Category: Pro-Life

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

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

In sections of the Maltese press, the head of the Medicines Authority in Malta, Professor Anthony Serracino Inglott states that there is no scientific reason why emergency contraception products should not be authorised for sale in Malta. He says scientific studies show that emergency contraception cannot interrupt an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo. It seems he is speaking about the effects of Levonorgestrel on the uterus. There are other preparations (ulipristal, mifepristone) available for use as an emergency contraceptive device, some work in a similar fashion to Levonorgestrel (affects higher progesterone levels), and some work differently.

There is an implicit pun, play on words or trick in the utterances of the Medicine Authority’s chief. He states quite clearly that this pill cannot interrupt an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo. In other sections of the press, he has already stated that for him, pregnancy starts at nidation or implantation of the embryo in the uterus. However, everyone knows that human life starts at conception or fertilisation which occurs seven days before that event in the fallopian tube, before the embryo travels down the tube where implantation normally occurs (or not) in the uterine body. In fact, sometimes the embryo implants in the fallopian tube and there is then an ectopic pregnancy! It is quite possible that Levonorgestrel may not disturb an already implanted embryo, and even on this there is academic doubt, but there is no doubt that there is the ever present possibility of prevention of nidation or implantation of the human embryo with Levonorgestrel and other drugs. That, Professor Serracino Inglott does not say, quite conveniently!

The Medicines Authority in Malta is a pharmaceutical expert and authority on the action of medicines on human beings. It is not an expert in Bioethics or one which determines when human life begins. All experts in Embryology as attested by the Terminologia Embryologica define human life as starting at complete fertilisation of the ovum by the sperm (stage E2.0.1.2.0.0.9 – Zygotum; Embryo Syngamicum, stage 1c Gradus Carnegiensis – Carnegie Stages of human development). Besides this, such deliberations should not be the remit of the Medicines Authority but of a Bioethics Committee which has never been appropriately set up and remains without a head after its chairperson Deborah Schembri became Parliamentary Secretary. I have already written at length that issues of Bioethics should not be academically handled by politicians or by public debate first, but by a properly constituted National Bioethics Committee (as in other EU countries) properly established by law (not ad hoc) with multidisciplinary representation from the appropriate disciplines including the sciences and the humanities especially philosophy. The National Bioethics Committee in Italy works beautifully and is an example to behold.

However, there are other issues of a legal nature here. Maltese law already defines what an embryo is. In the Embryo Protection Act which all PL and PN deputies voted in favour of in 2012, including Minister Helena Dalli who seems to want to rely on the Medicines Authority exclusively to satisfy her own purported civil rights purposes (not the right to life of a human being it seems!), the Embryo is defined in article 2 as:

“‘Embryo’” means the human organism that result from the fertilisation of a human egg cell by a human sperm cell which is capable of developing and shall further include each totipotent cell removed from an embryo or otherwise produced that is assumed to be able to divide and to develop as a human being under the appropriate conditions.”

Nowhere here is the definition of pregnancy mentioned or defined as the implantation of the embryo into the uterus! Human life starts at but is not limited to fertilisation (conception) as totipotent cells can be formed by other means which same law also protects the human embryo. Modern epigenetics and genetics today prove more than ever that human life starts at fertilisation. Article 8 (1) of the same law states: “Whosoever, other than for the purpose of implantation in a woman as may be authorised by the provisions of this Act disposes of, hands over or acquires a human embryo produced outside the body, or removes such embryo from a woman before the completion of implantation in the womb, shall be guilty of an offence and, on conviction, shall be liable to the punishment of a fine (multa) of not less than five thousand euro (5,000) and not exceeding fifteen thousand euro (15,000) or to imprisonment not exceeding three years or to both such fine and imprisonment.”

Maybe Minister Dalli has a short memory and seems to have forgotten that she too voted for this law and that she too is liable under the law, or maybe she needs to ask the opinion of the Embryo Protection Authority which is established by the same law and which has certain powers and obligations with regard to the same law’s application.

