that we must work to sustainably encourage a mentality of support and solidarity, which can shield us from the dangers of prejudice, exclusion, and marginalisation.

Such dangers can be even more predominant, when they are confronted by individuals who are already experiencing increased vulnerability or risks of abuse.

Effective enjoyment of the human rights of all people, including persons with disabilities, requires that our authorities and policy-makers are made aware of the extreme prejudices, which are in some circumstances still faced by members of these communities.

For this reason, I am pleased to note that individuals and families, with first hand experiences of living with disabilities, shall have the opportunity to share their narratives during this conference.

You are the experts on your own lives, and it is our responsibility to listen, to your needs and aspirations.

Once again I would like to thank the conference organisers for creating an opportunity for effective democratic participation.

In this context, I appeal to our authorities to listen, to take action, and to continue to endeavor to confront the prejudices that are at times still deeply embedded within our culture.

 Persons with disabilities must always be our essential partners, in the process of transforming and improving our legislation and policies.

 It is by listening to them that we can understand the needs that are to be addressed to transform our society, and create, in the process the context for the holistic well being of all.

 For example, as prenatal testing becomes more easily accessible, I am sure that we would all agree that such testing is an important component, to achieve comprehensive and effective prenatal care, for both a mother and her unborn child.

 However, let us also be aware that the possibility exists for the abuse of prenatal testing.

In real time, our country is experiencing a unique opportunity to discuss the potential tensions that exist between arguments for reproductive choice, and the rights of people with disabilities.

I am hopeful that this conference will be part of the larger conversation, taking place in our society, to address misconceptions and to encourage a context of respectful discussion.

I believe that the intrinsic dignity of the human person does not depend on their gender, ethnicity, health, mental capacity, disability, or any other specific factor.

We derive our humanity from something far more fundamental, and for this reason, I augur that we, as a nation, shall always be led by a rights-based approach, which affirms and safeguards the dignity and respect of all the diverse people who call the Maltese Islands their home.

I wish you a fruitful conference.

25.04.2018

Life Network Foundation Malta

Il-Fondazzjoni Life Network Foundation tirringrazzja lill-Eċċelenza tagħha, l-President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca tal-intervent tagħha fid-diskussjoni dwar l-Emendi proposti ghal-Att dwar il-Protezzjoni tal-Embrijun.

Il-Fondazzjoni taqbel li kif qalet il-President,ikun hawn “perjodu itwal ta’ riflessjoni sabiex jinstemgħu l-vuċijiet dwar l-emendi li qed jipproponi l-Gvern  ” Kif kompliet il-President,“It-trattament tal-IVF hu suġġett delikat li jeħtieġ  li jkun diskuss f’ambjent seren, u li jibbilanċja l-qsim il-qalb li jaffaċċjaw koppji bla tfal, ma’ kwistjonijiet etiċi sensittivi li għandhom x’jaqsmu mad-drittijiet tal-embrijuni.” Il-Fondazzjoni issostni li hemm bżonn li naghtu każ id-drittijiet tat-tfal li jitwieldu minn dawn il-proċeduri . Ma jagħmilx sens li nagħmlu oġġetti minn uliedna.

Il-Fondazzjoni tistieden lil partijiet interessati li ghandhom ghal-qalbhom il-ġid tas-soċjeta Maltija li jilqghu it-talba tal-President ta Malta ghal medjazzjoni. Madwar il-mejda jeħtieġ li jkun hemm dibattitu bilanċjat u fattwali  u li jkun hemm minn jirrapreżenta l-partijiet kollha. Min ghandu nteress pekunarju ma jistax jaghti kontribut bilanċjat.

Dr Miriam Sciberras BChD (Hons) MA Bioethics

Chairman Life Network Foundation Malta

www.staging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co

Contact 00356 9944 6174

STQARRIJA GĦALL-ISTAMPA – 24 ta’ April 2018

Life Network Foundation Malta

Il-Fondazzjoni Life Network tinsab ferm inkwetata bil-pożizzjoni tal-Kummissarju għat-Tfal dwar l-Abbozz li jemenda l-Att dwar il-Protezzjoni tal-Embrijuni maħruġa nhar it-23 t’April 2018.

Il-Kummissarju għat-Tfal, li skont il-liġi tagħna għandha d-dmir li tħares l-aħjar interessi tat-tfal kollha, kemm dawk imwielda kif ukoll dawk għadhom mhux imwielda, għażlet li tabdika d-dmirijiet tagħha u taqbel ma’ Abbozz ta’ liġi li jneħħi l-aħjar interess tat-tfal miċ-ċentru tal-Att dwar il-Protezzjoni talEmbrijuni.

Il-Fondazzjoni Life Network tistaqsi lil min kellha f’moħħha l-Kummissarju għat-Tfal meta stqarret li filfehma tagħha, l-Abbozz jagħmel il-proċess tal-fertilizzazzjoni in vitro iktar ekwu u wieħed li jevita tbatija bla bżonn. Il-Fondazzjoni Life Network tosserva li l-emendi proposti ċertament ma joħolqux sitwazzjoni iktar ekwa għat-trabi, li bl-iffriżar ikunu mċaħħda mid-dritt għall-ħajja u esposti għal riskju li jmutu fil-friża. Huwa għalhekk skorrett għall-aħħar dak li ntqal mill-Kummissarju, jiġifieri li l-emendi proposti jipprovdu għal aktar suċċess. Fil-fatt, m’hemm ebda suċċess meta l-ħajja umana tkun ipperikolata.

Il-Kummissarju għat-Tfal għarfet li t-tfal għandhom:

i. Il-jedd għall-ħajja u s-saħħa;

ii. Il-jedd għall-identità; u

iii. Il-jedd għal trobbija f’ambjent stabbli u sigur.

Għalkemm huwa minnu li t-tfal għandhom dawn il-jeddijiet, l-Abbozz li l-Kummissarju għat-Tfal taqbel miegħu fil-fatt jonqos li jħares u jipproteġi dawn id-drittijiet.

i. Il-Jedd għall-ħajja u s-saħħa

Il-Fondazzjoni Life Network temmen li t-tfal għandhom id-dritt għall-ħajja u d-dritt li jgħixu f’saħħithom. Dan tikkonfermah il-Konvenzjoni dwar id-Drittijiet tat-Tfal, li Malta iffirmat u irratifikat. L-emendi fir-rigward tal-iffriżar tal-embrijuni jiksru dawn iż-żewġ drittijiet għas-sempliċi raġuni li l-iffriżar jqiegħed ilħajja tat-tarbija f’periklu ċar.

Id-dmir tal-Kummissarju għat-Tfal huwa li tagħmel ħilitha biex tassigura li kull miżura legali jew amministrattiva proposta mill-istat ma tmurx kontra d-drittijiet tat-tfal. Iżda f’dan il-każ, il-Kummissarju abdikat dmirijietha meta wriet li hija taqbel mal-Abbozz.

Huwa barra mill-kompetenza tal-Kummissarju għat-Tfal li tiġġudika jekk l-iffriżar tal-embrijuni jġibx aktar suċċess jew le fil-fertilizzazzjoni in vitro. Il-Kummissarju għandha tillimita ruħha għall-protezzjoni tat-tfal u għandha tara jekk id-drittijiet tat-tfal, partikolarment id-dritt tal-ħajja, humiex protetti mill-Abbozz.

