Disability activist, Mark Pickup was interviewed for the documentary The Euthanasia Deception that will be released in June.
Mark Pickup was diagnosed with MS at the age of 30. Mark explains that at the 2 – 3 year point, with MS, that his grief was so deep that he would have considered euthanasia. Mark is happy to be alive.
The Mark Pickup segment is a short promo video for The Euthanasia Deception a documentary that exposes what euthanasia laws can do to a country’s culture. Heart-wrenching testimonies along with medical, legal and expert analysis reveal the sad truth about euthanasia and assisted dying: all of us become vulnerable when life and death matters are handed over to lawmakers and doctors.
The question which is currently being debated in Malta is whether morning-after pills are legal or illegal. From a legal viewpoint, the answer to this question depends very much on the effects these pills procure: are they purely and simply contraceptive or are they both contraceptive and abortifacient at one and the same time? Depending on how the medical community answers this question, the legal reply follows.
If these pills prevent ovulation or fertilisation, then they are contraceptive: they are not illegal in terms of the Criminal Code, though moral consequences might ensue with regard to their dispensation and use. But if these pills interrupt life after conception by preventing implantation, then they are abortifacient. In the eyes of the Criminal Law, this is a totally different matter from contraception as it is outrightly prohibited.
This is because abortion is illegal in Malta in terms of the Criminal Code. In terms of the Embryo Protection Act, life begins from fertilisation. A thorough study of Maltese law reveals that its raison d’être is to protect life not to annihilate it. This is evidenced, for instance, from laws such as the Criminal Code, the Civil Code, the Domestic Violence Act and the Embryo Protection Act.
All these laws protect not only a human being who is alive and kicking but even a person who has been conceived though yet unborn. A pregnant woman is protected from domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act but even the unborn child she carries is so protected.
In terms of the Civil Code, the Civil Court may appoint a curator ad ventrem in those cases where the husband has died yet his wife is pregnant. The Civil Code protects the unborn child for s/he might be deprived of proprietary rights which might devolve upon him or her on the demise of his or her father.
The Embryo Protection Act is categorical in this respect when it defines an embryo as “the human organism that results from the fertilisation of a human egg cell by a human sperm cell”.
Maltese law therefore celebrates life not its taking away. It aims to protect the interests of vulnerable persons who cannot defend themselves, be they unborn children or children who are already born even, if need be, to the detriment of parents’ rights and women’s rights.
Because children – whether born or unborn – are vulnerable, innocent and defenceless, and the law places them in a special privileged position. The law considers the interests of born and unborn children to be paramount to such extent that children’s rights supersede and bring to naught those of their parents or guardians.
The same reasoning is adopted when the State, through a care order, takes over the care and custody of a child from the child’s own legal parents to ensure the child’s best interests and well-being by entrusting that child to the responsible minister.
The Criminal Code penalises the administration of any medicine which brings about the miscarriage of any woman with child. Any apothecary who administers the means whereby the miscarriage is procured is in breach of the criminal law. The consequence of this is that if a morning-after pill is abortifacient, then it is in breach of the Criminal Code.
Not only so, but if any such pill, including any pill which is already on the EU register of medicinal products for human use, might already be dispensed in Malta, causes abortion, then Malta is also in breach of European Union law irrespective of whether such a pill has been added to that register by another EU member state not being Malta.
For no other EU member state, not even the European Medicines Agency, may violate without consequences EU law. When allowing an abortifacient morning-after pill to be included in this register – which is perfectly legal to do so in other EU member states which have no qualms with abortion – to be dispensed in Malta, then it is the Maltese Medicines Authority which is in breach both of Maltese criminal law and EU law.
The fact that an abortifacient pill is on the register is no excuse to breach Maltese and EU law with total disregard to the rule of law. The Abortion Protocol to the EU Treaty of Accession, an EU law of higher standing than that regulating the European Medicines Agency and its register, clearly states that Maltese legislation prevails over the totality of EU law, including the register of medicinal products, with regard to the crime of abortion.
Prudence dictates that as a precautionary measure it is life, not death, that should have the upper hand and, unless it is proved scientifically that a morning-after pill is not abortifacient, then it should not be imported or administered in Malta unless Maltese law is progressively modernised to glorify death through the legalisation of abortion. Otherwise the rule of law would be honoured more by its breach than by its observance.
