Euthanasia debate at University

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

On Wednesday 24th February 2016, Life Network was invited to a debate by The Malta Health Students’ Association (MHSA) on the subject of euthanasia. Speakers from other political, religious and psychosocial fields where also  invited to participate alongside you. 

View photos of the event, courtesy of the MHSA.

[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html]

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

[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Europe’s ‘cure’ for autism is euthanasia

In early childhood, the Dutch psychiatric patient known as 2014-77 suffered neglect and abuse. When he was about 10, doctors diagnosed him with autism. For approximately two decades thereafter, he was in and out of treatment and made repeated suicide attempts.

He suffered terribly, doctors later observed, from his inability to form relationships: “He responded to matters in a spontaneous and intense, sometimes even extreme, way. This led to problems.”

A few years ago, 2014-77 asked a psychiatrist to end his life. In the Netherlands, doctors may perform euthanasia — not only for terminal physical illness but also upon the “voluntary and well-considered” request of those suffering “unbearably” from incurable mental conditions.

The doctor declined, citing his belief the case was treatable, as well as his own moral qualms. But he did transmit the request to colleagues, as Dutch norms require. They treated 2014-77 for one more year, determined his case was, indeed, hopeless and administered a fatal dose of drugs.

Thus did a man in his 30s whose only diagnosis was autism become one of 110 people to be euthanized for mental disorders in the Netherlands between 2011 and 2014.

Case 2014-77 appears on the Dutch-language Web site of Holland’s Regional Euthanasia Review Committees, which review mercy killing in the Netherlands — but almost never find fault. Of 5,306 euthanasias listed in the committees’ 2014 annual report, the vast majority based on physical illness, regulators found a lack of “due care” in four, or 0.08 percent. The consequences of these rulings, if any, are unclear.

Now, however, doctors from elsewhere are starting to apply independent scrutiny to the increasingly common euthanasia of Holland’s mentally ill, and their findings are not so reassuring. To the contrary.

According to an analysis of 66 of the 110 cases from 2011 to 2014, by psychiatrist Scott Kim of the National Institutes of Health and two colleagues, Dutch psychiatric patients were often euthanized despite disagreement among consulting physicians as to whether they met legal criteria. In 37 cases, patients refused possibly beneficial treatment, and doctors proceeded anyway.

The Kim report, published Feb. 10 in the journal JAMA Psychiatry, undercuts the very notion of a “voluntary and well-considered” request for death from a patient who is, by definition, cognitively and/or emotionally troubled.

Dutch doctors have honored the request for lethal injection of a seemingly lucid, physically healthy woman in her 70s who said her life had become “meaningless” after her husband was euthanized a year earlier for a terminal physical illness. And they have done the same for people who were in the grip of delusions or hearing voices.

Among the obvious risks, Columbia University psychiatrist Paul S. Appelbaum writes in a companion article to Kim’s, is “inducing hopelessness among other individuals with similar conditions and removing pressure for an improvement in psychiatric and social services.”

“Will psychiatrists conclude from the legalization of assisted death that it is acceptable to give up on treating some patients?” Appelbaum asks.

Some doctors already have. In 2009, a 37-year-old Belgian woman became distraught after a romantic breakup and began seeking a doctor to euthanize her, per that country’s law, which is similar to Holland’s.

The woman, Tine Nys, had a history of mental illness, including a teenage suicide attempt, but had more recently been doing well. In February 2010, she received a new diagnosis of autism and, two months later, a lethal injection.

Appelbaum chairs the World Psychiatric Association’s ethics committee; he says it will address the situation in the Low Countries at a meeting in Munich in March.

It’s late. Once the Netherlands authorized euthanasia for physical illnesses in 2002, demands to extend this “right” to the suffering mentally ill were inevitable and, indeed, logically consistent.

Canadians are now debating how to implement last year’s ruling by their Supreme Court establishing a right to “physician-assisted dying” in cases of a “grievous and irremediable medical condition.” A panel of experts advising Ontario and 10 other provinces and territories has urged the ruling be construed to include mental illness.

And why not? The Canadian Supreme Court’s opinion specifically said that, in Belgium and the Netherlands, the “predicted abuse and disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations has not materialized.”

Ref: http://nypost.com/2016/02/27/europes-cure-for-autism-is-euthanasia/

 

Malta…Stand Up for Life!

<Update-29-09-2015>

His Grace Archbishop Charles J. Scicluna visited our Freshers’ Week stand and showed his support by signing the petition to uphold the Embryo Protection Act.

