During the General Assembly held on the 19th of October 2016 at the European Parliament, Life Network Foundation Malta was accepted as a member of the One of Us European Federation. Life Network was represented by Mrs Grace Attard.
Further details about the General Assembly can be found at http://www.oneofus.eu/one-of-us-general-assembly-defending-family-is-the-best-way-to-defend-life/#prettyPhoto
“Most MAPs are abortifacient in effect” says Life Network Foundation Malta
Superintendent of Public Health may become answerable at law
Life Network Foundation Malta refers to the ongoing discussion on the MAP, and the frequently misleading, as well as biased, information put about on local media, and observes that the most recent developments appear to have totally bypassed Malta’s laws, both on abortion and on the Embryo Protection Act.
The Malta Medicines Act (CAP 458) stipulates that the role of the Medicines Authority is only to give recommendations. It is the function of the Licensing Authority, a role taken up by the Superintendent of Public Health, to issue Marketing Authorisations for medicinal products intended for the Maltese market. Unless the Licencing Authority formally delegates this responsibility to the Medicines Authority, the function of the latter is limited to nothing more than making recommendations to the Licensing Authority.
The superintendent of Public Health, as representative of the Licensing Authority (or even of the CEO of the Medicines Authority in the event of such powers being formally delegated to him by the same Licensing Authority) subsequently assumes responsibility for ensuring that Marketing Authorisations (licenses) for medicinal products intended for the Maltese market comply fully with national legislation.
Therefore, abortion being illegal in Malta, if a license is issued for a MAP in the face of scientific evidence demonstrating its abortifacient properties, the issuing authority – in this case the Superintendent of Public Health – may also become answerable at law.
Life Network Foundation Malta notes that the recommendations presented by Parliament through the Joint Health, Social Affairs and Family Affairs committee regarding the licensing of the morning after pill in Malta, have acknowledged not only that different types of MAP have different modes of action but that there are those that operate by the prevention of implantation of the embryo, thus achieving their goal by an abortifacient process.
Furthermore, there is clear and objective scientific evidence, presented to the conjoint Parliamentary committee, that most MAPs are abortifacient in effect.
Notwithstanding this, the individual authorities responsible for recommendations or deciding whether, or not, to introduce this product into Malta have seemingly chosen to ignore these facts and to recommend in favour of its importation nonetheless.
Life Network, however, has no reason to doubt the overwhelming volume of evidence that points towards the abortifacient properties of MAPs and reaffirms its commitment to the defence of life from conception to natural death. The circumstances of conception are many and varied but the right to live is a value inherent to us all.
Dr Miriam Sciberras
Chairperson
Life Network Foundation Malta
“Il-maggoranza tal-MAPs huma fil-fatt abortivi” tghid il-Life Network Foundation
Is–Supretendent tas-Sahha Pubblika jista’ jkun responsabbli quddiem il-Ligi
Life Network Foundation tirreferi ghad-diskussjoni li bhalissa ghadha ghaddejja dwar il-MAP, u l-informazzjoni zbilancjata ghal mod kif hi l-boghod mill-verita’ li qieghda tidher fuq il-Media lokali. Life Network tikkundanna l-fatt li l-ahhar zviluppi qed jindikaw li l-Ligijiet ta’ Malta qed ikunu ghalkollox injorati sew fejn jidhol id-delitt ta’ l-abort, kif ukoll fejn jidhol l-Att dwar il-Protezzjoni tal-Embrijun (Embryo Protection Act)
L-Att dwar il-Medicini (KAP458) jistipula li r-rwol tal-Awtorita’ tal-Medicini hu wiehed biss–dak li jaghmel rakkomandazzjonijiet. Hija l-funzjoni ta’ l-Awtorita’ dwar il-Licenzjar, rwol li jaqa’ taht is-Supretendent tas-Sahha Pubblika, li tohrog awtorizzazzjonijiet ta’ tqeghid fis-suq (licenzji) ghall-prodotti medicinali biex jidhlu fis-suq Malti. Sakemm l-Awtorita’ dwar il-Licenzji ma tiddelegax formalment skond regoli stabbiliti mill-Awtorita’ dwar il-Licenzjar lill-Awtorita’ dwar il-Medicini, l-uniku rwol ta’ l-Awtorita’ dwar il-Medicini hu biss limitat ghal xejn aktar hlief li taghmel rakkomandazzjonijiet lill-Awtorita’ tal-Licenzjar. Is-Supretendent tas-Sahha Pubblika, bhala rapprezentant tal-Awtorita’ghal-Licenzjar (jew Ufficjal Ezekuttiv Ewlieni fil-kaz li dawn il-poteri jigu delegati lilu mill-Awtorita’ dwar il-Licenzjar), taqa’ fuqu r-responsabbilta’ biex jizgura li l-licenzja ta’ prodotti medicinali mahsuba ghas-suq Malti huma konformi mal-Ligi Maltija.
