Category: Malta

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

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

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

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

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

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

michael.asciak@parlament.mt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick Pullicino is a neurologist studying for the priesthood.

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

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

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

For those who are putting forwards the argument that they have a political mandate to fulfil, may I point out that the 2017 electoral manifesto of the Labour Party speaks only in the widest of terms on this matter, promising only to ‘widen’ and ‘extend’ (‘inkomplu nwessghu u nestendu dan is servizz’) this service without including any details whatsoever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Vella is a former Labour minister

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louisa Mifsud Houlton works in the education sector.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tonio Fenech is a former finance minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Declaring that an eight-cell human embryo is not a human being has a purpose. The idea is to convince people by spinning a tale – that the embryo is not human but only a product, a commodity, and being a product it can be used and abused in any way which the powers that be decide. Being a product it could be used with business as a means to an end and may be disposed of accordingly. This effort to reduce a human being to the level of a product also shows that individuals are now patting themselves on the back for having achieved the capacity to create and eugenically choose or reject human products and in their arrogance feeling as if they have achieved the status of a god. Arrogance of power goes very much with thinking that one is a god or demi-god and treating us mere ordinary mortals as the little people that we are.

Human Science shows us that the reality lies elsewhere. Cell biology and those who study it, as well as embryologists show that the life of a human being begins when the human ovum is fertilised by the human sperm cell. This is the real science and all other opinions are just that, opinions. A human embryo whether one cell, eight cells, 32 cells, blastocyst, eight weeks remains a human being. It remains a human being in its development to birth, childhood, and adulthood to old age until death. These are just different stages of the same human being.

Why is it a human being? That it is human is never in doubt as it is the result or fruit of the interaction between two other human beings and contains a human genetic blueprint. That it is a human organism is also not in doubt as it is moving under its own steam with a self-moving active potency to develop as all independent organisms do from the single cell amoeba to the trillion-cell human. This capacity to develop is attained the moment that the new genetic identity is fused inside the new embryo cell which gives it a new and unique human identity and allows development to start with the building of proteins necessary to its development and survival. Like in any other organism, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and continues to remain so until death. The Church has nothing to do with the defining moment of when we become human. The Church only insists that when science says that a human organism exists, that life should be protected and it has always done so. So much so that in the Middle Ages when the little science known then believed, according to Aristotle of ancient Greece, that human life started after 60 or 90 days of human embryological development, that was the time the Church believed that human life should be protected. However, science has now advanced sufficiently and shown us the truth, and those who now bring in the Church to confuse matters, obviously have other motives in mind.

A human embryo is fully a human being, a human organism and natural reason tells us that if it is fully human then it should be defended and it is a prima facie right to protect it. Therefore, it should not be destroyed or forced to lose its dignity such as by freezing which both kills embryos and destroys their human dignity.

However, the human embryo is entirely a human being and also a fully human person. Those who point out a distinction here only do so to lay a trap for fools. Personhood is considered an individual member of the human species, so any individual member of the human species is enough to make him or her, a person. Personhood objectively defined means any individuated being of a rational nature, a self-reflecting nature. This nature is attained during fertilisation when the unique genetic and epigenetic features of the new human individual are laid down together with this self-moving potency to develop, a potency we refer to as the form, essence, nature or soul of the human being. It is this rational nature of each human being which make it a person and not the individual functions that are exhibited by this nature or form in matter. We do not always think, move or talk, but we are always human persons even in a comatose or anaesthetised state. Greek philosophy clearly laid down that a form and matter produced an individualised human substance. Boethius expressed this very clearly in his famous ‘Consolation of Philosophy’ as Persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia. An individual substance of a rational nature! This concept has been a principle of ancient Greek philosophy from the times of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus among others. When later Descartes in the 1600s came up with the dictum of cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, he was in no way trying to reverse this definition of person. He was just pointing out that thinking and self-reflection were features that defined the human species from other species and was one of the functions exhibited specifically by our nature or form as a species. In effect it was always from the beginning of civilisation a concept of ‘sum ergo cogito’, I am therefore I think. Thinking is an ultimate expression of human nature not the other way round. Thinking comes from the nature, from the form, from the essence of humanity not the form of humanity from thinking! Therefore, a human embryo is also a human person by nature of being a human organism not only a simple human cell as some would have us believe and in the process subjectively reversing four thousand years of philosophy.