Thank you Archbishop Charles J. Scicluna.

You can sign it here: http://citizengo.org/en/29847-maltastand-life

Please ask our MPs to Protect LIFE in the Maltese Constitution

Malta…Stand Up for Life!

As you must be aware, this summer – and now, especially, in the last weeks – we have seen a radical push to legalize anti-life measures that could lead to introduction of abortion in Malta. [1 & 4]

LIFE IS NOW UNDER THREAT IN MALTA!

We, the people of Malta – who cherish our children, born and unborn, must act! We must tell our politicians, our government, in no uncertain terms: Malta is proud to be pro-life! It is a mark of honour and decency to protect the most vulnerable in civil society.

With this in mind, Life Network Malta is now gearing up to rally the Maltese people in protection of Life – to show our politicians that the majority of voters reject the Government’s recent, wrong-headed approach to this most important issue.

In addition to future street demonstrations and pickets, Life Network Malta is right now collecting signatures for an urgent pro-life petition.

This petition adamantly DEMANDS that Parliament does TWO URGENT things:

FIRST, reject any attempt to decrease protection of the human embryo in the Embryo Protection Act, which would inevitably lead to  of human life, and

SECOND, introduce pro-life protections into the Maltese Constitution. Please see our petition (the right half of this page) for a suggested pro-life amendment for our Constitution.

If you read and approve of our petition, which is addressed to our Government leaders as well as to the members of the opposition, and to all Maltese MPs, please sign now, providing your name, email address, and ID Card Number (to validate your signature) in the space provided. Don’t worry about the Zip/Postal Code! And, after signing, if you can share this petition with your like-minded friends and family, that would help to increase the total number of signatures. Thank you!

Below, please continue reading for a more lengthy discussion of the issues, including recent, documented evidence on the same.

Here is a summary of and comment on three recent events in the push to legalize abortion in Malta. For more information, please see the links at the bottom of the page.

1) At the end of July, a group called “Pro-choice Malta” came out for abortion to be legalized in Malta. [1]

2) Just a couple of weeks ago, on 6th September, the Government announced plans to introduce embryo freezing – a technique currently prohibited under the Embryo Protection Act. [2]

This is completely contrary to both parties’ electoral manifestos on life issues! [3] It is a political travesty, and it must not be allowed. This is not what we voted for!!!

Indeed, in its election manifesto, the incumbent party in government had only this to say about IVF and the Embryo Protection Act: “We will ensure that the competent authority regulating IVF receives all the necessary resources so that the recently passed law can be applied fully and be available free of charge to all couples who need this treatment.” (n.43) [3]

NB: Nothing was said and no clue was given about amending the law to allow practices such as donation of gametes, surrogacy or embryo freezing!!!

3) On 7th September, Alfred Sant, a Maltese MEP, said that abortion should be legalized to “save the life of the mother”. [4]

This last event needs a special comment because this argument is frequently used by pro-abortion forces who try to introduce abortion into different jurisdictions by muddying the waters on this issue.

In the case of an expectant mother, doctors and nurses in Malta work to save the life of two patients when there is a critical situation.

The truth is: no life-saving procedures are ever denied to expectant mothers in Malta. Unfortunately, sometimes, an unborn child may die as an indirect result of the treatment to the mother, if the mother so chooses, but this is diametrically-opposed to intentionally taking the life of the unborn child.

In fact, it is worth noting that Malta’s maternal mortality is one of the lowest in the world, far below even the US and Britain. [5] Women are simply not dying in maternity hospitals in Malta for lack of abortion, so there is absolutely no need to introduce any such measures.

Why is it important to reject embryo freezing and gamete donation?

Embryo freezing is a grave attack on the humanity of the unborn child because it facilitates the easy disposal of and destruction of innocent human life. [6] This is one reason why it is prohibited in our current legislation.

The Embryo Protection Act serves to protect the human embryo from destruction, manipulation and freezing, and, to ensure that every child will, as far as possible, know their biological mother and father. Gamete donation and surrogacy is not permitted under the Act. [7]

Why should Parliament introduce pro-life measures into the Maltese Constitution?

Our laws are a reflection of who we are as a society. As polls consistently show, 80%+ of the Maltese people to be pro-life. [8] Therefore, we now need to ensure that our laws reflect our culture and reverence for the most vulnerable human life – the unborn child, from conception.

Our politicians have a duty to safeguard and reflect this pro-life culture by seeking to enshrine Constitutional protections for the unborn child.

The fact is, that the political parties electoral manifestos never said that they would, in any way, loosen the restrictions found in the Embryo Protection Act, nor give way to the legalization of abortion. This means that the Government does not have the people’s mandate to enact such “reforms”. We are living in a democracy…not in an elected tyranny.

In 2013, Labour Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs, and Civil Liberties, Helena Dalli, wrote in an official report, on the Government’s position in relation to Life: “…human life begins at conception, [therefore] the termination of pregnancy through procedures of induced abortion at any stage of gestation was an infringement of this right.” [9]

Affirmation of this statement by the honorable minister must be upheld at all times. Any amendments to the Embryo Protection Act that endanger human life, and the rights of that human being, make a mockery of the same law, aptly named to show that protection of the human embryo is paramount.

Life issues are human rights issues, not party politics! An absolute majority of Maltese people agree on this point!

For those of us who care about Human Life in Malta, now is the time to be courageous and act! We cannot sit idly by and allow events to overtake us. We cannot, must not, succumb to international anti-life pressures.

We must prevail in our defense of life from conception to natural death.

This is Malta’s hour – we are a people who treasure our children. We must now act to preserve one of our finest traditions – that of being pro-life.

Who knows, Malta may be the start that could lead to overturning the anti-life mentality in the rest of Europe!!

Please sign this important petition and take a stand FOR Life!

Thank you!

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

[1] http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150727/local/updated-pro-choice-organisation-calls-for-abortion-debate.578236

[1] http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2015-09-12/local-news/Alfred-Sant-has-an-open-mind-on-abortion-in-cases-of-rape-6736141940

[2] http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/56928/prolifers_on_the_warpath_over_embryo_freezing_plans#.VgA03t9Viko

[3] Partit Nazzjonalista (n. 35): “Min ma jistax ikollu tfal: Wara li ghaddejna l-ligi li tirregola l-fertilizzazzjoni assistita (IVF) (IVF) se nitroducu din il-procedura bhala parti mis-servizz tas-sahha pubblika biex inti tkun tista’ taghmel din il-procedura b’xejn u minghajr ma jkollok ghalfejn tmur barra minn Malta.”

Nationalist Party (N35)Infertile couples: Now that the law regulating assisted reproduction (IVF) has passed, we will introduce this service on the national health service .This service will be free and available locally such that no one will need to go abroad for this treatment.
Partit Laburista (n. 43): “IVF: Naccertaw li jinghataw ir-rizorsi kollha necessarji lill-awtorita’ kompetenti sabiex l-IVF, li bhala ligi dwar kif ghandha tkun regolata ghadha kif iddahhlet ricentament, tithaddem bla xkiel u tinghata b’xejn lill-koppji kollha li jkollhom bzonn dan il-process.”
Labour party:(n43): IVF: We will ensure that the competent authority regulating IVF receives all the necessary resources so that the recently passed law can be applied fully and be available free of charge to all couples who need this treatment.
[9] Par. 25 of the report on the 19th meeting of the working group on the Universal Periodic Review on Malta of the UN General Assembly, held on November 1, 2013 in Geneva. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150804/letters/Malta-s-no-to-abortion.579241

Letter to Head of Schools against Gender Indoctrination

Dear Parents,

Kindly download the document linked here, print it, sign it and give it to the headmaster/headmistress of your school.

The letter starts as follows :-

‘We would like to point out our grave concern regarding what is presently being taught in states schools without our previous consultation or consent.

Our children are already being taught acceptance, love and human dignity and to encompasses all both at home and through other acceptable means.

The LGBTIQ Action plan 2015-2017, however, seeks to impose a cross sectional gender indoctrination of all segments of the population including school children.’

Parents_ Letter to schools against Gender Indoctrination

Creating children on demand

According to recent reports, there is apparently a “resolute” intention to introduce embryo freezing in Malta. However, this intention is based on error and sheer contempt for human life.

The Annual Work Report of the Embryo Protection Authority for 2014 was presented to the House of Representatives on 15th July 2015. According to this report, there were 170 treatment cycles carried out during 2014, resulting in 49 pregnancies. This resulted in a success rate of 28.82%. From a look at statistics kept by the National Health Service of the United Kingdom, the success rate in Malta is higher than that of the UK, which incidentally, permits embryo freezing. This goes to show that embryo freezing is not necessary to increase the success rate of IVF. Again, from explanations readily available on the website of Britain’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the risks involved with embryo freezing are that not all embryos survive freezing and eventual thawing, and that occasionally, no embryos at all survive. Moreover, they also state that due to the freezing and thawing process, the chances of having a baby using a thawed embryo are lower than if a fresh embryo were to be used. These pronouncements of the British regulator directly contradict such manifestly incorrect statements that a law without embryo freezing cannot be successful.

According to certain reports, the new law being drafted increases the maximum number of eggs which can be fertilised to five, but the maximum number of fertilised eggs which can be implanted in a prospective mother was decreased to two. This guarantees that embryos will be frozen. If a couple does not wish that the embryos created by them are adopted, then a court application can be filed for a judge to decide on the matter. At this stage, one can only observe that after having made a mess of things, the law would dump all the resulting moral dilemmas onto the judiciary, turning each judge in front of whom such an application comes, into a potential gaoler or executioner.

It is also understood that the proposed new law will include the possibility of lesbian couples to make use of IVF. Since women cannot produce sperm, the only source of sperm would be sperm banking. However, this would take procreation even further away from the loving environment of a mother and a father united in marriage, and reduce women’s eggs and men’s sperm to mere commodities to be traded freely. This would truly reduce human procreation to a cold and impersonal business transaction.

Embryo freezing as well as donation of eggs and sperm would eviscerate the meaning of human procreation. The government’s declared intention to open up the possibility of IVF treatment to gay couples and single mothers is wrong on many levels. First of all, IVF treatment is meant to alleviate infertility. The proposed amendments insult infertile couples by equating their anguish at being unable to conceive to the mere wish of gay couples to “have children”. Gay couples are not suffering from infertility. Their inability to conceive is totally expected and totally natural, since nature never intended for human procreation to result from two men or two women. Secondly, the notion of single mothers is that they need additional support when bringing up children alone, due to the need to take up employment. This would fly in the face of initiatives taken to date to help single mothers find employment and bring up their children. One would be hard pressed to find any single woman who, of her own volition, would opt to procreate without even wanting to meet the other side of the biological equation.

It is wrong to approach this matter as some sort of service to create children on demand and sell to the highest bidder. Children are human beings and as such, and also in accordance with Malta’s international obligations, need the presence of a mother and a father. The proposed amendments would create orphaned children, intentionally brought into the world without a father or without a mother. The proposed amendments insult the dignity of the human being and the rights of children. The child’s right to know one’s mother and one’s father and to be raised by them would be grossly violated, if such amendments come to pass. Children are not commodities to be created on demand and sold, and were the Embryo Protection Act to be amended according to recent proposals, the embryo would not only not be protected, but harmed in all possible ways.

 

Ramon Bonett Sladden is a member of Life Network

We are facing a travesty of representative government

‘Politicians did not represent the populace… they were travelling for private firms. If they represented anything, it was vested interests, vulgar but not even popular.’ – G. K. Chesterton