Konsegwentement, la darba l-abort hu illegali f’Malta, jekk tohrog licenzja ghall-MAP meta hemm evidenza xjentifika cara u oggettiva li turi li l-MAP ghandha elementi li jikkawzaw abort(abortifacient), l-Awtorita’ li tohrog din il-licenzja – f’dal-kaz is-Supretendent tas-Sahha Pubblika, jista’ wkoll ikun responsabbli quddiem il-Ligi.
Life Network Foundation Malta tinnota r-rakkomandazzjonijiet li gew ipprezentati fil-Parlament mill-Joint Health, Social Affairs and Family Affairs Committee (Kumitat Parlamentari Konjunt) rigward il-possibilita ta’ licenzjar tal-MAP f’Malta, li jirrikonoxxu mhux biss il-fatt li hemm tipi differenti ta’ morning after pills li ghandhom modi differenti ta’ kif jahdmu, imma wkoll li minn dawn it-tipi hemm minnhom li joperaw billi ma jhallux l-embrijun jaqbad mal-guf tal-mara, li allura ikunu wasslu biex jikkawzaw l-abort (prevention of implantation).
Fuq kollox tezisti evidenza cara u oggettiva li giet ipprezentata lill-Kumitat Parlamentari Kongunt li fil-fatt li fil-maggoranza taghhom l-MAPs jikkawzaw l-abort (abortifacient). Madanakollu l-awtoritajiet koncernati biex jaghmlu r-rakkomandazzjonijiet jew biex jiehdu decizjoni jekk ghandiex tidhol fis-suq Malti, jidher li qed jinjoraw ghalkollox dawn il-fatti u minflok qed jirrakomandaw favur li jigu mpurtati dawn il-pilloli
Life Network Foundation m’ghandha l-ebda raguni ghalfejn tiddubita’ mill-evidenza massiva li turi bic-car li dawn il-pilloli ghandhom elementi abortivi u terga’ tikkonferma l-impenn taghha li tiddefendi l-hajja mill-koncepiment sal-mewt naturali. Ic-cirkostanzi ta’ koncepiment huma hafna u jistghu ivarjaw minn wiehed ghall-iehor izda d-dritt ghall-hajja huwa valur intrinsiku ghal kull wiehed u wahda minna.
Dr Miriam Sciberras
Chairperson
Life Network Foundation Malta
A new song and accompanying video has been launched in Ireland with the aim of drawing attention to women who are suffering from regret and sadness after abortion.
“Every Time” was written by Roger Berkeley and produced in association with the abortion recovery group Women Hurt. The accompanying video tells the story of a young woman who is left to deal with an unplanned pregnancy after her boyfriend tells her he wants nothing to do with the situation.
As “independent healthcare professionals”, pharmacists had every right to refuse to sell the morning-after pill if it went against their moral beliefs, Malta Chamber of Pharmacists president Mary Ann Sant Fournier said yesterday.
Ms Sant Fournier’s comments came in the wake of a decision by the Medicines Authority that the contraceptive could be sold over the counter.
“One must emphasise the status that pharmacists enjoy as independent healthcare professionals and their right to conscientious objection should be upheld at all times,” Ms Sant Fournier said when contacted.
Medicines Authority chief Anthony Serracino Inglott told the Times of Malta on Monday that, while taking into consideration the recommendations of the joint parliamentary committee set up to discuss the introduction of the MAP, those wanting to obtain the pill would not need a prescription.
Instead, they could ask for it at a pharmacy, a move which was crucial to ensure that the contraceptive’s efficacy was not compromised, he said.
Ms Sant Fournier said that the authority’s decision to classify the MAP as a non-prescription, pharmacist ‘moderated’ medicine was in line with the situation in the majority of EU member states.
“This decision attests to the standing of community pharmacists in Malta as highly-trained healthcare professionals, long dedicated to delivering excellent patient-centred care and their optimal attention to clients,” Ms Sant Fournier said, rejecting claims that pharmacists did not have the necessary skills to dispense the MAP.
