Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1467182
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 8 MAY 2022 9 INTERVIEW had an abortion' abortion - and even then, on- ly because some women start- ed speaking out openly on the subject, for the first time - that, I think, is what really struck a chord with people. To give you a personal exam- ple: an elderly relative of mine recently told me: "I'm against abortion, BUT… I can under- stand it, in the case of rape, or when the mother's life is in dan- ger". To me, that was an indica- tion of just how much attitudes have changed: because even if a 75-year-old can now see that reality – where, in past genera- tions, it would have been com- pletely unthinkable - I think it says something, about how far we have come. But another thing people are also now realizing – even just from those statistics you quoted; and there are other indications - is that they themselves might actually know a lot more women who've had abortions, than they ever thought they did. They might still not know who some of those women ARE – because, despite all the recent changes, there are still those who feel pressured to keep si- lent: either by their families, or social circles; or by the possible repercussions of 'speaking out' on their jobs, or careers… … and it's a shame, really: be- cause it also means that those people don't trust others – not even their own family – to be open about it… But what has also become clear, from the experiences of those women who did speak out, is that more people today are aware of the realities involved. They know, for instance, that the number of women seeking abortions is much higher than they previously thought; that it will include at least some people they know, and love, themselves – in fact, this is why we use the slogan, "Someone you love has had an abortion". And I think (or at least, hope) that more and more of them are realizing that this is a situation that needs to be changed. On the subject of 'women's stories': so far, the pro-choice argument has been mostly limited to legalizing abortion in certain very specific circum- stances (e.g., risk to the moth- er's life). But we also hear of cases where the mother's life would not be in any imminent danger; yet she might end up being denied treatment, on the basis of how the unborn child is affected. As a practitioner, do you encounter such complica- tions yourself? Yes; and again, much more fre- quently than most people prob- ably imagine. The most drastic cases, of course, are the ones where the mother's life is actual- ly threatened - where she really could die – but that's not the on- ly medical indication that exists. There are some conditions where the mother would not be in any direct danger of dying; but which could still have severe, long-term effects on her health. For example: a pregnant woman, who suffers from certain heart conditions, would be at a much higher risk of heart failure, than before she got pregnant. And it's a risk that she will then have to carry for the rest of her life. Another example would be when children get pregnant. Young girls cannot be expected to give birth. It is too stressful on their health; and even the baby itself – if it is born – will have a much higher chance of develop- ing serious health conditions. It is, in a nutshell, far too danger- ous to allow a young girl to car- ry a pregnancy to full-term. Yet legally speaking, that is precisely what the law expects them to do. Then, there's the issue of 'fa- tal foetal anomalies'. There are cases where women are told they have to go through with their pregnancy: even when they know from beforehand that the baby will die just a few hours after birth; or where the foetus would die, only a few weeks into the pregnancy… And those are just a few exam- ples. There are many more… And yet, you also get other doc- tors (for instance, your coun- terparts: 'Doctors For Life') who argue that all these cases ARE, in fact, regulated by stand- ard medical procedure. For instance, the 'double-effect' principle: whereby abortion is permissible, if the primary in- tention is to save the mother's life. How do you respond to that? The problem with the dou- ble-effect doctrine is that: it's a religious principle - or a 'moral', or 'philosophical' principle; call it what you will - but it is not a legal principle. It's not men- tioned anywhere in the law; and not in the medical guidelines in hospitals, either. There is, in fact, nothing in the guidelines that we use, that specifies at which precise point it suddenly becomes permissible – according to the double-effect principle – to terminate a preg- nancy, in order to save the moth- er's life. We have very detailed guidelines on all other medical procedures… but not this one. It just doesn't exist. So in practical terms, doctors still face the same dilemma. How long do you have to wait, exact- ly, before the mother is in such danger of losing her life, that in- tervention becomes necessary? And what if, by that time, it is too late? That's where the problem real- ly lies. And it has to be addressed at the political level: because that is the only level at which the law can be changed… That doesn't look very likely, though: when Prime Ministers like Robert Abela (and all his predecessors, from both par- ties) keep saying things like: 'abortion is a red line that can- not be crossed'. What options does that even leave you with, as an NGO campaigning for leg- islative change? Well, it does make you feel a little disheartened, obviously. But even here, the situation has at least improved a little. In the past, we used to have ministers like Tonio Fenech saying that we shouldn't be allowed to even dis- cuss abortion at all! But, then as now, we ignore these things. Because – regard- less of what politicians might say – the debate IS happening; we are promoting the discus- sion; and we are more interested in bringing women's stories to light, and revealing what they are actually going through… At the risk of a devil's advocate question: the changes you are proposing are not entirely clear, though. Initially, the Women's Rights Organisation requested 'safe access to abortion' only in four specific circumstanc- es: risk to mother's life; rape; incest; and fatal foetal anom- alies. But now, the discussion seems to have broadened to 'abortion on demand', in all cir- cumstances. What do you really want, at the end of the day? An abortion law that is tailored to our specific circumstances? Or a recognition of abortion, as a 'fundamental right'? All I can say to that is: we are not going to be the ones to put any 'limits', on how abortion is accessed in this country. We're not going to do that, ourselves. But it is something that poli- cy-makers can do; and it's what all other countries which have legalized abortion, have already done in the past. If you look at legislation in the rest of Europe, for instance: each country has set its own limits and specific regulations, how- ever they saw fit. In Italy, for in- stance, abortion is legal only up to a minimum of 10 or 12 weeks. In the UK, on the other hand, it goes up to 24 weeks… and even to late-term pregnancy, in cases of risk-to-life. And in Poland, abortion is only legally permit- ted, in cases of rape, incest, and so on. So it ultimately depends on what the policy-makers decide; and which model they choose to look at. As for myself, however: I think that – at the very minimum – abortion should be made safe- ly available here, at least for healthcare reasons. At the very minimum…