Both the European Commission and the European Medicines Agency are obliged by EU law to ensure that they comply therewith. Where this is not the case, they have to take the necessary action envisaged by the EU treaties to enforce EU law, whether they like it or not, for even European institutions are subject to the rule of law and are not above the law. On the other hand, it is clear that once the Maltese Medicines Authority appears to accept unquestioningly any medicine which happens to be listed on the EU register of medicinal products without going that extra mile to investigate any abortifacient effects it might have as it is mandated to do by Maltese and EU law, its credibility in ruling on the legality of a morning-after pill is seriously dented due to its lack of thoroughness, due diligence and objectivity when evaluating morning-after pills.
On the other hand, being after all more of a bioethical and bio-legal rather than a purely and simply pharmacological issue, the advice of the Bioethics Consultative Committee should be sought as it is this committee – not the Medicines Authority – which enjoys competence in bioethical matters. Unless and until the Bioethics Consultative Committee advises the government that a pill is not abortifacient, and the Attorney General concurs with such advice, no morning-after pill should be dispensed in Malta, even if it is on the EU register of medicinal products.
And this in homage to the general principle of law known as the precautionary principle which requires that no human life be taken unless it is ascertained with precision that this will not be the case.
Being a highly controversial issue and for transparency’s and accountability’s sake, the written advice of both the Bioethics Consultative Committee and the Attorney General should be published for public scrutiny and laid on the table of the House of Representatives.
Should this advice not be adhered to by government, the Minister of Health should publish a written justification why he has intentionally disregarded such advice followed up by a ministerial statement in the House of Representatives.
Kevin Aquilina is the Dean of the Faculty of Laws at the University of Malta.
Mr. Tony Mifsud making his presentation on MAP at the Joint Meeting of the Social Affairs Committee, the Health Committee and the Family Affairs Committee 27th July 2016.
The introduction of the morning-after pill in the Maltese pharmaceutical market is being presented as a pill similar to contraceptive pills already on the market and anti-campaigners are being told that they are creating a storm in a teacup. But this is only simplifying and misrepresenting the real issues in question.
MAP is being made to sound innocuous and promoted as the solution that will liberate women’s sexuality. Surely this is a seriously flawed argument: the right to freedom is not absolute and falls second if it hurts or abuses someone else.
I am more convinced into thinking that this ‘being liberal’ is becoming trendy and compelling us to behave like narcissistic teenagers, where appearing the coolest is what matters.
Why are we so quick to defend animal rights but easily falter in front of life at conception? Isn’t this a grave example of two weights and two measures? Or is it perhaps just simply a question of living in an age where defending animal rights has become more trendy than defending the embryo which by comparison is seen as passé and conservative?
Being invisible does not make it disposable. Shouldn’t we have arrived at an advanced conscious development of civilisation where values are not traded for mere superficialities?
Being liberal is becoming trendy and compelling us to behave like narcissistic teenagers, where appearing the coolest is what matters.
Another argument that is being used by the pro-MAP campaigners is that MAP is being introduced everywhere so why not Malta? How can this be a justification? How can this reasoning be seen superior to that of a teenager succumbing to peer pressure? I would like to think that the mature wise adult knows better. So rather than promoting further education and responsible adult sexual behaviour, Parliament is contemplating offering quick-fix solutions without a care for what is at stake, promoting reckless irresponsible attitudes and behaviours instead of adult responsible thinking and decision making.
Also, while definitions of the human embryo make it quite clear that “the development of a human begins with fertilisation, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote” (Sadler, 1995) the public is being made to believe that it prevents pregnancy and that life at conception is less valuable or ‘less human’ than other forms.
Firstly it is important to know that in some countries it is marketed in this way, because pregnancy in these countries is defined as starting with implantation, conveniently ignoring scientific fact that in a zygote contains all that is needed for human life to develop.
Secondly, MAP acts in a number of ways, many of which are not abortifacient, i.e. acting before fertilisation for example by suppressing ovulation. But, somehow what seems to be ignored is also the scientific fact that MAP acts also by preventing implantation of a fertilised egg.
As a research quoted by the Malta Chamber of pharmacists states: “Studies have shown that it is not scientifically possible to exclude that the MAP does not preclude implantation of a fertilised ovum in the endometrium” (Trussell et. Al. 2016). So why is science being ignored and a wrong deceptive idea being given to the public and for what reason?
Also, I ask why is MAP being presented as the solution for the women who fall victim to unplanned pregnancies, but very few are speaking about more life-giving and just options: such as adoption? So many couples who face infertility issues would love to adopt and find it so hard to find children in need of adoption.