Fir-rigward tal-iffriżar, Il-Fondazzjoni Life Network tosserva li l-liġi preżenti tissalvagwardja d-drittijiet tattfal billi tassigura li l-iffriżar isir biss f’każijiet eċċezzjonali meta verament ma jkun fadal ebda mod ieħor kif iżżomm lill-embrijun milli jmut. Għall-kuntrarju, l-Abbozz li taqbel miegħu l-Kummissarju jaddotta liffriżar bħala għażla. Għalhekk, huwa muri ċar li l-Abbozz jikser id-dritt għall-ħajja u li l-Kummissarju qed tonqos mid-dmir tagħha.

ii. Il-Jedd għall-identità

Il-Kummissarju ghat-Tfal hija assolutament żbaljata meta tgħid li l-Abbozz jagħti d-dritt lit-tfal imwielda mid-donazzjoni anonima li jkunu jafu l-identità tal-ġenituri biologiċi tagħhom. Għall-kuntrarju, l-Abbozz ma jagħtix lit-tfal id-dritt li jkunu jafu l-identità tal-ġenituri bioloġiċi tagħhom. L-Abbozz jagħti biss id-dritt lit-tfal li jingħataw informazzjoni medika anonima dwar id-donatur.

Teżisti  ukoll il-possibilità li jekk raġel jagħti donazzjoni tal-isperma darba biss li minnha jitwieldu xi tfal u xi darba fil-futur, ikollu t-tfal tieghu fiż-żwieġ, dawn ser ikunu half-brothers jew half-sisters mingħajr ma jindunaw.

Għalhekk, l-Abbozz b’ebda mod ma jassigura d-dritt tat-tfal li jkunu jafu min huma l-ġenituri tagħhom u min huma ħuthom.

Possibbli li l-Kummissarju għat-Tfal taqbel li b għażla t-tfal ma jkunux jafu l-identità tal-ġenituri tagħhom? Jew li jitwieldu tfal li l-ġenitur taghhom ikun miet qabel ġew konċeputi?

iii. Il-jedd għal trobbija b’għożża f’ambjent stabbli u sigur

Il-Fondazzjoni Life Network tosserva li l-Kummissarju għat-Tfal, għal darb’oħra tonqos li tindirizza dan ilpunt mill-perspettiva tad-drittijiet tat-tfal, kif inhu dmirha.

L-Abbozz ibiddel it-tifsira ta’ ġenitur prospettiv u filwaqt li t-tifsira kurrenti hija dik ta’ raġel u mara miżżewġin jew f’relazzjoni stabbli, l-Abbozz ineħħi kull referenza għal stabilità u saħansitra jipproponi single parenting.

Jidher għalhekk li filwaqt li fis-soċjetà tagħna, is-single parents huma ġustament meqjusa bħala każijiet soċjali li għandhom bzonn għajnuna speċjalizzata, il-liġi ser tibda tinkoraġixxi s-single parenting, jiġifieri single mother u unknown father bħala ta ġid ghall-ulied.

Fir-rigward tal-adozzjoni, Il-Fondazzjoni Life Network tosserva li l-Kummissarju missha taf tajjeb li normalment, il-proċess tal-adozzjoni jsir taħt il-gwida tal-Qorti tal-Familja, jiġifieri li imħallef tarRepubblika ta’ Malta jrid jagħti l-awtorizzazzjoni sabiex issir l-adozzjoni. Għalhekk, kif jista’ l-Abbozz jassigura l-jedd ta’ trobbija b’għożża f’ambjent stabbli u sigur meta l-Abbozz ma jagħmel ebda referenza għall-proċess ta’ vetting li normalment jgħaddu minnu nies li jkunu ser jaddottaw?

Il-Fondazzjoni Life Network tistaqsi kif jista’ jkun li l-Kummissarju għat-Tfal naqset li tinnota nuqqas daqshekk gravi fl-Abbozz.

Fir-rigward għar-referenza tal-Kummissarju dwar it-twessigħ tat-tifsira tal-familja u t-tibdil soċjali relattiv, tajjeb li l-Kummissarju tkun infurmata li  f diversi pajjiżi fejn huwa permess is-same sex marriage is-surrogacy (la altruistiku u lanqas kummerċjali) mhux permess, fosthom il-Finlandja, il-Ġermanja u lIżlanda (Iceland). Dan ifisser li l-argument tal-Kummissarju li t-twessiegħ għandu jkun awtomatiku ma jreġix.

