Thousands of pro-lifers marched in Germany on Saturday to call for an end to abortion.
The Catholic News Agency reports about 7,500 pro-lifers participated in the German March for Life in Berlin. About 1,500 pro-abortion advocates staged a counter-protest during the march, according to local police reports.
In his article entitled ‘United to protect children’ (August 6), Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Abela wrote: “When it comes to the well-being of our children, this is a topic that unites us all.” Yes, we are united on this.
He added: “I am part of a government which attaches great importance to protecting the best interests of children. When we hear of children being reported missing or, worse still, abducted, we are rightly alarmed. Each year in the EU, about 250,000 children are reported abducted or missing.”
Here we have to add: including some 300 unborn children from Malta, abducted and subsequently aborted beyond Maltese shores.
Abela also said: “Compared to other countries, Malta’s numbers are small, but that should not stop us from strengthening and improving the systems already in place.” There is widespread agreement on this in Malta.
Abela really put his finger on it the right thing when he said “ensuring children’s well-being and protection from harm will always be an intrinsic part of the Maltese people’s core values”.
We should add “…and we should do what it takes to keep it that way.”.
Then he gave some very grim statistics, like that international statistics show that 76 per cent of children are killed within three hours of abduction.
In 2013, at the Pro-Life Day manifestation in favour of life organised by the Malta Unborn Child Movement (MUCM) in Valletta, Abela, as representative of the Labour Party declared: “Abortion is illegal and that is how it should remain – it is nothing less than murder.”
He had also declared that “parents were obliged to do their utmost and protect their offspring from the moment of conception… Society and the State were also in duty bound to support mothers during their pregnancies and help them provide a good quality of life to their newborns”.
Last year, it was reported that government backbencher Deo Debattista had urged the government to set up a ‘pro-life’ clinic to help expectant mothers thinking of aborting their unborn children. This newspaper also quoted Rebecca Gomperts, the Dutch provider of abortions on the high seas, as having said that about 300 expectant Maltese mothers aborted every year.
Very small Maltese unborn children, who have a legal status according to a number of Maltese laws, are being abducted out of Malta to be aborted… very sadly we have to add, by their parents… in UK and elsewhere.
What we don’t know, so far, is if the body parts, the tiny baby hearts, lungs and brains of aborted Maltese children are being callously harvested and sold, that is trafficked for profit, to university and company laboratories like Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion business in the US.
What we don’t know, so far, is if the body parts, the tiny baby hearts, lungs and brains of aborted Maltese children are being callously harvested and sold
The government and civil society should unite even further in their resolve to protect also the lives of these 300 unborn childen.
The way forward has been charted already by Deo Debattista. The government should help in as many ways as possible a number of voluntary organisations already working in this field, to reach out to these women and offer them further compassionate, counselling and advisory services, to help them spare the lives of their unborn children.
Labour MP Etienne Grech, chairperson of the Health Committee of Parliament seems to have other views. He said it was his belief that there can be no life without brain activity, quoting JM Rollingring’s theory that : “The brain is the only unique and irreplaceable organ in the human body, as the orchestrator of all organ systems and the seat of personality.”
For him, it appears, human life does not begin at conception.
Grech should take note of a very significant statement made by a bioethics expert Pierre Mallia in July: “It is a fact that life does begin at fertilisation… and that science is not absolute, as many make it out to be.”
He also said that “ resorting to so-called scientific advice that many base their arguments on can also be tantamount to deception if you choose the arguments that suit you.”
Yes, the well-being of all our children, from conception, unites us all. This is reflected in the fact that, so far, all four Maltese political parties declare that they are pro-life. This is something which does not exist in any other country in the world.
This has been demonstrated in Malta every year, in February, for the last 10 years when the MUCM organised Pro-Life Days which included the active participation, and pro-life speeches, of political parties and even the President.
Our supreme aim should be to keep it that way and to continue “to be proud to be the best in Europe” and the world, not only, as the Prime Minister said, “in having the lowest unemployment in the eurozone and a declining poverty rate” but also in protecting all Maltese and other children living in Malta “from conception”, as our laws state so explicitly…until the end of life.
