Dispassionate discussion by Louis Cilia

Euthanasia is an extremely difficult subject to write about mainly because it entails expressing oneself on something that is so very personal, emotional and distressing to a person who is terminally ill and suffering continuously from severe pain. Those around him or her, mostly the near family and friends, are also caught in the tragic drama.

For a detached person it is easy to be dogmatic and judgemental even quoting learned sources to argue for or against the practice. For those directly involved, however, it is a deep and harrowing experience that could be lasting; others are mere uninvited intruders.

The legalising of euthanasia is now attracting interest and gaining supporters around the world. It has, so far, been introduced in at least six important and highly civilised countries, namely The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Colombia, Luxembourg and Canada. Given this situation, it needs to be discussed dispassionately and intelligently.

In Malta, the debate is also slowly gaining ground. Although politicians on all sides have so far failed to declare their firm positions on the subject, it can happen (based on recent experiences on other equally divisive issues) that after the next elections the matter would suddenly flare up and a decision taken on behalf of a bewildered and unprepared public on half-baked assumptions.  This ought to be avoided at all costs since the subject is too serious and complicated to be decided in such cavalier manner.

Once euthanasia becomes accepted in society its ramifications are unknown and without limit

In the Book of Job (Job: 2:9-10) his wife entreats him as she sees him suffering from the ailments that have long assailed him: “Curse God and die!”

He turns towards her and after calling her “foolish woman”, he tells her most emphatically: “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” To the Christian (and those in many other religions) euthanasia, under whatever form and guise, is equated with intentional killing that is contradictory to God’s will.

God is the giver of life and one would be simply usurping that authority were one to take life in one’s own hands.

On one side of the debate there is the story of men of great eminence who have undergone the traumatic journey of extreme pain and who changed their opinion in the face of such physical and internal turbulence.  Two well-known public figures are recent examples – Lord Rix in the UK and Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, both highly well-suited to speak on the subject with great moral authority.

Brian Rix, Lord Rix, who died on August 20 of this year at the age of 92 was a comic actor of great talent renowned for his originality and versatility.  His first child, Shelley, was born with Down Syndrome and this changed the direction of his life. He became an active campaigner for people with learning disabilities. He was knighted in 1986 and raised to the peerage in 1992 in recognition of his sterling work in this sphere.

Rix was also an active campaigner against euthanasia. In 2006, he voted in the House of Lords against a Bill on assisted dying as he claimed it might be misused in relation to people with learning disabilities who would not be mature and judicious enough to decide on such momentous matters. He was one of the most notable and vociferous opponents of the Bill both in the House and outside it.

In 2016, after months of relentless pain with terminal illness, he wrote to the Speaker of the House of Lords urging that the law on assisted dying be changed “as soon as possible to allow the many people who find themselves in the same situation as I am to slip away peacefully”.

The famous Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel laureate, while celebrating his 85th birthday at St George’s Cathedral, Cape Town, on October 7, said that he would like the option of “a dignified assisted death” when the time comes. He has been undergoing cancer treatment for years and has supported initiatives for assisted dying laws in the UK, US, South Africa and elsewhere.  He claims that in refusing dying people the right to die with dignity “we fail to demonstrate the compassion that lies at the heart of Christian values”.

The greatest concern of those against euthanasia is that once euthanasia becomes accepted in society its ramifications are unknown and without limit. It could, for example, be used on vulnerable people where the value of their consent remains questionable. The recent news of the death of a child by lethal injection in Belgium is proof enough of where legalised euthanasia can lead.

In the debate on the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 in the Australian House of Representatives, Lindsay Tanner, an MP from Melbourne, encapsulated the primary concerns of those objecting to legalised euthanasia when he said:

“I am troubled by euthanasia because I think it is virtually impossible to draw safe boundaries, because I think it is virtually impossible to prevent abuses and mistakes and because I think it is virtually impossible to justify offering the option of assisted suicide to one category of people and deny it to others.”