Konklużjoni

F’Ottubru 2015, l-Uffiċċju tal-Kummissarju għat-Tfal kien ħareġ position paper dwar l-iffriżar tal-embrijuni, id-donazzjoni tal-gameti u s-surrogacy. Il-konklużjonijiet ta’ dan id-dokument kienu l-kuntrarju ta listqarrija tal-Kummissarju llum. Fil-fehma tal-Kummissarju sedenti fl-2015, dawn il-proposti kienu meqjusa li jiksru d-drittijiet tat-tfal. Wieħed jistaqsi x’seta’ nbidel biex il-Kummissarju tal-lum tikkunsidra dawn il-proposti bħala tajbin?

Kull fejn hemm it-tfal, il-liġijiet u l-qrati Maltin dejjem jisħqu fuq l-importanza li wieħed iħares l-aħjar interess tat-tfal. Id-dmir tal-Kummissarju għat-Tfal huwa li tara li d-drittijiet tat-tfal ikunu mħarsa mill-konċepiment ‘il quddiem. Dan huwa stipulat fil-liġi li tistabbilixxi l-Uffiċċju tal-Kummissarju għat-Tfal stess.

L-Appell taghna lill-Kummissarju huwa li tkun lejali ghal dan l-istess ufficcju .

 

Dr Miriam Sciberras BChD (Hons) MA Bioethics

Chairman Life Network Foundation Malta

www.staging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co

Contact 00356 9944 6174

 

As a child I was fascinated with caterpillars. I would collect them and carefully place them in a small patch in the garden, which my uncle had planted with lettuce and cabbage so that these caterpillars would grow on it and I would be able to see how they changed into pupae and eventually into butterflies or moths. 

Later on, basic science showed me that caterpillars are the larval stage of the order comprising moths and butterflies and that the metamorphosis from caterpillar to pupa to butterfly involves the same creature. Science has no doubt that the caterpillar and the butterfly are in fact one and the same creature.

Likewise, the human embryo develops into a foetus, into an infant, a child and an adult while remaining one and the same human being.

 Thus the embryo is human from the moment of conception. His or her identity as human is entirely separate from his/her stage of development. He or she is not a potential human being but a human being with potential.

As such human embryos are not a bunch of cells but are human life – and these embryos have a right to live, and a right to be defended and protected.

I am irked when I hear people, including politicians, journalists and people in the street, speak of “l-embrijuni żejda”. Żejda can be translated as surplus, spare, leftover or even unwanted.

How can we speak of human life in such a way, especially if we attach this argument to the one of equality?

The discrimination is not only a linguistic one. For instance, are we not discriminating between the embryos when we are treating some of them as spare, just in case the first implantation is not successful? Are we not discriminating between embryos when we know that the thawing process results in the death of one in three of them?

Are we not discriminating between embryos when we are choosing to implant some in their own mother’s womb and freeze the others? Are we not discriminating between the embryos when one or more of them is raised by his/her natural parents while the others are given for adoption? Are we not discriminating when we are deliberately separating siblings from one another?

I can understand the position of those couples who yearn to be parents. I even empathise with them because I too yearned to be a mother and to have a family. I understand that IVF may be the only solution in some cases. In fact I was in favour of the original Embryo Protection Act because it was meant to regulate the process of IVF and to protect both the couple and the embryos.

I am aware that this act foresees the freezing of embryos in the very rare circumstances when, for instance, the mother has an accident or is ill, during the incubation period. Nevertheless, I cannot agree to the proposed amendment to this Act.

What I cannot agree with or accept is the deliberate creation of additional embryos, the deliberate discriminating process of choosing who to be implanted in the mother’s womb and who to freeze, the deliberate adoption of some of these embryos and the deliberate separation of siblings.