That includes not legalising the morning-after pill when there is still a lot of doubt, scientifically, if it is abortifacient or not, notwithstanding the fact that the chairperson of the Medicines Authority is advising the authorities differently.
It also includes not going for widespread embryo freezing in connection with IVF when it is very likely that in the process unborn children, still in the embryonic stage, can be killed accidentally, or negligently.
Tony Mifsud is coordinator, Malta Unborn Child Movement
Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160917/opinion/Abducted-and-aborted.625236
Men are more likely than women to seek pleasure from sexuality and so women have traditionally been sexual gatekeepers for men. In the past, the potential need to care for a dependent child had a tempering effect on women’s behaviour.
That any child, once conceived, should be treasured and nurtured for life was never in question. This delicate balance also served to select men who were motivated by love and would honour a lifetime commitment to marriage.
The first downward step was oral contraception. Those who opted to go on the pill were able to dramatically lower the ‘risk’ of having to nurture a child for life. Once the unpredictability of conception was removed, ‘gatekeeping’ was not so necessary. Procreation was no longer inherent in sexual relations and women started to become more opportunistic in their sexual behaviour.
Children were now displaced from the centre of a woman’s ‘love-life’ as their birth could now be avoided.
The pill was not completely reliable however and those who did not take it regularly still ran the risk of pregnancy with sexual intercourse. The resourcefulness of the pharmaceutical industry then produced the morning-after pill (MAP) which has a 98 per cent ability to prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of intercourse.
Abortion has crept into many societies on the back of contraception and the MAP will surely accelerate its acceptance
The pill was deceptively marketed as ‘emergency contraception’ to try and obscure its abortive effects on any conception that had already occurred. It could equally have been called ‘emergency abortion’ however, as it is not difficult to see, that since most successful conceptions occur within the time period of action of the MAP, much of its effect has to be due to a loss of the fertilised ovum.
This is abortion. With the MAP, the woman’s defence against pregnancy is taken to a second level. In this ‘emergency’ use of the MAP the woman has to accept that abortion may occur. At least subconsciously, she assents to take a potentially lethal step against the life of a child. The MAP therefore further devalues the lives of children in a society that legalises the MAP, in an incremental downward step over the contraceptive pill.
The third and final step which is inevitable once the life of a child is made disposable by allowing the MAP is abortion.
Abortion is extended to situations that do not fulfil the arbitrary designation of ‘emergency’. Once a society is sufficiently desensitised to the evil of killing the most vulnerable expression of its newest members, the door is open to abortion of confirmed pregnancies.
Abortion has crept into many societies on the back of contraception and the MAP will surely accelerate its acceptance. What was treasure will sadly end up as trash.
The Maltese have always treasured children. Children are a deep source of love in the community. Some groups are portraying the MAP as necessary to societal progress, for a woman to control her own body regardless of any potential life she is carrying.
Is it progress for a woman to be empowered to destroy what she should be nurturing with all her heart? The MAP is lethal for life at its most vulnerable and, if accepted, will deeply damage not only children, but women and the unique love the Maltese have for children.
Prof. Patrick Pullicino is a neurologist.
Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160909/opinion/From-treasure-to-trash.624469
The referendum on Brexit has been a severe blow to European unity. This development will have a far-reaching negative impact on both Britain and the rest of Europe.
Although, for once, the British had the opportunity to vote in a clear manner, where every vote counted, almost 30 per cent did not vote on such a crucial issue. The result was an indictment of a political class that believes that it knows it all and treats the electorate patronisingly.
The immigrant crisis, which is spiralling out of control, was exploited to the hilt by the anti-EU politicians and activists, who in their campaign proved even more dishonest than their opponents.
The Brexit result should be a wake-up call for all Europeans, especially those who claim to have Christian values.