Yes, a similar abortifacient contraceptive already exists in the market: the coil. But mature adults know that two wrongs do not make a right and what is legal is not always right.
Finally MAP is being presented as something that can only benefit a woman’s well-being and her sexual freedom and rights. This can’t be further from the truth.
WHO research describes routine post-coital contraception as “unsuitable primarily because of the high incidence of cycle disturbances”.
Also, the adverse side effects of MAP are well-documented and include significant weight gain (on average 15 pounds), depression, ovarian cyst enlargement, gallbladder disease, high blood pressure, respiratory disorders, increased risk of ectopic pregnancy and death.
In some women, these serious adverse effects of levonorgestrel-type MAP could lead to further health risks for bulimia, anorexia, or clinical depression.
The Research Population Institute says: “Clearly, over-the-counter distribution of MAP would occasion misuse and overdose… The total number of women damaged by MAP throughout the developing world is untallied.”
And it concludes: “No doubt, the greatest risk of MAP is loss of human life. Packaging for MAP omits clear warnings of the risks and abortion-inducing function of the chemical.”
I’d like to call on the good reason of the public and the authorities to think through and decide wisely about the decision to introduce MAP, which is so far less innocuous than some would like it to appear.
I encourage the choice to promote adult ethical reasoning and decision making taking into account the true complex matters at stake and acting justly and with true wisdom of theheart when deciding on such import-ant matters.
Mr Jean Pierre Fava making an excellent presentation on why MAP is abortifacient at the Joint Meeting of the Social Affairs Committee, the Health Committee and the Family Affairs Committee on the 27th July 2016.
Dr. Miriam Sciberras presents evidence showing MAP is Abortifacient at the Joint Meeting of the Social Affairs Committee, the Health Committee and the Family Affairs Committee on the 27th July 2016.
Prezentazzjoni minn Dr Miriam Sciberras, Chairman Life Network Foundation Malta quddiem il-Kumitat Konġunt tal-Familja/Socjali/Saħħa tal-Parlament Malti
Suggett: Diskussjoni dwar Il-Morning After Pill/Emergency Contraception wara domanda li saret sabiex jigu ntrodotti zewg pilloli, lenonogestrel (LNG) u ullipristal acetate (Ella One).
Dwar x’hiex qed nitkellmu?
Zewg tipi ta’ pilloli li jahdmu b’modi divers li l-ghan taghhom hu li ma jkunx hemm tqala meta mhux mistennija jew mixtieqa.
Punti mressqa sa issa ghad–diskussjoni
Id-Dritt tal- mara li tippjana u tikkontrolla u tispazja l-ulied fil-famlja taghha.
Access ghal dawn il-pilloli ghax hawn ohrajn li ghandhom effetti simili.
Kontracettivi jew abortivi ? – sa issa hadd sa issa ma rnexxielu jnehhi d-dubju b’mod xjentifiku’ li m’hemmx element abortiv.
L-effett fuq is-socjeta Maltija fit-totalita taghha – dan sa issa hadd ma tkellem dwaru u huwa punt importanti fid-diskussjoni.
Id-Drittt tal-Mara
Id-dritt tal-mara li tippjana hajjitha, li tispazja t-twelid tal-ulied etc ikkwotati anke mic-CEDAW.
L-argument legali li l-mara ghandha jkollha dritt assolut fuq is-sahha riproduttiva taghha huwa tajjeb sakemmm jibda u jispicca bil-persuna tal-mara biss.
Il-prezenza ta’ hajja gdida malli jkun hemm fertilizzazzjoni fit-tubi tal- mara tbiddel dan kollu ghaliex f’daqqa wahda nirrikonoxxu li qeghdin nitkellmu dwar kreatura gdida li jehtieg li trid tkun protetta mill- koncepiment, matul it-tqala, sa ma titwieled u wara.
Id-dritt assolut tal-mara fuq gisimha fil-pajjizi ta’ madwarna fisser li dawn ILLEGALIZZAW LABORT bis-slogan li ‘every child must be a wanted child.’ Tafu li dan is-slogan ghadu jintuza sa llum il-gurnata minn mindu harget bih Margaret Sanger u l-Planned Parenthood.Illum huwa slogan tal UN Population Fund (Ref http://www.unfpa.org/about-us)
L-argumenti civili li saru hawnhekk sa llum huma l-istess argumenti li saru f’pajjizi ohra meta gie ntrodott l-abort.