In the Maltese Constitution, Article 33 (1), it is written as: “No person shall intentionally be deprived of his life save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence under the law of Malta of which he has been convicted.”

The Maltese language version of the Constitution which is superior to the British translation goes even further and uses the word “Hadd” meaning no one or nobody and therefore specifically refers to a human being, which human being is proved by science to start at conception.

I already stated in a previous article that especially in cases where there is violence in the sexual act there is a moral case for the use of certain formulations of the morning after pill before ovulation has occurred and there is a simple urine test for this to be ascertained. Before ovulation has occurred the pill does work by preventing fertilisation and by preventing ovulation, that is, no egg is released from the ovary and if such egg is realised no fertilisation is able to take place, sperm and ovum are not able to unite. These details and circumstances have to be left to the doctor and the patient to administer together. In the light of this, the state would be right in approving Levonorgestrel for the specific indication for use before ovulation has occurred, as it is today indeed legally approved in a lower dose as a method of ordinary contraception and as a five year slow-release intra-uterine formulation. On or after ovulation, approval or prescription of the high dose drug would lead to breaking Maltese law and the Maltese Constitution. Administrative decisions to that effect would also be in breach of the law and the Maltese Constitution.

I have always held that women have a right to decide issues regarding their own fertility but these rights have to give way to the right to life of any other human being which prima facie is way above all other human rights and claims. It is a first degree right so to speak, that the right of innocent human to life is absolute. The golden rule of wishing for others what one would have wished for oneself holds water here!

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2016-08-21/newspaper-opinions/In-breach-of-the-Maltese-Constitution-6736162652

The debate in respect of the licensing of the morning-after pill has many facets and should be guided by scientific findings, ethical considerations and full respect for human rights.

The issue has sometimes been presented as a tussle between science and ethics, a clash between women’s civil rights on the one hand and the rights of the unborn on the other hand. In an attempt to reconcile apparently conflicting considerations, it is sometimes necessary to outline basic principles.

It is not uncommon for competing rights to conflict with one another. It is for this reason that in developed legal systems there exists a hierarchy of rights.

Within this hierarchy, the first guiding principle is that fundamental human rights trump civil rights and not vice versa. Besides, the right to life tops the hierarchy of rights which exists in our legal system.

Accordingly, any debate in respect of women’s civil and reproductive rights, including a debate in respect of the morning-after pill, cannot be carried out in isolation. It should be placed in the context of an established hierarchy of rights and the right to life tops that hierarchy.

The second principle to bear in mind is that life starts from the moment of conception and accordingly should be protected and treated with dignity from that moment.

Maltese law is replete with provisions which recognise the principle that life starts at conception and that accordingly legal protection is provided to the conceived though as yet unborn.

A technical committee to report on the scientific findings of the effects of morning-after pills is understandable and advisable

Thus for example, the Embryo Protection Act defines an embryo as a “human organism” that results from fertilisation. Politicians should therefore be unequivocal about the start of life and the deliberations in respect of the morning-after pill should be placed in this context.

The corollary to the above principle is that a morning-after pill which prevents ovulation and/or fertilisation is a contraceptive and not an abortifacient. On the other hand, a morning-after pill which interrupts life after conception by preventing implantation is an abortifacient and not a contraceptive, regardless of how it is labelled.

Contraceptive and abortifacient effects are not invariably mutually exclusive, as there may be instances where an intended contraceptive is also potentially abortifacient. In this case responsible decision makers or prescribing doctors are called upon to decide whether to err on the side of life or on the side of death.

The precautionary principle and the dictates of prudence would suggest that when in doubt life should be safeguarded and not endangered.

An unbiased understanding of the effects of the morning-after pill is therefore critical for legislators and authorities to take an informed decision. The pharmacological effects of morning-after pills differ from one pill to another.

From a legal perspective, it is therefore not possible to generalise and categorise all forms of pills uniformly as either contraceptive or abortifacient. Besides, academic research is not entirely consistent in its findings.