For too long, the political and social development of a united Europe has been reduced to economic rationality. The Christian philosophy of social democracy has been dented, and the core values that inspired men like Alcide De Gasperi, Robert Schuman and Konrad Adenauer have long been given only lip service.
Lobbying should be declared and open, so that people are able to judge what is at stake
Such people, who really passionately believed in a united Europe, were those who came through World War II and believed in a democracy based on solidarity and subsidiarity. Such men of principle no longer exist. It is now mostly a matter of short-sighted, short-term, political and financial advantage.
Yet the rot in Europe runs deeper. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, this year’s recipient of the prestigious Templeton Prize, pins it down. Sacks did not mince words. Our civilisation is in imminent peril, despite all the advantages and comforts that modern technology has bestowed. He mentions four crippling flaws.
Firstly, we are addicted to debt. This is portrayed in the fiscal irresponsibility abetted and exploited by the financial world. Secondly, the breakdown of the family unit. This has been accelerated by easy divorce and the virulent gender ideology that has led to the virtual destruction of the concept of the traditional family.
Thirdly, the growing gap between the super-rich and the rest. Finally, the demise of the West is the result of an intractable demographic crisis in which the current generation rejects the responsibility of child-rearing.
These four realities are all interlinked and a consequence of the abandonment of Europe’s Christian identity, reflected now by an unrepresentative, bloated bureaucracy where policies are often determined by underhand lobbying.
A prime example can be seen in the series of trade negotiations being carried out, mostly in secret, between the EU and the US by the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It has been branded an assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations.
The spectre of lobbying in the EU is hardly referred to in the local media. Yet in Leħen Is-Sewwa (July 24), Dun Anġ Seychell, quoting a local paper, pointed out that despite the EU managing, after much effort, to force lobbies and their budgets to be registered, two countries refused to publish this information – Britain and Malta.
Instead of engaging with the EU to improve its performance, Britain chose to block transparency on such a vital issue. So much for blaming the EU for all its ills. It is the political class at the national level that bears the blame for corrupting wholesome political development in Europe.
These lobbyists are not just covering business interests. There are also pressure groups, such as LBGT groups, that conceal their role and funding. Such behaviour is the antithesis of sound democracy. Lobbying should be declared and open, so that people are able to judge what is at stake.
A further example of the abuse of political clout is the pressure in the EU by powerful interests such as that of billionaire George Soros, one of the US’s richest men, who uses funds to destabilise the current, democratic, pro-Catholic government in Poland and now also aims to fund groups fighting Ireland’s restrictive law on abortion.
Meanwhile, in Malta, the government continues to undermine the family and promote laws that threaten the sacredness of life.
Christians are expected to involve themselves in the political arena and fight these negative developments. Otherwise, Europe has no future.
Dr. Klaus Vella Bardon is vice-chairman of Life Network Foundation Malta.
Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160907/opinion/Brexit-Europe-in-jeopardy.624291
Science and technology could help advance man’s future in truth and goodness, but the opposite can also happen if professionals don’t really care about right and wrong. So would it do good to use Parliament to facilitate the use of pills that can undermine the processes of childbirth in the name of love?
Wouldn’t this be dangerous for democracy, as when citizens are corrupt they do harm to one other in a widespread fashion? Even if it’s true that the facts at the beginning of human life are not so clearly discernable, nonetheless what goes on beforehand indicates the life of virtue.
For instance, in prostitution a third factor in the person of a pimp is often involved even if not immediately apparent. Are the science and technology of the big pharmaceutical companies taking over the role of the pimp through the provision of pills, altering the natural biological process of the interaction of male and female bodies? Is this that dangerous combination of sex and violence?
Good governance prefers to promote the life of virtue, where peace and prosperity reign through the agreement of wills. Indeed it is this global civilisation of love towards which Malta should be inclining the soul of Europe. For what is really to be discovered in the cultural contrasts of moral relativity is the truth about personal relationality, whether it be about money and power or sexual intimacy.
Albeit being so miniscule an island, yet our true happiness as humans can help seek out the latent joy of true love in choices being made in respect of another’s body.