The subjective corruption of the definition of person and also now of the definition of the human organism is just a feeble attempt of those who want to render the human being and person simply as a human product. Being a human product to be used and abused according to the dictates of others in order to return to the times of slavery when human beings were just products. This attitude is borne out of an arrogance of power, idiocy and the wish to make human beings a source of commercial profit, an end for business and money. Those who expound it have other interests at heart, definitely not the interests of human dignity. The interest of human dignity is clearly expressed in our Constitution. Every human person has a right to life. Our Constitution defines the limits of the right to life specifically when such a life is intentionally threatened with intended malignant violence by another, so that the right to self-defence from a bad intentioned violator arises. In pointing out this only exception, our Constitution also underlines that the right to innocent human life is an absolute right and ultimately this is the principle which our government plans to do away with for obvious reasons, and to pave the way for future assaults on innocent human life!

 michael.asciak@parlament.mt

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

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2018-05-20/newspaper-opinions/It-is-a-human-product-not-a-human-being-6736190106

In the debate for or against the government’s decision to change the Embryo Protection Act, the people terribly caught in the crossfire are the “so described” infertile couples.  These persons have been used and abused by government as the justification to open the floodgates of change to the Embryo Protection Act, despite the wide and serious underlying consequences, on the same families, their children, the respect and dignity of very human life and the opposition of professional, academics and the public at large.

Why “so described” rather than simply infertile couples?  I think describing a couple infertile is demeaning, presented as inferior simply because they are childless.   We make them feel inferior, every time we meet them and pass an insensitive comment like “ghadkom bla tfal?” 

I come from parents that, not by design, spent their first 10 married years childless.  They loved children, wanting their own, but it seemed we were not intending to come.   Why after 10 years the floodgates opened and they had first my sister, then my brother and then me is anyone’s guess.

Were they too stressed, wanting children too much, was is it physical? Frankly I don’t know.   What I do know is that the period of so called infertility made my parents no less human beings that any other human beings who had children.  Who we are has nothing to do with whether we are parents or not.

There are many couples out there who are without children, who have accepted lovingly their state of being, and found a different purpose to their life and marriage.  All of a sudden, they are being told that they have something missing, they need these amendments to solve it, the miracle of embryo freezing.

Many of these people have already solved it- they live happy lives in full acceptance of their reality.  They found meaning in what they do, the value of their love for each other and others outside their family, many times in voluntary service, with people in need, acts of charity and other meaningful interests.  Why are we telling these people they are inferior?   We are so lost in presenting children as the be all and end all of one’s existence that we are insulting the same people we say we want to help.

We forget that there are men and women who actually choose not to marry and have children to give themselves in service to others.  Who can say that Mother Teresa or Dun Gorg Preca were childless?  We all can have a good purpose in life, find fulfilment in what we do.  It is also wrong to present children as the guarantee of happiness.  Unfortunately, the world is filled with stories of rejection, stories of parents who share their sadness at having been abandoned by their children, parents who lost their children through severe sicknesses or saw them fail and fall into addictions, crime, suicide despite the love they gave them and which make these realities all the more painful. 

Childless couples have suffering and parents have suffering.  Pope Francis says that “Jesus teaches us to live the pain by accepting the reality of life with trust and hope, bringing the love of God and neighbour, even in suffering: and love transforms everything.”