Admittedly there are couples whose only hope in having a child is IVF. The process of harvesting eggs from a woman is a long and painful one. The first, or even subsequent cycles of IVF, may not be successful.

Yet science offers the very good alternative of oocyte vitrification, that is, the vitrification of the unfertilised eggs. These eggs, unlike the embryo, are indeed a bunch of cells. Thus the process of oocyte vitrification does not pose any ethical dilemmas and scientifically yields the same, if not better, success rates.

So my question is why are we resorting to embryo freezing when there is another, ethically acceptable solution?

My contribution here is certainly not linked to any political opinion or position. It is my position as a free person who has no political allegiances and whose purpose is to defend and protect human life.

It is for this reason that I call on legislators of goodwill, on men and women whose purpose is the well-being of society.

I call on them to stop this amendment and seek better ways and means to assist couples in having a child.

Carmen Zammit is a theology graduate.

The proposed amendments to the Embryo Protection Act have been described as “a complete travesty of ethics, morality, and human dignity, allegedly to remove ‘discrimination’ imposed by nature herself”. The discussion on Xarabank further illustrated how media manipulation can obscure what the proposed amendments mean to the man in the street.

This law is not about looking out for ways in which the rare cases present and can be helped within the limits of the law, but about using these people and hiding the true objective of the Bill.

We all feel for and agree that patients suffering from infertility need help and that we are obliged to have the best practice ethical medical support possible available. Furthermore this should be free of charge. At present the couples still have to foot bills for medicines they may not afford.

It is well established by science and endorsed in our law that the human embryo must be protected from conception. We must heed the cries of the infertile couple but must also have the best interests of the children born from IVF at heart.

The human embryo is one of us. We were all embryos, small voiceless and vulnerable. It is a stage in our human life, as is the preborn, infant child, adult and elderly. The present law endorses and protects the embryo and only considers freezing when it is the only way to save an embryo’s life in extreme cases.

The new law will offer freezing as an option not an exception. The freezing of embryos constitutes an offence to human life, suspending this life and subjecting it to the dangers of thawing. Many embryos remain frozen, unclaimed and end up losing their lives in all freezing facilities worldwide.

This law is about “giving children to all who want a child”. They can be single men, women or in relationships. It is not discrimination that prevents same-sex couples from having a child but Mother Nature. It is not discrimination that prevents a single man or a single woman from conceiving without a partner but nature.

Children need a biological mother and a biological father to be conceived.

Knowing our identity and family bonds is essential to our well-being. We have all seen TV shows of adopted children who love their adoptive parents but who go on a quest to find their biological parents. We have seen the reunions and been emotionally touched by this.

This Bill proposes the opposite. It proposes creating a generation of children to purposely have an unknown father or unknown mother by anonymous donor conception. It deprives them of having any means to know if they have brothers or sisters.

The voices of the children born from these techniques, now adults must be heard. They too speak of the pain in being abandoned by their biological parents in the quest to have a child. Conveniently, these adults were dismissed as “the exceptions” by gynaecologist Mark Sant, who only uses the exception when it suits his arguments.

This extract is from an e-mail from Olivia Pratten who eloquently says:

“As someone conceived from paid anonymous gamete donation, I am outraged to read that Malta is considering allowing the practice. I advocated ending the practice in Canada for many, many years. I presented at both the House and Senate Committees of Health in Canada in multiple testimonies given between 2001 and 2004, and also in court and publicly from 2008 to 2012 – arguing successfully at the BC Supreme Court to end anonymity.

“I know this issue inside and out (and have lived it) and it is shocking that Malta would consider allowing anonymity when so many other jurisdictions have ended it (UK, Sweden, Australia, etc). It is absolutely not in the best interests of the resulting children to allow it.

“I spent 30 years of my life having no idea which one of the thousands of strangers I walked by every single day was my biological father. It was awful. Yes, I had a dad and a great family, but that didn’t change or replace the fact that my biological father was a complete unknown and I was created to be disconnected from him and my paternal family.”