Through this element of sublime relationality, what is to be discovered is true interpersonal communion in its infinite intimacy, where time, space, and attendant emotions can indeed take life into a different dimension of existence, albeit fleetingly.
Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160904/letters/Science-truth-and-goodness.623981
I am not going to reply to Prof. Anthony Serracino Inglott’s letter in last Sunday’s TIMES entitled Emergency Contraception in the sarcastic way that he wrote about me, in deference to boring the public to death with medical details. I will simply point out that there is a wide gap in the pharmacological specifications that he himself has felt fit to quote.
In the specifications for Levonelle 1500 micrograms (levonorgestrel) he quotes that “at the recommended regimen, levonorgestrel is thought to work mainly by preventing ovulation and fertilisation if intercourse has taken place in the preovulatory phase, when the likelihood of fertilisation is highest. Levonelle 1500 is not effective once the process of implantation has begun”. What if it has not yet begun? It is evident that in the specifications themselves there is a lacuna or hole which Anthony Serracino Inglott seems to be playing on!
What if implantation has not yet begun – can it be prevented from beginning? What happens between fertilisation in the fallopian tube and the around five to seven-day period before the embryo comes to implant in the uterus? There is a glaring omission here and a profound silence! What exactly does one expect if the indications of the drug concerned is to cause the prevention of pregnancy? Is the literature incomplete for any particular reason? What about prevention of the beginning of implantation which is nowhere to be reckoned in the SmPC that he himself quotes?
As I wrote in my original article, there is much conflicting medical literature on the effects of levonorgestrel after ovulation has occurred, as to whether there is a prevention of implanatation of the embryo or not. Some studies and medical literature say it does prevent implantation of the embryo, some others say that there is no evidence that it does so (no concrete evidence that it does not do so). Nobody knows what vested interests are behind these reports as nobody knows what the vested interests are behind some of the opinions here in Malta.
Now every person with common sense knows that if there is serious doubt as to whether or not something is going to damage a human being, one does not approve it unless one is certain of what is happening. This is the primum non nocere of the medical profession. One of the first principles of medicine is, first, do no harm! If there is substantial doubt as to the action of the drug with respect to human damage (to the embryo), then the onus of proof would be on the prescriber and authoriser of the drug. If I remember well, there were several people who, during the parliamentary sub-committee hearings, attested to the negative effect of Levonorgestrel leading to the embryo failing to attach to the uterus. Apart from Professor Brincat, who testified the way he did (he also thinks that human embryos should be frozen during IVF procedures), there was another consultant gynaecologist who also testified to the damage caused by Levonorgestral to the embryo after ovulation occurs – or is Professor Serracino Inglott conveniently forgetting this too?
He takes me to task because I corrected myself about the drug Ulipristal (progestogin modulator) where, if anything, I accepted that, like Levonorgestral, it may be used before ovulation, but from the beginning I always said that like Levonorgestrel, it should not be used after ovulation. I have always been consistent on this particular point. As for the Italian Bioethics Committee, my answer is, where is the properly constituted Maltese Bioethics Committee? I can only wish that we had a Bioethics Committee that functions like the Italian one, composed of prestigious experts from all fields and which issues profound majority and minority reports on the relevant biomedical issues. It may not mean that I agree with all the Italian Committee’s reports but that is another thing.
Our Maltese bioethics committee is a practically non-existent and non-functional one and was never adequately constituted by this government with academics from the various disciplines, because it does not behove this notoriously subjective government to have a truly functioning committee to objectively advise it about these issues. Just as in the environment and in other quarters, this government has its own reasons and political agenda for not getting objective opinions published or acting on them if they are – and truth is often the first casualty.
I have been practicing my profession for 33 years and, like all doctors, I know that when treating patients one must not only consider the science but also the human circumstances surrounding that person, because applied medicine involves a knowledge of human psychological, social and philosophical issues that also need to be weighed in the balance of the final decision: a ‘feeling’ for the profession that general practitioners and other physicians learn not to ignore, a feeling based on facts but not only of the scientific kind! Medicine is both a art and a science: a science like the ovulation tests often used by patients to determine whether they are ovulating or not in order to determine their fertile period. An art like deciding when to treat a patient who is the victim of a rape or incestuous behaviour!