Ahna l-hemmhekk irridu mmorru?
Ma tirrikjedix xi ‘ligi drakonjana’ kif qal il Proff Serracino Inglott, izda ligi ohra li tafferma dak li diga’ ghandna bhala protezzjoni tal-hajja. Tkun sempliciment kontinwazzjoni tal-istand li dejjem hadet Malta favur il-hajja.
Il-fatt li hemm pilloli jew devices li b’ xi mod ghandhom effett sekondarju li jistghu jpoggu lhajja tal-embrijun uman fil-periklu mhux argument sufficjenti u san biex tintroduci pilloli ohra li l-effett primarju taghhom hu li jeliminaw il-possibilta’ ta’ tqala mhux ippjanata u li hemm evidenza xjentifika li huma ukoll primarjament abortivi.
Jekk nuzaw dan l-argument bhala skuza inkunu ftahna t-triq ghal abort.
Dan ghaliex l-abortion drug RU 486 hija mill-istess familja ta’ drugs tal-Ella One.
Imbaghad wara dan niggustifikaw l-abort ghaliex la bdejna n-nizla sfortunata issa nkompluha.
L-argument minn NCPE fis –Seduta ta’ nhar it-Tnejn 25 ta Lulju ,2016 kien ferm dizappuntanti:
Diga’ hawn pilloli b’effetti simili izda biex tiehu d-doza ekwivalenti tiswa’ l-flus u allura mhux accessibli ghal min ghandu problemi finanzjarji.
Tista ggibhom mil-internet jew issiefer, allura mhux sew ghal min m’ghandux din ilfakulta. Din hi xi forma ta’ ngustizzja kontra min hu fqir.
L–NCPE Chair Rene Laiviera tghid li l-istess organizzazjoni taghha li tiggieled kontra ddiskriminazzjoni ma tinkludix it-tarbija fil-guf jew mhux imwielda!!! Verament ugwaljanza falza!!!
Innotaw li qeghdin f’punt li nbiddlu kollox fejn tidhol protezzjoni tal-Hajja!
Nitlobkom toqghodu attenti ghaliex bid-decizjoni taghkom bhala rapprezentanti tal-poplu inthom qed iggorru responsabbilta’ kbira f’dan ir-rigward, meta tafu wkoll li sa llum l-abort hu reat kriminali, inkluz il-komplicita’ fih.
Access ghal dawn il-pilloli ghax hawn ohrajn li ghandhom effetti simili.
X’ pilloli qeghdin insemmu?
Huwa minnu li ghandna pilloli fis-suq li bhalissa jista’ jkollhom l-istess effett abortivi izda lpunt krucjali hu li dawn mhux importati bl-iskop li jintuzaw hekk, u lanqas bhala morning after pill. . Ghalhekk, l-argument taghkom hu fuq l-abbuz ta’ dawn il-pilloli li johloq l-istess effett.
Ghaliex il-MAPs mhux fis–suq Malti?
Ghaliex ghandna l-Kodici Kriminali li jipprotegi l-hajja mill-koncepiment u dawn ghandhom jew jista’ jkollhom effett li hu primarjament abortiv.
Nisraqsu, L-Avukat Generali qieghed jara l-aspett xjentifiku u qieghed jivverifika jekk il-MAP hijiex abortiva u allura li tmur kontra l-ligijiet tal-pajjiz?
Kien hawn hafna kelliema li lkoll poggew papers dwar dawn il-pilloli u li tkellmu dwar diversi punti li ahna ukoll irricerkajna.
Ahna ukoll ghamilna ir-ricerka taghna, izda mhux biss. Bhala grupp ta’ professjonisti u nies ohra li nghozzu l-hajja u d-dritt tal-hajja f’kull stadju taghha, ahna niehdu kull theddid ghal hajja umana bis-serjeta. Filwaqt li rrikorrejna lejn specjalisti lokali li hafna minnhom hassewhom li ma kienux konfidenti jinterpretaw ir-ricerka varja li tezisti, ahna rrikorrejna ghal esperti u ginekologi u ricerkaturi li diga’ ghaddew minn din l-esperjenza f’ pajjizi ohra u li ta’ kuljum jiggieldu dawn il-gliediet f’pajjizhom fejn l-abort huwa diga’ legalizzat.
