Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1485769
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 NOVEMBER 2022 OPINION 11 mental health conditions. This means abortion will be allowed if a woman is going through se- rious mental conditions, none of which should ever justify the sacrifice of a baby's life." Got that, folks? So accord- ing to these three academics – whose opinion forms the ba- sis for the Nationalist Party's entire official position in the matter – the only justification for 'terminating a pregnancy' is when the mother is (quite lit- erally) already at death's door. Or as they put it themselves: "when there is a real and sub- stantial risk of loss of the moth- er's life from a physical illness". And to be perfectly honest, I'm uncertain as to what shocks me more, at this stage: the as- sumption that 'only a physi- cal illness can possibly pose a life-threatening danger' – a view which entirely overlooks the well-known risks of mor- tality, associated with all sorts of purely mental conditions – or the fact that their own proposed amendments, would simply land us all right back where we actually started. That is to say, with a legal framework that simply doesn't offer any real protection for women – not even when their health is in 'grave danger' - un- til they are literally caught up in a 'life-or-death' emergency situation (which, ironically, is precisely what this amendment is all along trying to avoid, in the first place). Honestly, though: where do I even begin? Ok, let's start with the egregious exclusion of 'mental health', as a possible risk to the mother's life (not to mention, to the life of the unborn child itself). It seems strange to have to even point out such an obvious fact, but… 'serious mental conditions' do sometimes have fatal conse- quences, you know. And this has particular rele- vance to this issue, because – much as I hate to say this, in a country where both abortion and suicide are equally 'taboo' – the condition of pregnancy, in and of itself, entails an in- herent risk of depression: both before, and after childbirth. I won't go into all the medical reasons for this state of affairs – even because they should be rather obvious, to academ- ics whose areas of expertise include 'obstetrics' – but let's just say that the chances of de- veloping a clinical depression (which is, in itself, a potentially life-threatening condition) are automatically going to be a lot higher when a woman is preg- nant, than at any other time. Not only that: but accord- ing to a study published in the Journal of the American Med- ical Association: "The preva- lence of suicidal thoughts and self-harm in the year before and after giving birth nearly tripled among childbearing people be- tween 2006 and 2017..." Now: these statistics are, admittedly, limited only to the United States… but then again, the hormonal effects of pregnancy are unlikely to also be 'limited to women of any one particular nationality', are they? And that, by the way, is why the rest of the world's medical establishment (in- cluding both the World Health Organisation, the United Na- tions, etc) has long recognised that: 'health' includes 'mental health' (Duh!); and that 'serious mental conditions' DO actually pose a rather high risk, to the lives of… well, anyone, really. (But pregnant women, in par- ticular). So I, for one, find it just a lit- tle disconcerting, that so many local academics can so blithely dismiss, not just the omnipres- ent risk of 'pre-(or post-)natal depression', in any given case… but also, 'mental health' in its totality: as if 'serious mental conditions' do not even consti- tute any 'real health risk', at all. But in any case: if we were to limit the proposed exceptions only to cases 'where there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the mother's life from a physical illness' – and especial- ly, if we also removed the clause that states '"or her health is in grave jeopardy"… … what would we even be left with, anyway: if not the exact same situation, as it stood at the time of the Andrea Pru- dente case last summer (which is what prompted the govern- ment to even come up with this amendment, in the first place)? Think about it for a second. Before, we had a situation where: a) The law mentioned no ex- ceptional circumstances what- soever, in which a pregnancy could ever be legally terminat- ed, and; b) In cases where a mother's life was at risk, doctors would invoke the 'double-effect prin- ciple'… which effectively means they would simply wait until the mother really did develop a serious, life-threatening illness, before actually intervening. Erm… do I even need to go on? If the opponents of this amendment are successful: and the law is diluted into one that no longer offers any protection whatsoever, to women who suf- fering from any 'serious mental or physical health condition'… … well, what's the point in even amending this law at all? After all, it's so much easier - and would have exactly the same effect - to just 'keep hit- ting the 'snooze button, and going back to sleep': over, and over again. Until, of course, we are once again rudely awoken, by the next time a case like Andrea Prudente's crops up (which is, after all, exactly how we react- ed to the 16 consecutive femi- cides that happened before Bernice Cassar was murdered this week.) Coincidence? I think not… If we were to limit the proposed exceptions only to cases 'where there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the mother's life from a physical illness'… what would we even be left with, anyway: if not the exact same situation, as it stood at the time of the Andrea Prudente case last summer?