In this context the suggestion coming from various quarters, including the Medical

Association of Malta, for a technical committee to report on the scientific findings of the effects of morning-after pills is understandable and advisable.

To ignore this suggestion would be rash and indicative of a parliamentary committee which is prejudiced, in the sense that it has prejudged the matter without giving due consideration to conflicting views and legitimate concerns.

The constitution of a technical committee should not however be the pretext for our politicians to pass on the buck of their responsibility.

The competence and responsibility of technical specialists should be to highlight prevalent scientific findings and to convince decision makers that various forms of morning-after pills are not abortifacient in the sense that they do not interrupt life by preventing implantation.

The onus and responsibility of politicians and local authorities is then to take their onerous decision in respect of the legalisation and licensing of the morning-after pill in the light of scientific findings, bearing in mind the hierarchy of rights, the value of life, as well as the existing position at law, in terms of which, life starts at conception and should therefore be safeguarded from the moment of conception.

 Arthur Galea Salomone is president of the Cana Movement.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160816/opinion/Guidelines-on-MAP.622153

As coordinator of the Malta Unborn Child Movement (MUCM) I was invited to speak at the parliamentary hearings on the morning-after pill by the chairman of the Family Committee of Parliament.

At the hearing, I started reading a prepared short paper which was not supposed to take more than five minutes, according to the chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee Etienne Grech.

After only two minutes I was abruptly stopped by the chairman, and asked to state in a few words my position on the morning-after pill. My reply was that MUCM’s position was made public in the press from the beginning and after two hearings in which a number of medical experts and experts on ethics expressed their doubts whether the pill is abortifacient or not, we should adopt the precautionary principle and not act in any direction for the moment.

When I stated my and the MUCM’s position, the chairman ordered me to retire. At that moment Civil Liberties Minister Helena Dalli was sitting very close to the chairman.

The precautionary stance was recently adopted, very wisely, by Environment Minister Jose Herrera on the use of the weed killer glyphosate “which is considered a probable human carcinogen”.

Before retiring, as ordered, I drew the chairman’s and Dalli’s attention to the fact that what I had said, and was going to say, was based on facts and I, and MUCM, were being discriminated against and denied the right to freedom of expression, and of speech on the morning-after pill.

Besides it was an extreme lack of ordinary courtesy, if not much worse, to treat in such a bizarre and unorthodox way a person, and an organisation, invited by the same Joint Committee, to give its views on the matter.

This was supposed to help Parliament come to an informed decision on the very delicate matter of whether the morning-after pill is abortifacient or not, which is the crux of the whole matter.

I added that I was being prevented from delivering my complete presentation when all other speakers before me had done so.

Practically all of them took much more than five minutes, including, especially, the chairman of the Medicines Authority who took almost 75 minutes when he was supposed to finish after 10 minutes. I attended the three hearings.

They don’t mind breaking this or that law about unborn children as long as they have it their way

The incident was brought to the attention of the Speaker of the House.

During the two minutes of my very short and interrupted speech I had made some very constructive criticism of the long paper of the chairman of the Medicines Authority.

In spite of the three parliamentary hearings, and in spite of the fact that Dalli was present for the three hearings, she has reiterated many times that she is going to base her decisions on the licensing, importation and distribution of the morning-after pill on the recommendations of the Medicines Authority. Many understood, exclusively.

If this is going to be the case, why were the three parliamentary hearings held? Why were all those people, and organisations, called to advise the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the morning-after pill?

Why did the chairman of the third hearing say many times that the joint committee of the social, family and health committees of Parliament was going to study and analyse all the documents submitted by individuals and organisations? A very pertinent fact is that the chairman of the Family Committee, Godfrey Farrugia, a family doctor and former minister of health, has already declared his position that the morning after pill “may be is abortifacient”.

My very short paper, on behalf of so many unborn children, challenged, firstly, certain alleged ‘facts’ in the presentation of the chairman of the Medicines Authority, and secondly certain bizarre behaviour by the same chairman in my regard immediately after the first hearing in Parliament.