I am not arguing that a couple that have fertility challenges should not seek help, even medical help in an attempt to have their own child.  However, in doing so they need to take care of each other as a couple, their health and all the children they will create with the IVF technology, even the frozen ones.   The present Act finds this right balance, unfortunately the new amendments compromise on life of the children that will be created and frozen, and in the case of gamete donation, introduce a third person in the relationship which can cause severe stress and consequences on the marriage itself.  Studies have shown that many husbands fail to bond with a child that their wife has had through another man and their marriages tend to break up.  Knowing that his wife bore a child with the sperm of another can be a very humiliating experience.  In a heated moment, not rare in a relationship, unloving words are said like “because I’m his mother” as though “you’re not his father” or “what do you know of my child” as though not yours too.  These sentiments are many times hidden in the subconscious just waiting for a trigger to surface and manifest themselves in a painful way.

If government really wants to help childless couples, there are other more effective, less risky and morally correct ways.  Government knows that the proposed changes to the IVF bill will only marginally improve the chances of success.  Minister Fearne stated that from the last cycle of 26 couples only six managed to become pregnant, making the point that with freezing two other couples may become pregnant.   In simple terms the minister is saying that embryo freezing increases the chance of the 20 couples by 10%. Undeniably despite our success rates compare well with many countries, we all would like to see more couples succeed.  However, improving rates cannot be at the cost of lives, ignoring the moral and ethical concerns, surrounding embryo freezing, gamete donation and surrogacy, at the cost of asking couples to put their children (embryos) in a freezer, very likely to be forgotten. People are not statistics; Government should stop over-selling these amendments as the magic wand that will make infertile couples fertile as improvements will be very marginal.

If government is serious about helping the 20 couples, and others in similar situations, it should help them with providing safe, secure and affordable adoption opportunities.  Many couples have found their parental fulfilment in adoption and fostering.   Adoption is costly, in a very “jungle” -like situation. Adopting a child from outside Malta (as not much opportunities from Malta) costs around €40,000.  There are no regulated agencies, you don’t know for what you are paying, and no guarantees.   For a start government should set up an agency that opens new opportunities from where children can be adopted making it more certain, cheaper for prospective parents, and ensuring that no shady activity is involved.  The government should also address the legal difficulties surrounding unwanted Maltese children trapped in institutional or fostering homes when adoption is in their best interest.  Encourage fostering not just financially but also providing the child and the fostering family with more stability.

If we are serious about helping these couples, let’s use our brains and efforts, time in Parliament and money to effectively help them and not sell them false hope.   Let’s call a spade a spade it is becoming more apparent that the government’s real motive is in not infertile couples, whose chances will not increase much more with freezing embryos, but same sex-couples.  Same-sex couples are not infertile couples, while they have every right to their choices, society cannot be blamed for what nature has dictated. 

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2018-05-21/newspaper-opinions/Helping-childless-couples-6736190173

I know that the anguished cry of our fellow embryonic human beings (April 24) is being heard by others too. There are those who do not hear it and will not hear. They block their ears and endo-secrete morphine into their moribund conscience.

There are those who do not see a human embryo as human and will not see. They cover their eyes (the childish gesture) and bury their head in the sand (the sand of their own petty – and party – interests and public approval, even adulation). They do not want to perceive the truth.

There are those who may well hear and see but are struck dumb by cowardice and/or slavery to the lie.

One need not be a moral theologian (as I am) to perceive and acknowledge the truth (absolute, immutable, not subject to, nor influenced by, anything or anyone). Honest reasoning would bring the honest person to the conclusion that the very concept of mores and ethics is related to the existence of truth that is out of reach of meddling hands.

This is alien to someone schooled in post-modernistic relativism with their “your truth/my truth” nonsense. Deception, distraction and diversion characterise their modus operandi. The hijacking of meaning, Humpty Dumpty style, is a hallmark of their philosophy.

“When I say a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less” (Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland).

These, with devilish determination, will drive roughshod over you and/or will plunge their putrid death-dealing policies down your throat, while screaming that they are being imposed upon. Oh, the lie!