As for Minister Helena Dalli, she should not just rely on the Medicines Authority for an opinion. One swallow does not a summer make! She should have a wide access to other professional opinions and authorities too, unless of course it might suit her to rely on just one opinion in order to advance her ‘civil liberties’ agenda!
Dr. Michael Asciak MD, M.Phil. (European Studies and Genomics), PhD (Bioethics), PGC in VET. Senior Lecturer II in the Institute of Applied Science at MCAST.
The debate on emergency contraception/morning-after pill in Malta must be confusing all those trying to make sense of the conflicting statements presented in the local media. It is so difficult to analyse facts when they are completely masked in doublespeak and when redefinition of terms come into play. This is grossly unfair to the general public who deserve to know the truth.
Life Network Foundation Malta, as an interested party, recently attempted to give a presentation of facts at the conjoined parliamentary committee discussing this issue. Unfortunately, we were constantly interrupted and most of the committee did not seem to be interested in the facts or the credibility of the science presented. This was most unjust as our only possibility to contribute as an NGO is through these parliamentary committees.
It bears restating that scientific evidence underpinned by all textbooks on embryology, tell us that a new human life starts with the fertilisation of an egg by a sperm. This new single cell organism, called a zygote, starts to multiply and grow as it travels down the fallopian tube to implant itself in the uterus. Implantation of the embryo occurs about the fifth to the 12th day of its life.
In 1965, the American College of Gynaecologists (ACOG) decided to redefine pregnancy as “established only at the conclusion of implantation of a fertilised egg”. According to this definition any drug/device that endangers the life of the embryo in the first two weeks of life is not an abortifacient since according to this definition pregnancy has to be established first.
This definition purposely ignores the first two weeks of human embryonic life. However, in this country, under the Embryo Protection Act, embryonic life is protected from conception.
The ACOG defines abortifacient as “an agent that disturbs an embryo already implanted in the uterine lining, after a pregnancy has been established”. The ACOG is a pro-abortion organisation that sees nothing wrong with aborting a child in utero.
Thankfully, in the US there is also the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (AAPLOG), who do not accept the new redefinitions of the ACOG. Accordingly, the AAPLOG “reaffirm the unique value and dignity of individual human life in all stages of growth and development from fertilization onward”. The newly conceived life is acknowledged and protected.
The ACOG wrongly defines as contraceptive both “an agent which prevents fertilisation of an egg” and also one that “prevents implantation of a fertilised egg, preventing a pregnancy from taking place”. This is aborting a new life before implantation.
Most institutions see no problem with abortion. When quoting studies, it is imperative to know who is sponsoring the research, what their stand on life is, and what they mean by ‘not abortifacient’.
The Medicines Authority Regulator was more intent on endorsing the emergency contraceptives and mentioning product characteristics than listening to the discussion on the anti-life risks involved.
The authority should have remained impartial, heard all the sides and then pronounced its stance.
At no point was there any acknowledgement of Malta’s Embryo Protection Act or its endorsement.
Life Network Foundation Malta is currently sending printed copies of the presentation and scientific papers attesting to the abortifacient effects of emergency contraception to all members of Parliament.
A dedicated section on MAPs has been set up on http://staging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co/index.php/resources/map .
Life Network Foundation Malta acknowledges and thanks Donna Harrison from AAPLOG for her assistance in this presentation. The debate on emergency contraception has been shamelessly camouflaged in deception.
Protection of human embryonic life is not being given centre stage. The public should be aware of this. This devious campaign is a denial of the humanity of the first two weeks of embryonic life.
Its aim is to leave a window open to the trafficking, disposal, selection, donation and freezing of embryonic human beings at will, embarking on the road to abortion. This means altering the stand that Malta has always had in providing a safe haven for the unborn from conception.
