Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1470553
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 12 JUNE 2022 9 INTERVIEW that's not where the problem lies. It's not a problem that medical science 'manipulates'; it's a ques- tion of HOW medical science manipulates: whether we do it in a way that respects the funda- mental principle of human life, or not. Let me put it another way. As a doctor, I see many positive things about these amendments – as I already explained, also in Parlia- ment – but my concern is that [through PGT] we would be ma- nipulating at the embryo stage, in a way that could lead to two pos- sible consequences. One, that we will end up with an excess of frozen embryos that are genetically defective… so to argue that 'they will all be adopted' is, to me, utter nonsense. Let's face it: people wouldn't even buy a tin of beans from a supermarket, if they think it's of inferior quality… just imagine how much they would 'adopt a defective embryo'… Secondly, it is important to see where all this might lead to, in the end. Because if we are going to start 'selecting' at that stage… we will be opening Pandora's Box. We will then start 'select- ing', on other criteria… I can understand the general concern, but how does any of this address the medical needs of those people who suffer from those nine hereditary diseas- es? And who are worried about passing those defective genes onto their children? What sort of solution is the Nationalist Party actually offering those people? That is precisely what I was coming to. We – and here I'm speaking both as a PN repre- sentative, but also as myself: St- pehen Spiteri – are certainly not opposed to helping those people, and offering them solutions. I would be the last person to try and deny them the chance to have children, without the wor- ry of transmitting those condi- tions… Sorry to have to insist, but… isn't that precisely what you're doing, right now? No! Because PGT is not the only way in which those people can be helped. If you look at those nine conditions: all but one of them, can be diagnosed by 'Polar Body Testing' [PBT]: another method that tests the oocyte (i.e., the egg) and not the embryo. The only exception is Hunting- ton's Disease, where [for reasons which are too complex to be re- produced here] PBT can only be used to diagnose the mater- nal side of the equation: in oth- er words, you can only diagnose half those cases. So what we are saying, basi- cally, is that – bearing in mind that we live in a country where the law recognises the value of a human life, from the moment of conception: and we even have an 'Embryo Protection Act', and an 'Embryo Protection Authority', for that very reason – we do need a more rigid regulatory frame- work, that respects the value of human life. And we do have to be careful to find the right balance, between respecting the rights of prospective parents, and also the human life we are 'creating', so to speak, in a laboratory… Because it's no joke. We are, at the end of the day, creating hu- man lives… That a human embryo can be defined as 'human life', is one thing. But with all due respect, you are talking about 'frozen embryos' as if they were 'frozen babies'. As a doctor, do you not see a distinction between those two things? What I'm talking about is 'fro- zen human life'… You do acknowledge, then, that there is a difference? Yes, of course: but you can't have one without the other, can you? What is an embryo going to develop into, if not a baby? That's like saying: 'What is an acorn going to grow into, if not an oak tree?' (It doesn't mean that 'acorns' and 'oak trees' are the same thing, does it?) But let's put the philosophical part to one side, for now. You seem to be deliberately using highly emotive language, to appeal to the (non-scientific) viewpoint of people who REALLY can't dis- tinguish between a newly-con- ceived embryo, and a new-born baby. Aren't you just exploiting those people's emotions, for po- litical purposes? Definitely not! I will stand by my position that I believe that human life begins from concep- tion. That is my point of depar- ture; and my arguments are all based on that premise. Now: if we do not depart from the same point – and fair enough, I can understand that others will see things differently – then yes, the arguments would be very differ- ent. If I myself do not depart from that point … I would be telling people to 'abort'. I would tell peo- ple to 'discard any embryos that are genetically defective'; I would tell them, 'Choose which embryo you want. Do you want a girl, or a boy? Design your own embryo…" I'm giving you extreme cases, naturally; but that's where the ar- gument would lead… Fair enough; but what are you actually telling people today? Because the way I see it: you're telling the radical pro-lifers ex- actly what they want to hear… but then, you're turning to peo- ple who suffer from serious he- reditary diseases, and saying: 'Science can help you; but it goes against my own personal conscience… so, sorry! You just have to lump it!" No, no… come on, it's not like that at all! We're giving them hope. We're giving them treat- ment; we're giving them a diag- nosis; because, as I said before, we can use other technologies that do not involve the human embryo. Like Polar Body Test- ing: which could be a means of eliminating the dangers of exper- imenting on the human embryo, while still successfully diagnosing almost all the listed conditions… except half of the cases of Hun- tington's Disease. This raises another issue, though. Discrimination. Doctors For Choice (and now also the Commission for Persons with Disability) have argued that it is discriminatory to exclude a cat- egory of patients – in this case, sufferers of those nine condi- tions – on the basis of a genetic disorder. How do you respond to that? It's a very good question. And also, a very difficult one to an- swer. It is, I admit, a very sensitive issue. But let me put it this way: why do we have to introduce ge- netic testing on embryos – with all its possible side effects: on the embryo, on human life, etc - to perhaps reduce the genetic transmission of those nine con- ditions… when we have another method, that will NOT have all those side-effects; and will also cater for a very high percentage of those cases anyway? This reminds me of when Prime Minister Gonzi insisted on 'oo- cyte freezing', instead of 'em- bryo freezing'. The PN always seems to be looking for obscure alternatives, which somehow magically resolve all their own conscience problems. What if I put it to you that is actually your party's conscience problems, that are causing the problem to begin with? You can call it conscience, if you like; but my only dogma is science, and biology. It is science that tells me that the embryo is the beginning of a human life. And that is why I think we should respect a human life, from that stage. Besides: even though we do find difficulties with that one aspect of the amendments… it doesn't mean we're trying to stop anyone from having access to IVF. We still believe that this discussion can lead to a law that is accept- able to all parties. At the risk of repeating what I said in parliament: as Opposi- tion, we are prepared to continue discussing the amendments at committee level, and to reach a consensus in the best interest of both the embryo, and those un- dergoing the IVF process. Ultimately, we are here to to legislate in the best of interest of our Maltese society.