Fl-Istati Uniti hemm l-ACOG ( American College of Gynaecologists) li biddlet id-definizzjoni ta’ pregnancy fin-1965 u hemm il- AAPLOG – (American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists). Dawn qatt ma accettaw it-tibdil tad-definizzjoni ghaliex jirrifjutaw li jinjoraw l-ewwel gimghatejn tal-hajja umana.
Hafna mid-dokumenti li ser inpoggi huma dawk suggeriti minnhom. Huma janalizzaw kull studju li jsir, jaraw il-bias li jkun hemm u jesponuh. Hemm hafna studies impoggija li huma IN VITRO u mhux in VIVO.Dawn huma limitati hafna ghaliex ma jkunu qatt rapprezentattivi ta’ xi jkun qed jigri fil-gisem tal-bniedem fit-totalita’ tieghu.
Kontracettivi jew abortivi – hadd sa issa ma rnexxielu jnehhi d-dubju li m’hemmx element abortiv.
See power point presentation
Scientific papers endorsed by American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
Conclusion
What is at stake?
At stake is the denial of the first 2 Weeks of embryonic life.
This means leaving a window open to the trafficking, disposal, selection, donation and freezing of embryonic human beings at will, and embarking on the road to abortion. This means altering the stand that Malta always had in providing a safe haven for the unborn from conception.
Il-Ktieb tas-sewqan,The Highway Code, jistipola ‘when in doubt stop’.
Il-Precautionary principle jghidlek li fejn ma hemmx certezza ghandek tuza l prudenza.
Certezza ma hawnx!!! Dubju hawn kemm trid.
Jiena f’ isem il Fondazzjoni Life Network u ohrajn favur il Hajja inkluz il-Gift of Life inhallikom b’zewg kwotazzjonijiet u suggeriment.
Il Hippocratic Oath – First do no harm.
Nappella ghal prudenza f’din id-decizjoni. Il-pajjizi kollha tal-Ewropa, u anke pajjizi ohra, ghajnejhom fuq Malta ghax ahna biss bqajna sodi niddefendu l-hajja sa mill-bidu nett.
Suggeriment
Il-Papers depozitati kollha ghandhom ikunu available ghal skrutinju u kummenti ghal zmien stipulat imbaghad ikun hemm diskussjoni bejn min issottometa l-kummenti u x-xjenza relevanti kkwotata.
Trasparenza f’dan il-process ikun ta’ gid ghal partijiet kollha koncernati.
Stante n-natura legali tal-kaz, u l-impatt potenzjali tieghu fuq ligijiet ohra, fosthom l-abort, lUfficcju ta’ l-Avukat Generali ghandu jkun involut.
One life lost is too many. When in doubt choose life.
Kburi niddikjara li jien KONTRA l-ewtanasja. L-ebda persuna , inkluz il-politiku, m’ghandu dritt li jintervjeni b’xi mod fil-mixja tal-hajja la qabel it-twelid , la waqt it-twelid u fl-ebda fazi tal-hajja tal-bnedmin. Il-PN huwa ukoll tal-istess hsieb fuq l-Ewtanasja.
Almost seven years ago, in September 2009, the Times of Malta reported that Joseph Muscat, the current Prime Minister, said he disagreed with the morning-after pill even in cases of rape. He added that he could not accept any method, including the morning-after pill, that stopped life.
Such a stand did not seem to ruffle the feathers of the public, not even highly educated women, Alternattiva Demokratika, the Humanist Association or any of the feminists who so vociferously cry out for women’s rights. None made their voice heard.
Yet, today the climate has changed, although the facts have not. The morning-after pill is a contraceptive but, if fertilisation has occurred, it has an abortifacient effect. In a culture where abortion is accepted and legalised, such a reality does not bother the public conscience.
As Ivan Padovani put it so eloquently (July 3 “If you don’t have a problem with abortion as a form of birth control, then you won’t have a problem with the morning-after pill either.”)
So far, Malta is different. It does not accept abortion. Should we be ashamed?
I can understand that some men are perfectly happy that women bear the responsibility of getting pregnant and are totally indifferent to whatever method they use. However, I am dismayed that so many women are willing to swallow hormonal drugs and implant devices in their wombs and even resort to abortion, all in the name of women’s so-called emancipation.