This was not in the electoral manifesto of either political party and our parliamentary representatives are urged to take up their responsibility in defending life from conception and to make their stand publicly.
Dr. Miriam Sciberras is chairwoman of Life Network Foundation Malta.
Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160903/opinion/A-camouflaged-deception.623891
Much has been written and proclaimed about when life starts and the methods and reasons to prevent or terminate it. Both sides of the political spectrum still profess to be against abortion and the termination of intra-uterine life at whatever stage of gestation.
I attended the final ‘stage managed’ session of the morning after pill debate of the Social Affairs Parliamentary Committee.
That the matter had been already decided upon was evident from the chairman’s and minister’s attitude towards arguments brought forward by NGOs and members of the public who were arguing against its importation. A few days later, the chairman writes a Talking Point arguing that life begins when there is brain activity. On the basis of such reasoning many could well argue that life begins when the baby is born or when it can go and live on its own.
Papers for and papers against were presented. This is proof enough that the matter contains as yet unresolved grey areas. But it seems that what our politicians think is more important and sacrosanct than what science cannot definitely prove. They know it all. Just factor in the hardships that many are enduring since the gates of divorce were opened on the pretext that unhappy marriages too were hardships. What will emanate from gay adoptions is still a joy to come. Poor children – our modern toys.
I have always tried to follow the wise saying that ‘when the stable door opens the horse bolts’. We have opened more than a stable door. I believe we have opened the floodgates. We have thrown overboard our past values and morals in the name of progress and individual rights. Once abortion is legalised, we would have achieved it all. I say legalised, for abortion is among us and its practice is a stark fact.
That women can buy abortifacient tablets over the internet is another fact. That doctors are prescribing the pill, that women buy it over the counter and use it as an abortifacient is undisputable. But does all this justify legalising tablets when there is lack of consensus over whether they are or are not an abortifacient? Do we want to open the floodgates?
Are women right in stating and believing that their body is theirs and that they have a civil right to do what they want with their body? Are men right in forcing women to abort because they do not want their babies or because their babies are the result of their infidelity or of sexual abuse or of their refusal to wear condoms? And haven’t methods of contraception actually contributed to the increase of sexually-transmitted diseases, not least among which HIV and HPV and Herpes, which haunt our female population to their death? All of this is in the name of progress, civilisation, civil rights and being European.
I reason from a different perspective:
As long as a woman is not pregnant, she can do what she likes with her body as long as she does not turn to society to bear the consequence of her actions. Every right must carry its responsibilities and obligations. We are living in an age of rights. But where are the responsibilities and obligations these carry?
Once a woman becomes pregnant, her body is no longer hers alone. She bears an embryo, foetus or baby with a distinct and diverse DNA and, if we are true to our civil rights proclamations, this embryo, foetus or baby has a divine right to life.
The woman bears a genetically distinct human organism, which, although she can claim to be hers, still gives her no God-given or legislative power to destroy it. Thou shall not kill makes no reference to in or out of the womb.
The woman bearing the embryo, foetus, baby is not the sole creator or procreator. This necessitated a male who is fully conscious of the results of his acts. Let’s not be naive that, in the present day, two having sex do not do so in full knowledge of the consequences.
The new embryo/foetus/baby bears the particular genetic combination of both and, therefore, is the responsibility of both and belongs to both. Today, a simple DNA test helps to identify the real perpetrator.
The claim that the child the woman carries is her own to do with what she likes is actually absolving the male from his share of responsibility.
Is it fair for society to carry the can he has abandoned even while preventing the innocent from the consequences of today’s hedonism? Should the womanbe left to carry the responsibility on her own? Shoulder the responsibility? Should the male be allowed to shed his semen without hindrance or any responsibility for his actions?
The argument should not be based on the destruction of life (abortion) as a solution to an unwanted pregnancy. If we do not want to develop dysentery, we do not eat raw meat. If we do not want to get hurt, we stay away from danger. If we do not want to acquire a sexually-transmitted disease, we wear a condom. If we do not want an unplanned pregnancy, we must take proper precautions.