Unfortunately, all the women organisations, with the exception of the National Council of Women, who made presentations at the parliamentary joint hearings, spoke only about the rights of women over their bodies.

Nothing was said about the rights of unborn children from conception onwards; and this even though we have eight laws which protect the well-being and rights of unborn children from conception.

They don’t mind breaking this or that law about unborn children as long as they have it their way.

Even though we have it from Farrugia that demand for morning-after pill comes mostly from “single women” who don’t mind going for “unprotected and casual sex”.

That’s not really from the assorted groups of women as claimed by the Women’s Rights Foundation in their judicial letter to the Maltese courts and in the parliamentary hearing.

This is happening at a time when Maltese society has even introduced laws for the well-being and legal protection of animals. Amazing.

In defence of all unborn children at whatever stage of their gestation, MUCM strongly appeals to all Maltese parliamentarians to take note also of what was said lately by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. Commenting on the big number of abortions carried out in the US, he warned the American people: “Future generations will call us barbarians.”

Tony Mifsud is coordinator, Malta Unborn Child Movement.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160812/opinion/We-are-no-barbarians.621744

I am truly surprised that Etienne Grech (August 5) should still be touting the old abortionist’s red herring that “there can be no life before the brain has started to form”.

He argues that “death occurs when brain function ceases, hence, life must begin when brain function commences”. This line of reasoning may resonate due to its beguiling simplicity but I would have expected better from a medical practitioner.

He cites Goldenring but omits to mention that the Goldenring/Brady view violated every mainstream textbook of embryology in the known world and was clearly driven by motivations not primarily scientific in nature. It was laid to rest by Beckwith in 1991 and has been given little attention since.

The Goldenring argument puts the cart before the horse. Beckwith explained it more elegantly but the essential fact is that the older human being must have a functioning brain to coordinate and control everything whereas the youngest, that is, the embryo, does not yet need one to progress smoothly to the older stage where it does.

There are two starkly clear, reductive arguments that may help put the matter into better focus. One, an embryo is clearly a genetically whole organism. If, at any stage, it is not a living human being, on which of these two qualifications does it fail?

If not living, then the embryo must be either dead (so it must have been alive) or non-living (and, like a pebble, it will never become living). If not human, does it therefore belong to some other species, morphing by some magical process into our own at some randomly-assigned point in its life ?

Two, is it not obvious that the only conceivable starting point for an organism consisting of a huge number of coordinated cells is, and can only ever be, one?

Dr. Ivan Padovani is a member of Life Network Foundation Malta

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160813/letters/Dead-or-alive.621826

The question which is currently being debated in Malta is whether morning-after pills are legal or illegal. From a legal viewpoint, the answer to this question depends very much on the effects these pills procure: are they purely and simply contraceptive or are they both contraceptive and abortifacient at one and the same time? Depending on how the medical community answers this question, the legal reply follows.

If these pills prevent ovulation or fertilisation, then they are contraceptive: they are not illegal in terms of the Criminal Code, though moral consequences might ensue with regard to their dispensation and use. But if these pills interrupt life after conception by preventing implantation, then they are abortifacient. In the eyes of the Criminal Law, this is a totally different matter from contraception as it is outrightly prohibited.

This is because abortion is illegal in Malta in terms of the Criminal Code. In terms of the Embryo Protection Act, life begins from fertilisation. A thorough study of Maltese law reveals that its raison d’être is to protect life not to annihilate it. This is evidenced, for instance, from laws such as the Criminal Code, the Civil Code, the Domestic Violence Act and the Embryo Protection Act.

All these laws protect not only a human being who is alive and kicking but even a person who has been conceived though yet unborn. A pregnant woman is protected from domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act but even the unborn child she carries is so protected.

In terms of the Civil Code, the Civil Court may appoint a curator ad ventrem in those cases where the husband has died yet his wife is pregnant. The Civil Code protects the unborn child for s/he might be deprived of proprietary rights which might devolve upon him or her on the demise of his or her father.