The amendments proposed allow us to create children from men or women who are already dead but had donated sperm or ova creating orphans at birth.

They do not provide safeguards against brothers and sisters who will be attracted to each other and not know they are related. The law proposes to solve this by allowing one donation but this does not mean that whoever donated will not have his or her biological children as well.

The proposed amendments are a travesty of justice in presenting concepts like unknown father and unknown mother as beneficial to society. We cannot allow this to happen.

Members of Parliament endorsing this carry a heavy responsibility. They are accountable to the pain that will be inflicted on a new generation.

My appeal is to join the movement for life to show our dissent.

Our children deserve better. #embrijunWiehedMinna

Miriam Sciberras is chairman, Life Network Foundation Malta.

In his article of embryo freezing (January 27), Martin Scicluna chose to confuse the debate by dragging in partisan politics and religion. Half his article focused on the disparate views different religions have on ensoulment and at what stage of one’s existence one acquires a soul. This is just a red herring and totally irrelevant to whether an embryo is a human life entitled to be defended.

He complains that we are subject to Catholic morality and drags in the issue of paedophilia to insidiously suggest that evil behaviour by certain members of the Church therefore disqualify its participation in any debate on ethics and morality.

To discredit pro-life movements, he attributes to them arguments they do not hold and then dismisses them as the fruit of sentiment and presumably of superstition.

Scicluna should realise that the Embryo Protection Act was the fruit of months of intense debate and study at every level and that included legal, medical, political and ethical considerations. In short, it was exhaustively reasoned out after considerable and rational consultation.

The success rate of IVF governed under this protocol has proved satisfactory and equivalent, if not better, than IVF that used embryo freezing. As a regular columnist, Scicluna might take the trouble to read the report published recently by a team of hiaghly-qualified experts in various fields who defended the Embryo Protection Act by concluding that changes are not reasonable nor necessary.

If this sounds like mumbo jumbo, or some form of coercion by a domineering Church, he is either uninformed, unfair or has ulterior motives to play up to the whims and vested interests from certain quarters.

Scicluna should know that in the so-called progressive Western world, money talks and reproductive technology is highly lucrative, consumer driven and market based, and that children are increasingly being regarded as commodities.

Unlike Scicluna, pro-life NGOs do not favour an attitude which will have a long-term negative impact on how we value life.

When pro-life groups draw the public attention to the intrinsic worth and human dignity of embryos and to the grave risks of devaluing life once they are not given the safeguards they deserve, the public is not being misguided. An embryo is not an ovum, nor a spermatozoon nor any kind of living cell.

The great endocrinologist and research scientist, George W. Corner, described the creation of an embryo by the fertilization of an egg by the sperm as one of the greatest wonders of the world, describing it as a “spectacle that can be compared only with an eclipse of the sun, or the eruption of a volcano”.

Of the bands of the spectrum of our life, the embryonic stage is the most momentous and dramatic, yet is overlooked because it occurs at a microscopic level. To place an embryo on the same level as other human cells is the fruit of crass ignorance or a deliberate attempt to misinform the public.

Every stage of the development of a human being is of profound significance, be it at the earliest and most critical stage of embryonic life or that of an elderly person with failing health.

Peddling the argument of personhood is a cheap attempt to deny the rights of the embryo.

One’s freedom ends when other’s rights are placed at risk. The weak and the vulnerable deserve more robust legal protection because they cannot defend themselves. To legislate laws to undermine this reasoned principle is patently unjust.

One does not need to be religious to reason things out. And the truth is not determined by the number of people who uphold it. The inviolability of our human dignity ought to be a non-negotiable pillar of ethical regulations.

Such a core value should not be surrendered to the mood of majority decisions.

History has shown us where such flawed reasoning has led us. Abortion is one of the fruits of such thinking and has resulted in the decimation of Western society.

One hopes that as a truly secular society we will not confuse issues by dragging in caricatured portrayals of religious belief and instead stick to sound rational arguments.