Some men are perfectly happy that women bear the responsibility of getting pregnant and are totally indifferent to whatever method they use
In an article of the Guardian (November 2014), Holly Grigg-Spall is decidedly against contraceptives. She writes: “When we take the pill our sex hormones are suppressed and replaced with synthetic versions, released in a steady stream. Gone are the fluctuations we experience monthly.
“This means every system related to our hormones is disrupted – our metabolic and endocrine systems and our immune system. This is what leads to the insidious, slow-build side-effects that women can experience. That’s the science behind the headlines.”
She adds: “A lack of feminism more widely might explain why research that connects the pill to increased risk of breast cancer, cervical cancer and pulmonary embolism leading to stroke or even death is more likely to get swept aside as anomalous or negligible.”
She concludes that women shouldn’t be expected, let alone encouraged, to sacrifice their health and well-being.
If anything, in the light of such facts, I would expect women to clamour for a male pill and place the onus of all the physiological and psychological disruption in the male camp. That would really be revolutionary and… equally stupid.
Even so, would women trust men who claim they are ‘on the pill’? The only pills men may be keen to take are those like Viagra that enhance their sexual potency.
Again, in 2009, Carl Djerassi, one of the key researchers who developed synthetic progesterone that led to the ‘pill’, outlined the “horror scenario” that occurred because of the population imbalance, for which his invention was partly to blame. He said that, in most of Europe, there was now “no connection at all between sexuality and reproduction”.
The fall in the birth rate in his country, Austria, he said, was an “epidemic” far worse but given less attention than obesity.
Scientists also point out that many so-called contraceptives have an abortifacient effect by preventing implantation of the embryo. Spanish doctor José Maria Simon Castellvi refers to the “devastating ecological effects” of the tons of hormones discarded into the environment each year, adding that sufficient data exists to show that one of the causes of male infertility in the West is the environmental contamination caused by the products of the ‘pill’.
Finally, contraceptive methods violate at least five important rights: the right to life, the right to health, the right to education, the right to information (its dissemination occurs to the detriment of information about natural methods) and the right of equality between the sexes (responsibility for contraceptive use almost always falls to the woman).
If such facts are branded hysterical and if criticism of contraceptives and abortifacients are criticised as shameful, then so be it. I hope that people who think rationally will conclude otherwise.
Dr. Klaus Vella Bardonis deputy chairman of Life Network Foundation Malta.
The issue of emergency contraception has been around for decades but up until now our laws did not allow doctors to prescribe such pills as they are not available in a single pill form wrongly called ‘morning-after pill’. I am writing this piece in my capacity as a family doctor. As GPs we are the first doctors to encounter requests for such measures as emergency contraception.
First of all I must say that contraceptive pills have been on the local market for decades and some doctors use them as a form of emergency contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies after a couple would have performed sex a number of hours before. This is done by giving more than one and up to six contraceptive tablets in one dose depending on the brand, followed by a second loading dose 12 hours later. These can be given up to 120 hours after intercourse. So we must not illude ourselves that emergency contraception is not practised in Malta.
The problem arose when a single pill wrongly called ‘morning-after pill’ of whatever brand was proposed to be made legal. These emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) can be taken up to 120 hours after intercourse and can still be effective, so it is not just the morning after. On the international market there are three types of such pills.
Scientifically we know that life begins with fertilisation but the pro-ECPs lobbyists say instead pregnancy begins with implantation
There are, the combined containing both, oestrogen and progestin, progestin-only and others containing an anti-progestin. The latter are out of the question for many women, as they are used as abortion pills and currently only available in Armenia, China, Russia and Vietnam. So the first thing which should be cleared is which of these will be available.
They have different mechanisms of action, effectiveness and side effects. What is most important in my opinion is their mode of action. It is known that combined pills can inhibit or delay ovulation provided you take them before ovulation.
Now the time of ovulation is difficult to calculate and there is no easy and practical way of knowing. So these are very effective if taken during the first half of the menstrual cycle, before ovulation has occurred. In this case they are purely preventing ovulation and there is no question of being abortive.
But if taken later on they act by impairing endometrial receptivity to subsequent implantation of a fertilised egg. So we are speaking of a life which has already begun even though a bunch of cells. Scientifically we know that life begins with fertilisation but the pro-ECPs lobbyists say instead pregnancy begins with implantation, which is totally different.
At this stage human life has already started, so these pills have an abortive effect. Also, these combined pills are as effective as it is claimed because they must have a mechanism of action other than delaying or preventing ovulation.