This is the education and help the nation must give. This is the responsible message and solutions our legislators must send.
It is only when we recognise and shoulder our responsibilities as well as our rights that we can then solve or deal with the exceptions that today we use as pretext for blanket solutions or, possibly, unmitigated disasters.
Can a society that destroys life rather than cherish it claim to be a ‘whole’ and ‘caring’ society?
Let us wake up and stop this selfish approach. Let us wake up to our rights as much as to our responsibilities. Let us wake up and stop this fast downward trend to hardship and sufferings for the many who fall into the trap disguised as ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’. Let us stop this new poverty, which is fast growing.
For centuries, the men and women of these islands have fought tooth and nail, have suffered and endured, to live, love and procreate on the pieces of rock we are proud to call home.
Are we now turning the knife on ourselves and doing what so many of our historic enemies could not accomplish?
Let us proudly determine to defend life in all its stages. Only then can we be truly worthy of the sacrifices our ancestors have undergone in the creation of our very specific Maltese identity.
Josie Muscat is chairman, Saint James Hospital Group.
Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160826/opinion/Defend-life-in-all-stages.623085
I agree and disagree on some points raised by martin scicluna in his interesting article ‘last human right’ (Times of Malta, August 10).
I think that, although a lot is being written about euthanasia and the heartbreaking appeal by two suffering patients, who are in my prayers, very little has been said about the art of dying, or ars moriendi,which originated in eastern Germany at the Council of Constance (1414-1418).
In Malta, we had the tradition of the buona morte, followed by the vjatku, a procession from the church to bring the blessed sacrament to the homes of the moribund. Scicluna made reference to the living will as a means to alleviate prolonged suffering without infringing upon the fundamental value of the sanctity of life, as God’s most precious gift to man. In my 30 years at San Raffaele scientific Hospital in Milan, I was close to many patients at the moment of death.
I do understand the grief at that moment and, I must confess, I too shed some tears.
Till the very end, the patient must be considered a human person without any distinction, but the right to terminate life is only God’s. We should be giving priority to ‘being close to’ and ‘looking after’ the patient.
We are called to ‘accompany’ the dying till the very last moment. after Vatican Council II, the Church, in its liturgy and pastoral care, simplified the rites of the dying.
Christian death is now Christ-centred, as He overcame death and returned to life. i have often found solace in the prayer of st Gregory of Nyssa: “You turned our fear of death to hope. You have changed the end of our life into the beginning of true life. to those who are afraid You have given the sign of the Cross, which is an assurance of eternal life.” this is how we can accompany the dying.
It was what inspired Cicely Saunders, founder of the hospice movement. i
It was also what inspired Mother Teresa, whom I met twice in her ‘Home for the Dying’, where she often said that these “people lived like animals and now they die as angels”.
She never made a distinction between Christians and non-Christians. What both these women did was to make death more comfortable “to help them live a full life till the very end”. This should also be what inspires all doctors and paramedics. scicluna very aptly quoted the Hippocratic oath, written 2,500 years ago, but alas, many a patient today dies alone. anthropological studies show that the product of the present secularised human culture has boosted our fear of pain and suffering.
As Elisabeth Kübler-Ross affirmed, today we have “a crisis between death and pain”. Death is now a collective taboo. as Plato said: “in order to become a good doctor, we must first experience suffering.”
I have seen many patients facing death bravely, whether believers or not. often, the situation next to their bed becomes a school of love, courage and faith. the bed becomes an altar where the liturgy of suffering is celebrated. i often remind people of the case of Rosanna Benzi, who for many years, had to live her life in a steel lung. another case is of a student nurse, who in a letter to colleagues wrote: “What are you afraid of?
After all, it is I who am dying”. I confess that, at my ripe age, i think of death daily, but only faith helps me to overcome fear.
I also think that, after the celebration of the eucharist, accompanying the dying is living to the full our ministry. I also plan to write on the living will, which i see as a way not to prolong life.
It is part of the accepted art of dying.