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20161014/opinion/Dispassionate-discussion.627910

 

Life Network Foundation Malta concerned about MEPs comments on MAP

Life Network Foundation Malta has sent an email with the following questions to Dr Roberta Metsola and Dr Miriam Dalli after their public statement.

Dear Dr Metsola/Dr Dalli

I was following the ‘breaking news’ about your comments on the morning after pill – that this is contraception. I am sorry to inform you that this is DEFINITELY NOT TRUE.

I want ask how you came to that conclusion. Kindly answer the following questions:

1. Did you read the scientific literature?

Look at one article at least , and see pg 3 last paragraph. What is your comment now?

 

2. Did you know that the ACOG changed the definition of pregnancy in 1965 as to starting after implantation ie 12-15 days after fertilization?

This means ignoring human embryonic life in the first two weeks of life.

Most European and American bodies like FIGO, WHO and others use this definition because they are pro-abortion and the life of the embryo is not important to them. But in Malta we protect life from conception.That is why we are saying that MAP has mostly an abortifacient effect because we include the first two weeks of life.

3. What is your comment to this fact please?

4. On what basis did you feel you had the authority to make such a public statement ?

Hoping that you will reply to this e mail

Dr Miriam Sciberras
Life Network Foundation Malta

Press release

Press release by Life Network Foundation Malta on the Morning After Pill Debate

Life Network Foundation Malta notes the positive consensus that has emerged between Malta’s laws on abortion and the requirement to adhere completely to The Embryo Protection Act.

Life Network Foundation Malta reiterates the fact that life starts at conception. The word ‘abortifacient’, as used by international bodies, deliberately disregards the first two weeks of life prior to implantation, resulting in a play on words that is unfair as well as misleading.

According to the Malta Medicines Act (CAP 458) it is the function of the Licensing Authority, a role taken up by the Superintendent of Public Health, to issue Marketing Authorisations for medicinal products to be placed on the Maltese market. Unless this function is delegated by rules from the Licensing Authority to the Medicines Authority, the only role of the latter is to make recommendations to the Licensing Authority in relation to such licensing.

The superintendent of public health, or the CEO of the Medicines Authority if such powers are delegated to him by the Licensing Authority, is responsible for ensuring that Marketing Authorisations (license) for medicinal products intended for the Malta market comply fully with national legislation.

Therefore, abortion being illegal in Malta, if a license is issued for a MAP in the face of scientific evidence demonstrating its abortifacient properties, the issuing authority – in this case the Superintendent of Public Health – may be deemed guilty of committing a crime.

Life Network Foundation Malta notes the recommendations presented by Parliament through the Joint Health, Social Affairs and Family Affairs committee regarding possible licensing of the morning after pill in Malta, that have acknowledged that:

–   Different types of MAP pills have different modes of action.

–   Objective studies demonstrate that these pills have a potential abortifacient effect if they prevent implantation of the embryo.

Life Network notes that the Joint Committee made it an obligation that licenses for MAP be issued only after the necessary medical and ethical studies are carried out. There is clear scientific evidence, as presented to the conjoint Parliamentary committee, that MAPs are mostly abortifacient. Therefore, if a Marketing Authorisation for a MAP were to be issued, the Licensing Authority may be held accountable for producing the unbiased studies showing the sound scientific evidence upon which the decision was based.

Finally, Life Network wishes to express its support and appreciation to those Members of Parliament who have shown themselves willing to defend life from conception to natural death. The value of life is inherent to us all, irrespective of the circumstances in which conception occurs.

 

 

Sign the Petition to protect marriage and family!

MUM DAD & KIDS
European citizens’ initiative to protect marriage and family

Together let’s support marriage and family in Europe:

Marriage – a permanent and faithful union of man and woman with the purpose of founding a family.

Family – a father, a mother, and their children.

Family relationship – the legal relationship between two spouses, or between a parent and a child.

Yes, I support the request for an EU regulation that defines the meaning of marriage and family: marriage is a union between a man and a woman and family is based on marriage and/or descent.