The joint parliamentary committee had come to the conclusion that the MAP should only be given against a prescription following a suggestion by the Medical Council, which had insisted it should be doctors who decided whether or not to prescribe the pill.
“Pharmacists will be the first port of call for those seeking emergency contraception and, like their international counterparts, shall choose to dispense or otherwise according to a previously established protocol.
“This will ensure optimal, safe use of the emergency contraceptive while informing on its correct use,” Ms Sant Fournier said.
In the coming weeks, she said, the chamber would be organising an event to propose “a specific protocol for the dispensing of emergency contraception”.
According to Prof. Serracino Inglott, the Medicines Authority will also be supplying pharmacists with a set of guidelines.
The decision to make the contraceptive available over the counter came just a day after some 300 people protested in Valletta over the parliamentary committee’s recommendation for the morning-after pill to be sold against a prescription.
The debate on whether the morning-after pill should be made available made headlines earlier this year when the Women’s Rights Foundation filed a judicial protest against the State calling for MAP to be licensed.
Compassion and Choice DENIED explores the effects efforts to legalize physician assisted suicide have on those who are living with terminal illness but who do not want “aid in dying.” The film features Stephanie, a wife and mother living with a terminal diagnosis. She has experienced first-hand the dangerous effects of California’s recent legalization of physician assisted suicide.
As she deals with insurance denials of treatment her doctor ordered and changes in the tone of conversations in various support groups, her story highlights the ways in which the difficulty of living with a terminal diagnosis is compounded by the growing cultural acceptance of the notion of assisted suicide. This negatively changes the ways in which people with terminal illnesses are thought of, and the ways in which they think about themselves.
But hers is also a story of hope. Her hope is that if we can change our way of thinking about the process of dying and those who are dying, we will be able to provide the resources people truly need to be supported and well cared for at the end of their lives.
Jennifer Lahl, Founder and President of the Center for Bioethics and Culture—and writer/director of this and the other films listed above—says, “Stephanie’s story calls us to a higher and more dignified understanding of the role of suffering in our lives. She challenges us to see the many unexpected benefits of living while battling a terminal illness and the value of life and one more day.”
Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Program in Medical Ethics at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine says of the film: “Stephanie is courageously living out her last days with a terminal illness and showing us that every day is a gift. Her experiences clearly unmask the lie that doctor assisted suicide enhances patients’ autonomy and choice—clearly demonstrating that it is a form of abandonment rather than an act of compassion. Watch this film to understand the real forces behind doctor assisted suicide, and why we need to oppose it.”
Dr Sciberras,
Thank you for your email and for sharing your concern with me.
First of all I would like to invite you to see the whole interview
which has now been published and in which my comments were very
clear. My comment was that if this pill is being approved by the
Parliamentary Committee then it seems illogical to me that a doctor
prescription is required.
To answer your questions, yes I have gone through scientific
literature, particularly also what the World Health Organisation
says on the matter (pg2):
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70210/1/WHO_RHR_HRP_10.06_eng.pdf
To avoid any misunderstanding and to avoid a situation where anyone
would twist my arguments, may I emphasise that I feel strongly about
abortion, have always voiced this and have always voted against any
clauses on abortion at European Legislative level in my capacity as
a Member of the European Parliament.
I would not ask anyone what “authority they have” to speak out on
different matters. We live in an open democratic society where yes,
people do express their opinions. I trust people to inform
themselves, and take the best decisions for their own wellbeing.
Kind regards,
Miriam
There is no way any magistrate, judge or group of judges in any court of law in Malta can disregard the right to life and good health of unborn children in Malta, at whatever stage of their gestation in the womb, when their life and health are threatened. This right is enshrined in eight Maltese laws.
This irrespective of how much two groups of women shout, selfishly and irresponsibly, only for the “rights of women to be protected”, whatever these rights may be, when there is human conception in a woman’s womb, even before, in vitro.
In this they are aided and abetted by the Civil Liberties Minister, herself a woman.
This despite the fact that the minister declared at the United Nations in Geneva in December 2013 that the Malta government is against abortion. Such a stance by these women shows an utter and callous disregard to the dignity of womanhood and the dignity of motherhood.
If, and when, these women take their claims to court, the Commissioner for Children should be the first to challenge their stand. It is her duty to do so as obliged by law.
