MaltaToday previous editions

MW 17 January 2018

Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/927417

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 8 of 23

9 maltatoday WEDNESDAY 17 JANUARY 2018 Editorial Not all discussions need a mandate MaltaToday, MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 MANAGING EDITOR: SAVIOUR BALZAN EXECUTIVE EDITOR: MATTHEW VELLA ASSISTANT EDITOR: PAUL COCKS Tel: (356) 21 382741-3, 21 382745-6 • Fax: (356) 21 385075 Website: www.maltatoday.com.mt E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt When Nils Muiznieks, com- missioner for human rights at the Council of Europe, called for the "prohibition regime" on abortion in Malta to be ad- dressed through an open and informed public debate, he was aware that he was touch- ing on a thorny issue. Muiznieks recommended that abortion be decriminal- ised, and access be facilitated to safe and legal abortion care on a woman's request. The recommendation was includ- ed in a follow-up letter he sent to the Prime Minister after visiting Malta last November. But in an interview with this newspaper, he added: "I think it's disturbing, that in a developed democracy, you cannot have a democratic debate on a policy that affects the human rights of so many women.... especially when your policy really sticks out, in the broader context. " From this perspective, Prime Minister's Joseph Muscat official reply, that 'the govern- ment does not have a man- date to introduce abortion in Malta', does not address the key concern. Granted, it is true that the present government – or any other in Maltese history – has no mandate to introduce abortion. It is probably also true (but here we are already in the realm of conjecture) that public opinion is firmly against it. But we are not necessarily talking about the 'introduction of abortion'. The main argument is that the blanket prohibition policy needs to be discussed. And on that level, neither argument – mandate, nor public opinion – has any bearing whatsoever. This is a discussion that needs to take place. It is not enough for people on the street to debate the matter; what is needed is a serious debate that should be held in its proper venue: Parliament. The focus of this debate does not need to be whether we should permit legal abor- tions to take place in Malta or not. Such a debate would in fact be pointless, given the broad political consensus that exists to the contrary. This does not mean that there is nothing to discuss, however. One other aspect Muiznieks mentioned was that abortion "affects a whole range of women's rights. It affects their right to health; it affects their right to bodily integrity; their right to private life; it affects their right to be free of ill-treatment... because very often, women who are confronted with such restric- tive regimes and policies are ill-treated: by doctors, among others." In Malta we have often 'discussed' our mutual agree- ment, across party lines, to keep abortion illegal... but we have never really discussed the effect of our country's national policy on Maltese women. Nor, for that matter, on the medical profession. It is a known fact, for instance, that medical abortions take place here, in all legality, under certain conditions. The over- riding principle, in all cases, is that the abortion would be an undesired consequence of a necessary medical procedure: and not the intended aim of that procedure. This is a reality that exists, and that even the most pro- life organisations perforce condone. Yet nowhere is it catered in specific terms for by Maltese legislation: which, on the subject of abortion, has remained virtually unchanged since the 19th century. Unfor- tunately, this political reluc- tance to ever broach these anomalies has resulted in a law that has proved impos- sible to ever update or change at all: in any detail, regardless if the prohibition on thera- peutic abortion remains in place. There are other areas that also need to be discussed. Our abortion legislation cannot be seen in a vacuum. There are consequences to Malta's abortion ban, and these too must be addressed in turn. At the same time as main- taining the blanket ban, Malta is also clamping down on 'abuse' of the single mother social benefit. Without questioning whether a degree of benefit fraud does take place, government's approach must be measured against its responsibility for the out- come of its own policies. 'No abortion' also means 'more children'... and therefore should also mean more social benefits to single mothers, not less. But there is another reason to question Muscat's flat re- fusal to even discuss the issue. Muscat said public feeling is against abortion in Malta: but if there is no debate, how can one truly gauge public senti- ment? And even if Muscat is right, on what basis do we discuss minority issues in Malta? On the basis of what the majority thinks? It is more a case that there is no recognised and organ- ised lobby pushing for such a debate at the moment. And this means that there is no pressure on the government to hold one... even if it is needed. This, in addition to the fear of lost votes, is really what keeps abortion off the radar of public discussion. Politi- cal parties only ever want to discuss issues when their own direct interests are at stake. And yet the truth of the matter is that - taboo or no taboo - abortion is a real- ity in Malta: even if Maltese women have to go abroad. And if something exists, and is a reality for some Maltese – even though perhaps a tiny minority - should there not be a debate? We debate other issues without a mandate. And this debate is needed more.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of MaltaToday previous editions - MW 17 January 2018