Decision on MAP rests with medicines authority, no over the counter sales, committee says

A joint parliamentary committee agreed this evening that the decision on whether to license the Morning After Pill (MAP) should rest with the Medicines Authority.

The decision should be based on recommendations by Parliament and the authority should put national legislation before EU law.

The committee members also agreed that, should the products be licensed, they should not be sold over the counter but only with a doctor’s prescription.

Health Minister Chris Fearne welcomed the recommendations, which were unanimously approved this evening, saying that all members were now of the same opinion. He also said the government had always believed that the decision should be taken by the authority.

The recommendations also include making a distinction between different types of MAP and to allow doctors to serve as conscientious objectors and not prescribe the pill. Furthermore, Malta’s laws on abortion and embryo protection should be respected.

At the start of today’s sitting, former health minister and government whip Godfrey Farrugia presented five recommendations. These said that different forms of MAP have different modes of action and one cannot totally exclude that their mode of action does not preclude implantation of an embryo.

Malta prohibits abortifacients and embryos are protected by The Embryo Protection Act. Dr Farrugia said the EllaOne product and intrauterine devices are “certainly abortive.” The laws of Malta have to be strictly adhered to. He also insisted that, while the Medicines Authority fell under an EU parent entity, it had to give more weight to national law.

Dr Farrugia also said patients seeking to use MAP and IUDs have a right to make an informed, voluntary decision and choose that clinical pathway that safeguards their holistic health. Furthermore, the medical profession has a right to its professional and ethical integrity, and doctors should be free to act as conscientious objectors when deciding whether to prescribe MAP or not. In fact, the Ethics of Medical Practitioners state that ‘a doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving life from the time of conception till death.’

Finally, dispensed medication should be a prescription only. Public health issues and the wellbeing of the patients through a comprehensive health care delivery system have to be safe guarded.

He also received correspondence from Professor Anthony Serracino Inglott, the Chairman of the Medicines Authority, who recommended that Levonogestrel (Plan B) pills and Ella should be used legally in Malta but physicians should favour the first. The professor said both should be prescription-only in the first stage, but could later be considered to become pharmacist-recommended medicine. Thirdly, physicians and pharmacists may be allowed to be conscientious objectors to prescribe or dispense all or any emergency contraception, provided that they refer client to a colleague and do not charge for this referral.  Dr Farrugia said he held some reservations.

Health Minister Chris Fearne said it had emerged from the discussions that Levonogestrel  (Plan B) was non-abortive. Therefore it should be made legal in Malta. He also said that distinction had to be made between different forms of MAP and and some of the emergency contraceptives should be also be available over the counter from pharmacies.

Dr Farrugia said studies showed that Ella worked in the same way as the RU468 abortifacient drug and could abort a pregnancy. PN MP Michael Gonzi disagreed, pointing out that the dosage for Ella was much lower than that of RU.

Dr Farrugia said he would prescribe Plan B to a patient only after carrying out an ovulation test, which is 99.9% accurate. “If the test shows that ovulation would have occurred I would not prescribe the morning after pill, as a conscientious objector. The patient would be free to visit another doctor. Doctors should look at the patient’s health in a holistic way and see what is best for them. This is why I believe that community pharmacists should not be able to dispense MAP.”

PN MP Clyde Puli said great emphasis was being placed on the medical and scientific arguments but this issue was also about ethics. A balance needed to be found. He said there seemed to be disagreement even among the top experts and these should be clarified or else this committee would keep going round in circles. He also said that the Medicines Authority, not a parliamentary committee, should decide which forms of MAP were acceptable and which ones were not.

PL MP Deo Debattista said the main aim was to protect life from beginning to end. “From what we have heard one of the forms of MAP is not abortive so this should be available by prescription. But I do not believe that it should be available over the counter because there could be medical implications.”

PL MP Etienne Grech agreed that the decision should rest with the Medicines Authority. He also agreed that MAP should not be available over the counter. He suggested including a recommendation to the effect that doctors should apply the Gillick Principle, which allows them to decide whether they should prescribe MAP to underage girls.