Among his numerous interventions, Pope Francis seems to like to reflect and comment on the role of politicians, and with good reason. Politicians have a most powerful impact on the common good and the long-term consequences for the welfare of the communities and nations they are expected to serve.
In one interview he said with his customary directness and outspokenness, that a politician has three major responsibilities.
Firstly, he has to declare with utmost clarity what he intends to do once in government. He must present society with an electoral programme that is clear and well thought-out, explaining why he wants to do this or the other.
Secondly, he must be honest in presenting his position.
Thirdly, he must be independent of campaign contributors or, if unavoidable, make clear who is financing his campaign and by what amount. In short, transparency and clarity must be paramount.
One does not need to look afield to realise how pertinent the Pope’s exhortations are.
G.K. Chesterton had an even more scathing comment on the political class, when towards the end of his life in 1935, he said: “I identified political liberty, rightly or wrongly, with representative government. Then came the breach… I became quite convinced of two facts. First, that representative government had ceased to be representative. Second, that Parliament was, in fact, gravely menaced by political corruption.
“Politicians did not represent the populace, even the most noisy and vulgar of the populace. Politicians did not deserve the dignified name of demagogues. They deserved no name except perhaps the name of bagmen; they were travelling for private firms. If they represented anything, it was vested interests, vulgar but not even popular.”
Locally, the Pope’s warnings against political corruption, and Chesterton’s contempt are so visible in the inability of successive governments to safeguard our physical heritage. This is reflected by the irreversible damage inflicted on our environment by the disfiguring urban development that has ruined so much of our architectural heritage and choked off so much of our precious open spaces.
But while the public is constantly being shocked by new underhand deals and highly questionable projects that impact the physical environment, an even more sinister and unrepresentative development is going on.
For some reason best known to itself, this government seems to be hell bent on dismantling our Christian heritage under the banner of being progressive, inclusive and liberal. Without any political mandate whatsoever, the family is being redefined, gender ideology is planned to be imposed on our children, porn shops legalised, vilification of religion decriminalised and now requests for surrogacy and abortion.
We have lost all sense of shame and propriety. The fact that pornography is easily accessible should concentrate the minds of those in power to do their utmost to curtail rather than promote such an evil activity that degrades and ruins the lives of people so ruthlessly exploited in this sordid commerce. Besides, is promoting lust, promiscuity, deviancy and sexual irresponsibility in the interest of our country’s development?
One wonders how vilification of religion is a breakthrough in our emancipation. Offensiveness and hatred do not need official encouragement. If anything, there is already a marked decline of civility and good manners that once were the hallmark of our people.
Worse still, as a member of Life Network, I am particularly irked by the fact that the Embryo Protection Act, fashioned after so much consultation and deliberation to give maximum safeguards to nascent life is being scrapped after a charade of so-called consultations with civil society.
We should be infuriated that we, the people, are treated like goats and that both political parties seem totally indifferent to the traditions and beliefs that have underpinned our country for generations.
Despite the celebrations marking the 450th anniversary of the Great Siege that saved our Christian heritage, and despite popular participation in the festa season, Malta is rapidly losing its Christian identity.
People get the politicians and the governments they deserve. Pope Francis has made it crystal clear that men of good will have to enter the fray and take a stand in the public sphere.
Time will tell whether the Maltese will live up to his appeal and put a stop to this rot.

Klaus Vella Bardon

The best interests of the child

A quarter of a century ago, Malta ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In view of this fact, it is worth reflecting on some of the stipulations of this Convention, especially given that certain quarters are calling for the elimination of the legal protection which Maltese law affords the human person before birth. The rights set forth in the Convention aim to serve the inherent dignity of the human being. It is precisely the respect for this dignity which inspires the Convention to clearly state in its Preamble that the child needs appropriate legal protection before, as well as after birth.

To date, Maltese law performs admirably in this regard. Amongst other things, the Embryo Protection Act prohibits the freezing of embryos, experimentation with embryos, surrogacy, cloning, as well as the creation of a human embryo for any purpose other than that of implanting it in a prospective mother. It is also worth noting that harsh penalties are in place for anyone who violates these provisions. Therefore, anyone who knows that the embryonic stage is one of the early stages of the formation of the baby inside the mother’s womb, would also know that the Embryo Protection Act goes a long way towards fulfilling the principal aim of the Convention, which is that of protecting human dignity in the weakest of its possessors.

The Embryo Protection Act and the Convention go hand in hand in many other respects. In another part of its Preamble, the Convention states that the child is best brought up in a family environment. Article 7 of the Convention buttresses this with its obligation on states to ensure that the child has a right to know his parents and be cared for by them. The Embryo Protection Act affirms this in its definition of a prospective parent under Article 2 as “either of two persons of the opposite sex who are united in marriage, or who have attained the age of majority and are in a stable relationship with each other.”

In all legislation affecting children, it has always been held that the guiding principle should always be that of the best interests of the child. This principle ensures that children are always at the centre of any decision that may affect them. Therefore, one is compelled to ask whether the calls coming from some quarters also aim to safeguard the best interests of the child. To answer this, one must take stock of the immense pain which a couple suffer when they discover that one or both of them are infertile.

There is no question of balance between circumventing infertility and safeguarding the rights of the child. Although the wish to conceive and bring up children in a family environment is an extraordinarily noble wish, one must always be aware that it is the child who has the right to be cared for by parents, and not the prospective parents who have the right to a child.

Limiting the definition of prospective parents to one male and one female united in marriage or in a stable relationship is an act of respect for the dignity and well-being of the human person, since it is widely affirmed by experts and legislation alike that the family environment is the best environment for raising children. To alter the definition of prospective parents to allow same-sex couples would open the door to anonymous gamete donation and surrogacy.

The donation by women of eggs and by men of sperm would have a twofold effect. First of all, it reduces men and women to mere producers, akin to cows producing milk. Secondly, it would render the child, once born, unable to know the identity of one of his or her biological parents. This would have grave consequences for the child, who would essentially be deprived of a considerable part of his or her identity.