It is also the duty of the Minister of the Family and of Aġenzija Appoġġ’s CEO to protect unborn children from any harm, and death. They are already protecting born children from neglect, abuse of any kind, and abduction out of Malta.
In the eyes of Maltese laws, the life of a child does not begin at birth. It begins at conception.
The protocol on abortion signed by the prime minister in 2004, when Malta joined the European Union, provides the legal certainty that EU law, present and future, cannot change Maltese law on abortion.
Our law courts cannot be turned into theatres of destruction and death, with magistrates and judges as main actors. I am sure these learned people do not want this to happen.
Euthanasia is an extremely difficult subject to write about mainly because it entails expressing oneself on something that is so very personal, emotional and distressing to a person who is terminally ill and suffering continuously from severe pain. Those around him or her, mostly the near family and friends, are also caught in the tragic drama.
For a detached person it is easy to be dogmatic and judgemental even quoting learned sources to argue for or against the practice. For those directly involved, however, it is a deep and harrowing experience that could be lasting; others are mere uninvited intruders.
The legalising of euthanasia is now attracting interest and gaining supporters around the world. It has, so far, been introduced in at least six important and highly civilised countries, namely The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Colombia, Luxembourg and Canada. Given this situation, it needs to be discussed dispassionately and intelligently.
In Malta, the debate is also slowly gaining ground. Although politicians on all sides have so far failed to declare their firm positions on the subject, it can happen (based on recent experiences on other equally divisive issues) that after the next elections the matter would suddenly flare up and a decision taken on behalf of a bewildered and unprepared public on half-baked assumptions. This ought to be avoided at all costs since the subject is too serious and complicated to be decided in such cavalier manner.
Once euthanasia becomes accepted in society its ramifications are unknown and without limit
In the Book of Job (Job: 2:9-10) his wife entreats him as she sees him suffering from the ailments that have long assailed him: “Curse God and die!”
He turns towards her and after calling her “foolish woman”, he tells her most emphatically: “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” To the Christian (and those in many other religions) euthanasia, under whatever form and guise, is equated with intentional killing that is contradictory to God’s will.
God is the giver of life and one would be simply usurping that authority were one to take life in one’s own hands.
On one side of the debate there is the story of men of great eminence who have undergone the traumatic journey of extreme pain and who changed their opinion in the face of such physical and internal turbulence. Two well-known public figures are recent examples – Lord Rix in the UK and Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, both highly well-suited to speak on the subject with great moral authority.
Brian Rix, Lord Rix, who died on August 20 of this year at the age of 92 was a comic actor of great talent renowned for his originality and versatility. His first child, Shelley, was born with Down Syndrome and this changed the direction of his life. He became an active campaigner for people with learning disabilities. He was knighted in 1986 and raised to the peerage in 1992 in recognition of his sterling work in this sphere.
Rix was also an active campaigner against euthanasia. In 2006, he voted in the House of Lords against a Bill on assisted dying as he claimed it might be misused in relation to people with learning disabilities who would not be mature and judicious enough to decide on such momentous matters. He was one of the most notable and vociferous opponents of the Bill both in the House and outside it.
In 2016, after months of relentless pain with terminal illness, he wrote to the Speaker of the House of Lords urging that the law on assisted dying be changed “as soon as possible to allow the many people who find themselves in the same situation as I am to slip away peacefully”.
The famous Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel laureate, while celebrating his 85th birthday at St George’s Cathedral, Cape Town, on October 7, said that he would like the option of “a dignified assisted death” when the time comes. He has been undergoing cancer treatment for years and has supported initiatives for assisted dying laws in the UK, US, South Africa and elsewhere. He claims that in refusing dying people the right to die with dignity “we fail to demonstrate the compassion that lies at the heart of Christian values”.
The greatest concern of those against euthanasia is that once euthanasia becomes accepted in society its ramifications are unknown and without limit. It could, for example, be used on vulnerable people where the value of their consent remains questionable. The recent news of the death of a child by lethal injection in Belgium is proof enough of where legalised euthanasia can lead.
In the debate on the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 in the Australian House of Representatives, Lindsay Tanner, an MP from Melbourne, encapsulated the primary concerns of those objecting to legalised euthanasia when he said:
“I am troubled by euthanasia because I think it is virtually impossible to draw safe boundaries, because I think it is virtually impossible to prevent abuses and mistakes and because I think it is virtually impossible to justify offering the option of assisted suicide to one category of people and deny it to others.”
Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20161014/opinion/Dispassionate-discussion.627910