Dr Gonzi said a recent UN report had concluded that neither form of MAP was abortifacient. Dr Godfrey Farrugia retorted by saying that the UN was wrong because it now considered life to start from implantation, rather than fertilization. “They have effectively moved the goalposts – that is why the UN says that they are not abortive.”

Health Shadow Minister Claudette Buttigieg warned that the committee was effectively debating whether a particular medicine should be licensed. This could set a precedent and requests for the licensing of other medicines could be made in future. “What these discussions have proved is that there is wide divergence within this committee. We simply have to hold the medicines authority for abiding by the law. The Embryo Protection Act is clear.”

Dr Paula Mifsud Bonnici said nothing should hold the Medicines Authority from issuing the relevant licenses if its studies concluded that the medicine is non-abortive.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2016-10-05/local-news/Decision-on-MAP-rests-with-medicines-authority-no-over-the-counter-sales-committee-says-6736164743

Agenda Europe Summit 2016 Warsaw Poland

Dr. Miriam Sciberras and Ms. Mary Hilda Camilleri recently attended the Agenda Europe Summit in Warsaw Poland on the 26th September 2016 on behalf of Life Network Foundation Malta.

The Summit is an important pro-life, pro-family annual event bringing together more than 120 participants from 23 countries.

The summit discussed the intense local issues in view of the on-going human rights debate all over Europe. Life Network Foundation Malta is proud to be part of this debate and we are greatly encouraged by the pro-life pro family situation developing in Poland.

Top 10 Abortion Questions Hillary Clinton Wasn’t Asked at the Debate

During last night’s first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, debate moderator Lester Holt did not bring up the issue of abortion. Although the issue sparks a huge divide between the two candidates neither of them fielded any questions on the most important topics on the minds of the majority of American voters who are pro-life.

 Continue reading

Medical Council believes morning after pill is only ‘tip of the iceberg’ in ethical issues

The Medical Council has told the Health Affairs Committee that the morning after pill is ‘just the tip of the iceberg’, as it expressed the concerns related to ethical, health and social issues.

Dr Doreen Cassar gave a detailed presentation before the committee which met this afternoon, explaining that the pill cannot be made available over the counter for a number of vital issues related, among other things, to health.

She explained that the pill will not work on persons of more than 77kg of weight. It can also have dangerous effects on people suffering from epilepsy or asthma.

“A doctor should always bear in mind the protection of human life, from conception till death,” Dr Cassar said before going into further detail. “We believe that the morning after pill is only the tip of the iceberg. There are major issues related to the medical history of the person requesting it. But we must go beyond the medical information.”

The Medical Council argued that it is vital for the pill giver to know the sexual history of the person. She noted that, statistics show an increase in sexually transmitted diseases. “We must ask ourselves, why didn’t the couple use any contraception? Why are they requesting the morning after pill? We must also ask if the person requesting the morning after pill came on his or her own accord, or because she or he was forced.”

The Council also insisted that the pill should be only prescribed by a medical doctor, otherwise there are serious issues one might face.

“There is also a psychological issue which one must analyse. Let’s see why these persons are not prepared to take care of a baby,” she added while saying that this pill can affect the health of the nation.

Meeting re MAP

Quoting the medical schedule, Dr Cassar said that a doctor cannot prescribe something which will harm the mental and physical existence of the patient and that doctors cannot impose their views on patients.

Insisting that the morning after pill should not be given over the counter, Dr Cassar asked “if a male comes to buy the pill, who are we protecting? The child or the parents?”

Labour Party MP Etienne Grech said he agreed that the morning after pill should be given through prescription.

Finally, she concluded by calling on politicians that, since there is an element of uncertainty, they should see to “err in the side of caution”.

The report on the morning after pill will be tabled in Parliament on 10 October when Parliament resumes. Committee adjourns for Wednesday 5 October.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2016-09-20/local-news/Medical-Council-believes-morning-after-pill-is-only-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-6736164064