Mgr Charles Vella spent 30 years as director of San Raffaele Hospital
Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160820/opinion/The-accepted-art-of-dying.622527
Embryonic life starts after the male sperm fertilises the female egg or ovum to form a zygote. Everyone who has some common sense knows this.
Sperm transport through the cervix is affected by endocrine, immunological and psychological factors. Around the time of ovulation, sperm reaches the site of fertilisation in the tubes within two to 10 minutes. Emergency contraception sometimes acts by delaying ovulation.
Nevertheless, statistical evidence effectiveness (62 to 85 per cent) of these medications suggest that if the regimen is as effective as claimed, it must have a mechanism of action other than delaying or preventing ovulation. This is the grey area.
Most medical authorities, including FIGO, the United States Food and Drug Administration/National Institutes of Health and several colleges of obstetricians and gynaecologists, today conveniently define the beginning of life as the time when the embryo implants in the womb after having made it through the fallopian tube. Justifying experimenting and interfering with human embryos in the first two weeks of life then becomes easy.
The decision to authorise emergency contraception in Malta has been left to a panel of parliamentary representatives who should currently be analysing the data provided by different groups of relevant people.
On July 20, Prof. Mark Brincat and Prof. Anthony Serracino Inglott were given ample time to make their case for agreeing to authorise these drugs. A week later, a few organisations presented data which show why the drugs should not be authorised in Malta as they are abortifacient.
Following some of the presentations, one of the doctors in the panel said it was evident that these drugs were definitely not abortifacient, ignoring what had just been presented.
None among the panel and no professors or otherwise among those presenting this or the previous week’s presentation are experts in this area. To critically analyse such data properly, one must be a true expert.
Prof. James Trussell PhD, from Princeton University, published a 35-page review article only last month. He is a seasoned expert as his recent research has been focused in three areas: emergency contraception, contraceptive failure and the cost-effectiveness of contraception. He has actively promoted making emergency contraception more widely available as an important step in helping women reduce their risk of unintended pregnancy.
Yet, in this review article he concludes that “interference with implantation is likely not an inevitable effect of emergency contraception. To make an informed choice, women must know that emergency contraception prevents pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and fertilisation but it is not scientifically possible to definitively rule out that a method may inhibit implantation of a fertilised egg in the endometrium”.
In simple language, emergency contraception works by delaying ovulation as well as interfering with survival of an embryo, and therefore can be abortifacient. Coming from such a staunch supporter of emergency contraception, this should make us ponder!
Some argue that other tablets and intrauterine devices can also be abortifacient and are readily available in Malta. Thus, adding emergency contraception to the list is not a big deal. However, the sole reason for taking emergency contraception is to specifically interrupt an imminent pregnancy.
These drugs have only been available since 2009. There are other adverse effects of emergency contraception on society. Randomised trials suggest that easier access to them has increased the frequency of having sex, which potentially leads to more pregnancies.
Women who like taking emergency contraception report that they did not want to use either condoms or another contraceptive method. Besides leading to more pregnancies, this would defeat the point of educating daring young girls and boys to wear condoms and prevent sexually transmitted disease. Trussell concludes that only one of 15 published studies has demonstrated that increasing access to emergency contraception can reduce pregnancy or abortion rates.
Women can make a habit of taking it repeatedly. Emergency contraception has a high dose of hormones affecting progesterone, which has a great effect on the development of breast cancer, and it is early days to see the full effect of these drugs.
The rate of abortion, sexually transmitted disease, the need to take children from parents and foster them, as well as the rate of divorce all over the western world have been on a constant rise over the last few decades, even if women have increasing armamentarium to prevent pregnancies.
One wonders if we dare take this same route in Malta or dare be different and take a different approach to life. Our ancestors had the courage to pass on many life principles to this generation. It seems however, that this generation prefers to follow in the steps of ‘developed’ countries, leading to increasing family disharmony.
Margaret Spiteri is a consultant gynaecologist.
Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160821/opinion/Truth-about-morning-after-pill.622598