One need not be a doctor (as I am) to acknowledge the embryonic human being. Honest, logical reasoning will bring you to it, and any honest mother will teach you.

I know that I am in very good company in being appalled by the barbaric aggression and insult (which is what embryo freezing is), inflicted on my embryonic fellow human beings – this by my professional brothers, we who are privileged with the trust and faith of our fellow human beings to heal (physiologically, psychologically and spiritually) but first and foremost and fundamentally, to do no harm.

Need I spell it out? If you must count infertility as a disease, nevertheless you may not treat that disease of your patient by assaulting the life of another.

This is the fundamental principle. Oh that word again!

In our profession, we are fundamentalists. The “do no harm” rule trumps all other claims of benefit. Those seeking to procure a child through a procedure that involves embryo freezing must be clearly taught what this entails along with details of survivability and the quality of life expected on thawing. Moreover, explanation and justification must be made to the procurer as to whom is sent to the freezer.

Let the doctor be reminded of the noble, sacred ethos of his art; he is not a salesman nor a technician. The public needs to know that there is a very lucrative business in babies: embryo factories and banks for the harvesting of stem cells, organs etc. Indeed he will bear special responsibility for this barbarism. I plead with doctors concerned: desist.

Let all those who, in any way, aid and abet embryo freezing be aware that they are complicit in the act and its effect.

Let members of Parliament be aware that any vote of theirs that leads to legalising/decriminalising embryo freezing know that ultimately they will have to answer to God not only for the barbaric, inhuman act and its effects but also for the fact that this facilitates the legalising/decriminalising of abortion. That is not the end of this serpent.

Due to the commodifying of human beings, eventually no one unable to defend oneself would be safe in hospital.

Let the bishops lead their priests in preaching these aforementioned truths from the pulpit. If you do not use it, you shall lose it. Failure to do so places their own souls in jeopardy.

Let anyone who feels hurt by what I have written try very, very hard to turn his gaze away from his navel and consider someone else and then, humanity. Keep trying very, very hard to recognise the hurt, insult and injury (physical, psychological, spiritual) inflicted on their human embryonic fellow by that inhuman act of embryo freezing.

Then they are to keep trying very, very hard to realise that the inhuman act of embryo freezing declares “open day” to other acts of inhumanity (abortion, euthanasia… eugenics).

I shall not be distracted nor deflected by red herrings thrown about nor straw men set up, being a former military officer, I recognise these for what they are: feint attacks and smokescreens and dummy targets. By the way, if you are not a fundamentalist then you are a superficialist, a trivialist and a subjectivist – a pathetic character.

As for religion, well everyone has a soul that adheres to religion. Mine is the Catholic faith, yours may be the “Me-first-and-über-alles” faith. You bring your religion into your stand point, as you must, as do I. Here is God’s word for those Catholic claimants, who fail to witness to Christ: “Whoever denies Me before others I will deny before My Father.” (Mt 10, 33). I am focused on the incoming cruise missile: the Maltese government’s proposed legislation on IVF/embryo freezing. Unless this proposed legislation is voted out of Parliament, this ‘missile’ will blast the way wide open for the reign of Inhumanity.

In summary:

The embryo is denied its inherent and intrinsic humanity. The embryo is not acknowledged as a human being, but counted as a thing (a blob of cells), the property of another person or entity. Embryos, then are not counted as “untermenschen” but as “nicht-menschen”, not servile persons but non-persons.

The arbitrary withdrawal of human status, dignity and rights could then be applied to any stage in the life cycle.

The dehumanised being, stripped of humanity, becomes an object, a commodity, a resource and, probably, a medical cobbler’s plaything.

With eugenics the human race becomes the play thing.

Would that anyone who has the Prime Minister’s ear spell this out to him and would that the Prime Minister do the honourable thing and stop in his tracks.                                                                                     

Peter Micallef-Eynaud is a medical doctor, theologian and former military officer.