Surrogacy is the act of placing the fertilised egg, against payment, into another woman who would eventually give birth to the child and then hand it over to the so-called parents. This objectifies women and strips them of their dignity, as evidenced by many feminists who firmly oppose this practice. Surrogacy turns women into mere carriers and children into orphans.

It is precisely all of this which should be more than persuasive enough to dissuade our legislators from changing any part of the Embryo Protection Act. This law is a guarantor of human dignity and as such, should be left to carry out its task of safeguarding the dignity of the human embryo from conception.

Ramon Bonett Sladden

Opening the Door to Abortion

Waste not, want not. So the story goes. Any leftover food is either frozen for when hunger strikes again or thrown away in the bin if one has had enough. This is how one of the proposed amendments to the embryo protection law wants to treat human life.

 

Create a surplus of human embryos; use as many as you will. The human embryos within the parental project, that is the ‘wanted ones’, will be gestated lovingly, nurtured and spoilt once born; the ‘extra’ human beings will be frozen indefinitely until someone decides on their bleak future. Most will remain suspended on ice, completely forgotten, thrown away or eventually destroyed. So many lost lives, lost loves, missed siblings, daughters or sons, never given a chance.

 

Why would we choose this kind of IVF? Why an IVF that devalues and destroys human lives by embryo freezing when we have another option that works just as well? I have met parents who had IVF overseas, their frozen embryos always at the back of their minds, parents who did not have the option of freezing unfertilised eggs (ova). Parents who know that they are not going to claim those human embryos, brothers and sisters to the children they already have, and this causes them a lot of psychological distress.

 

Any changes to the embryo protection law that endangers the life of the human embryo risks opening the door to abortion

 

What are the real reasons behind these sinister proposed amendments? We are a country that cares about life. We treasure our children, born and unborn. The Embryo Protection Act took a long time to come into force but now we are seeing results that compare well with the rates of other countries. We are helping infertile couples who choose IVF without undue risk to nascent human embryonic lives.

 

How can we risk removing protection from the human embryo?

Considering that great human rights causes of our time and all times have always had the cause of life as the point of reference as well as the dignity of the human person, of every human person, any changes to the embryo protection law that endangers the life of the human embryo risks opening the door to abortion.

 

Protection of life from the moment of conception to natural death cannot be compromised. There is too much at stake.

 

The human embryo is a vulnerable human being, voiceless and defenceless. This does not mean that he or she does not have the intrinsic right to life and human dignity as a member of our species. How can we consider freezing human lives as a capricious option just because an ill-advised local women’s group makes it their crusade?

 

Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights speaks of respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity and states that, in applying and advancing scientific knowledge, medical practice and associated technologies, human vulnerability should be taken into account. Individuals and groups of special vulnerability should be protected and the personal integrity of such individuals respected.

In the same declaration, article 16 also speaks about protecting future generations and states that due importance has to be given to the impact of life sciences on future generations, including on their genetic constitution.

 

Has anyone bothered to ask children born from these technologies to speak? Does anyone care? Has anyone bothered to read about the pain and insecurity inflicted on children born from anonymous sperm donation, another amendment being suggested? Look up ‘Anonymous us’ on the internet and read their stories.

 

How are we to speak of protecting future generations when we are creating ‘surplus’ children and freezing them?

 

How are we to speak of protecting future generations when we, by surrogacy, create children to be intentionally separated from their birth mother, children who will intentionally never know their biological father, children brought up without ever experiencing the complementarity of motherhood and fatherhood?

 

What about the rights of the child conceived to know and be raised by the biological parents whenever possible? Malta is now the only country in the EU which still holds on to a completely pro-life culture. Other countries do not even value life in utero but justify abortion.

How can such countries care about what happens to human embryos? The human embryo is not respected, therefore it is graded, discarded, frozen or used in research.

 

We should know better. Backed by science, we affirm life from conception to natural death. Affirming human life we should not compromise the law which protects this life in the earliest stages.

Politicians are called to bravely resist the enormous onslaught to change our prolife laws and culture. The proposed changes to the Embryo Protection Act were not listed in the electoral programme of any political party. The absolute majority of the population do not want these changes.

 

I call on people of good faith to unite and resist these changes. Anonymous egg and sperm donation, embryo freezing and surrogacy are highly objectionable on moral, ethical and scientific grounds. They do not serve a child’s best interest.

Let us keep all human life in Malta safe. Hands off the Embryo Protection Act.

 

chairman@lifenetwork.eu

 

Miriam Sciberras is chairman of Life Network Malta