Regarding the other type of pills, the levonorgestrel-only pills, their method of action is dual. If taken before ovulation the primary mechanism of action is blockade and/or of ovulation. So in such cases only, they are purely contraceptive and they have no abortive effect. But the reduced efficacy of these pills with a delay in treatment suggests that interference with implantation is likely.
These are the objective facts.
My point is that, no matter what is their mode of action in general and how this is stated on the package insert, every pill when taken acts on a unique way on a particular patient.
Nobody knows what really happens, whether a prevention of ovulation or prevention of implantation has occurred. Both things can happen.
In the latter case it is abortion.
Dr. Mario Saliba is a specialist in family medicine.
Mark Anthony Falzon (June 19) makes a creditable argument in support of the introduction of the so-called ‘Morning-After Pill’ (MAP) in Malta.
I agree with his view on accreditation. I would go further, in fact, and lament the haste with which people seem to deliver themselves of their uninformed, often severely prejudiced, opinions, only adding fuel to the confusion of already-complex subjects, to the detriment of all involved.
The main problem with Mr Falzon’s perspective is that he makes the same error that hordes of others are making in the course of this discussion. This error centres on the acceptance of a tacit presumption that merely editing the definition of when a pregnancy officially begins has any bearing on the presence or otherwise of a human life. This detail is so exclusively crucial to the entire issue of the properties of the MAP that it must be looked at a lot more closely.
Years ago, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists chose to re-define the origin of pregnancy as the point at which the fertilised egg, following passage through the Fallopian tubes, is successfully implanted in the uterus.
This newly minted definition chimed so well with the emergence of the MAP that it remains anybody’s guess as to whether it was purely coincidental or not, but the fact of the matter is that it meant that this pill, from being something that could end a pregnancy, was transformed overnight into something that only ever prevented it from occurring.
The trouble began once the work of re-defining the initialisation of pregnancy had been completed. Little further thought seems to have been given to the status of the human embryo from the moment of its conception, through its lonely journey down the Fallopian Way, up to the point of implantation.
Consequently, it was left to a universal audience to subconsciously infer that this entity had ceased to be of significance. In fact, the entire construct of the pill’s modus operandi is predicated on an insidious suggestion that the state of pregnancy and the existence of a human life are co-dependent and interchangeable terms. This is, quite simply, untrue.
At the beginning of fertilisation, a new human being begins to exist
So-called ‘test tube’ babies are living proof of the presence of a newly created human life independent of any pregnancy.
The point is that the definition of the commencement of pregnancy may be tinkered with from time to time but the moment of creation of a human life is scientifically beyond dispute.
The ‘Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development’ are often referred to as “the Bureau of Standards” of human embryology. They are verified and documented by the international Terminologia Embryologica committee, which consists of more than 20 experts, academically credentialed specifically in human embryology, from around the world. After reviewing the latest research studies in human embryology, their deliberations are published in the international Nomina Embryologica, part of the larger Nomina Anatomica.
It is clearly acknowledged that at the beginning of fertilisation, when the sperm penetrates the oocyte, a new, living, genetically unique, single-cell human being begins to exist. This has been known scientifically for almost 130 years, (e.g., in the work of Wilhelm His.)
These are the long-known and long-acknowledged objective scientific
facts of when sexually reproduced human beings begin to exist. They have been and remain the international standards used today.
The notion that the very existence of a human life is dependent on the current definition of a pregnancy, and that the absence of one necessarily defines the absence of the other, is the core fallacy of the MAP campaign.
Broadly speaking, there are three mechanisms of action attributable to the MAP. Two are exclusively contraceptive in nature. The third, however, is abortive and it is this that is the focus of all objections.
Essentially, if it happens that fertilisation has already taken place, i.e., an embryo exists, the MAP prevents it from implanting – and death follows.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, professional opinions on this, the third mechanism of operation, are not unanimous. There seems to be evidence that it may not operate as claimed. But there is a whole lot more that indicates it does.
In conclusion, if you don’t have a problem with abortion as a form of birth control, then you won’t have a problem with the morning-after pill either. But if you do, then it’s a matter of very serious concern.
What does emerge clearly, however, is that if the principle of informed consent still has any meaning, then the least that the MAP’s manufacturers and proponents owe to society is a realistic confirmation of its full potential.
When all is done and dusted, it may well turn out that Gift of Life were nearer the mark than many were led to believe.
Dr. Ivan Padovani is a board member of Life Network Foundation Malta