The Embryo Protection Act is categorical in this respect when it defines an embryo as “the human organism that results from the fertilisation of a human egg cell by a human sperm cell”.

Maltese law therefore celebrates life not its taking away. It aims to protect the interests of vulnerable persons who cannot defend themselves, be they unborn children or children who are already born even, if need be, to the detriment of parents’ rights and women’s rights.

Because children – whether born or unborn – are vulnerable, innocent and defenceless, and the law places them in a special privileged position. The law considers the interests of born and unborn children to be paramount to such extent that children’s rights supersede and bring to naught those of their parents or guardians.

The same reasoning is adopted when the State, through a care order, takes over the care and custody of a child from the child’s own legal parents to ensure the child’s best interests and well-being by entrusting that child to the responsible minister.

The Criminal Code penalises the administration of any medicine which brings about the miscarriage of any woman with child. Any apothecary who administers the means whereby the miscarriage is procured is in breach of the criminal law. The consequence of this is that if a morning-after pill is abortifacient, then it is in breach of the Criminal Code.

Not only so, but if any such pill, including any pill which is already on the EU register of medicinal products for human use, might already be dispensed in Malta, causes abortion, then Malta is also in breach of European Union law irrespective of whether such a pill has been added to that register by another EU member state not being Malta.

For no other EU member state, not even the European Medicines Agency, may violate without consequences EU law. When allowing an abortifacient morning-after pill to be included in this register – which is perfectly legal to do so in other EU member states which have no qualms with abortion – to be dispensed in Malta, then it is the Maltese Medicines Authority which is in breach both of Maltese criminal law and EU law.

The fact that an abortifacient pill is on the register is no excuse to breach Maltese and EU law with total disregard to the rule of law. The Abortion Protocol to the EU Treaty of Accession, an EU law of higher standing than that regulating the European Medicines Agency and its register, clearly states that Maltese legislation prevails over the totality of EU law, including the register of medicinal products, with regard to the crime of abortion.

Prudence dictates that as a precautionary measure it is life, not death, that should have the upper hand and, unless it is proved scientifically that a morning-after pill is not abortifacient, then it should not be imported or administered in Malta unless Maltese law is progressively modernised to glorify death through the legalisation of abortion. Otherwise the rule of law would be honoured more by its breach than by its observance.

Both the European Commission and the European Medicines Agency are obliged by EU law to ensure that they comply therewith. Where this is not the case, they have to take the necessary action envisaged by the EU treaties to enforce EU law, whether they like it or not, for even European institutions are subject to the rule of law and are not above the law. On the other hand, it is clear that once the Maltese Medicines Authority appears to accept unquestioningly any medicine which happens to be listed on the EU register of medicinal products without going that extra mile to investigate any abortifacient effects it might have as it is mandated to do by Maltese and EU law, its credibility in ruling on the legality of a morning-after pill is seriously dented due to its lack of thoroughness, due diligence and objectivity when evaluating morning-after pills.

On the other hand, being after all more of a bioethical and bio-legal rather than a purely and simply pharmacological issue, the advice of the Bioethics Consultative Committee should be sought as it is this committee – not the Medicines Authority – which enjoys competence in bioethical matters. Unless and until the Bioethics Consultative Committee advises the government that a pill is not abortifacient, and the Attorney General concurs with such advice, no morning-after pill should be dispensed in Malta, even if it is on the EU register of medicinal products.

And this in homage to the general principle of law known as the precautionary principle which requires that no human life be taken unless it is ascertained with precision that this will not be the case.

Being a highly controversial issue and for transparency’s and accountability’s sake, the written advice of both the Bioethics Consultative Committee and the Attorney General should be published for public scrutiny and laid on the table of the House of Representatives.

Should this advice not be adhered to by government, the Minister of Health should publish a written justification why he has intentionally disregarded such advice followed up by a ministerial statement in the House of Representatives.

Kevin Aquilina is the Dean of the Faculty of Laws at the University of Malta.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160809/opinion/The-il-legality-of-MAPs.621478