Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1470553
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 12 JUNE 2022 8 INTERVIEW 'My only dogma is science and biology' Yesterday, Health Minister Chris Fearne quipped that 'The PN has a history of agreeing with reforms after they happen." He has a point, hasn't he? Initially, the PN was against IVF; then it accepted IVF, but objected to embryo freezing (among other issues). Now, the PN agrees with embryo-freezing, but opposes 'PGT': a genetic screening meth- od, which could ensure that hereditary conditions are not transmitted to children. Why is this one issue – IVF – still so ev- idently problematic, for the PN? Let's start with this. IVF is cer- tainly not a 'problem': either for the Nationalist Party, or for my- self. On the contrary, as a doctor I am delighted to see children who were born through IVF; and even more so, the children of children who were born through IVF. Be- cause today, those children are growing up, and having families of their own. Besides: as a doctor I CANNOT be against IVF. It is a mechanism that assists patients who have fertility problems; and I will defi- nitely not go against any form of medical assistance that can help my patients. But I feel I have to correct you, slightly: it was actually the Nationalist Party, in 2012, that recognized the need to come up with a legislative regulatory framework for IVF. Bear in mind that this service already existed in the private sector… without any form of regulation at all; and without us even knowing what sort of abuse may, or may not, have been happening. Now: as you well know, IVF raises a fundamental principle. Not a 'moral' principle: we're not here to discuss 'moral' issues; or 'church' issues; or 'religion'. We're here to discuss facts. And facts bring with them a certain responsibility. God forbid we were to behave without responsi- bility, in life: because we would be living in the 'Wild West'. We all agree, then, that the sec- tor needs to be regulated. And it was the Nationalist Party that first introduced IVF regulations, with the Embryo Protection Act in 2012… Hang on, wait. For all the years that the PN had opposed IVF on moral grounds… we WERE 'liv- ing in the Wild West'. Effectively, IVF had to wait until 2012 – i.e., until the Nationalist Party's mor- al qualms had finally subsided – for a long-overdue, much-need- ed regulatory framework… No, what I'm saying is… what I said in my parliamentary speech, basically. I began by pointing out that first regulatory framework for IVF was introduced, by the Nationalist government, in 2012; and since then, both our society, and the laws that govern it, have evolved a lot. Naturally, then, we had no choice but to even- tually amend the [IVF] law. But just because the 2012 law wasn't perfect, it doesn't mean that the principles it was based on – which remain valid to this day - can simply be discarded... Nor does it mean that the Na- tionalist Party has to consist- ently find something to oppose, merely for its own sake. Take PGT, for instance. How is the PN's current opposition to that, any different from its earlier objections to embryo freezing? And given that your earlier posi- tion has changed, between 2018 and today: should we expect this one to change, too? Let me be clear: the Nation- alist Party was not against em- bryo-freezing, 'merely for its own sake'. As a party, we recognize that we need to look at what is happening in other countries, and try to adopt the best possible scientific approach. But I think that our biggest con- cern, at the time, was the stock- piling of frozen embryos. And in fact, today we know that there are almost 400 frozen embryos, held in storage in Malta… Having said this, though: I can't deny that using frozen embry- os will give you a much higher success rate… aside from also reducing the stress on women, who would otherwise have to go through another cycle (with all the risk of oocyte hyper-stimula- tion, and so on.) Which brings me to the situ- ation today. Now, we are facing another set of amendments – be- cause the IVF sector is constant- ly evolving; and there are always new developments to catch up with – and we, as a party, agree with ALL the other amendments [apart from genetic testing] that are being discussed. For exam- ple, to raise the maximum age for women to undergo IVF to 45; and for embryo transplants, to 48. These are all important issues, and we agree with all of them. There was only one difficulty we found, with these amendments… and we found it in Amendment 8 of the main article: where it mentions PGT. That is where we found a difficulty. You're saying it yourself, though: 'Seek, and ye shall find.' Isn't that what the PN is doing, in this instance (and in its earlier opposition to embryo freezing, too)? 'Looking for things to mor- ally object to?" [Laughing] No, come on, it was just a manner of speaking! What I mean is that: we will not object to things, just for the sake of it. We will only object to them, if they conflict with the principle that 'human life begins at conception'. That is our point of departure; and it has always been our point of departure. And from that per- spective… we do find difficulties with PGT, yes. Let's talk about these difficul- ties, then. In Parliament, you described PGT as "invasive, se- lective and destructive". And yet, IVF as a whole is by defini- tion 'invasive' – indeed, you can use the same word to describe any medical intervention – and it is also 'selective', in the sense that embryos are 'selected' in the process. So if PGT is objec- tionable on those grounds… why not object to IVF, in its total- ity (as your party used to, in the past)? Yes, very good! I agree with you entirely that IVF is a 'manipula- tion'… it has to be, in fact… but Opposition Health spokesperson Dr STEPHEN SPITERI rejects the view that the Nationalist Party is objecting to genetic embryo-testing on moral grounds alone Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt