Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1508764
regulations... including "im- proved criteria to determine the responsibility of member states in processing an asy- lum application, and FAIR SHARING OF RESPONSI- BILITY." [my emphasis]. Once again, this devel- opment was heralded as a major triumph, for the Commission's 'New Migra- tion and Asylum Pact': with the European Parliament's rapporteur for Asylum Pro- cedures even describing the vote as "a breakthrough mo- ment to get the asylum and migration reform in place, bringing long-term sustain- able solutions that can stand the test of time." Nor did this aura of 'self-congratulation' even stop there. As recently as June 8 this year, the Eu- ropean Council proudly announced it had taken "a decisive step towards a modernisation of the EU's rulebook for asylum and mi- gration. It agreed on a nego- tiating position on the asy- lum procedure regulation and on the asylum and mi- gration management regula- tion. This position will form the basis of negotiations by the Council presidency with the European Parliament..." And the European press – especially, here in Malta – were only too happy to go along for the ride. Our own headline, on 9 June, was: "EU countries claim bre- althrough in migration talks" (which, to be fair, was accu- rate enough: they did 'claim' success... even if they never actually achieved any); and we were told that the most innovative element of this 'PACT' [that word, again] was "a system of 'mandato- ry solidarity' that will give member states three options in times of migratory pres- sure: 1) accept a number of relocated asylum-seekers; 2) pay for the return of rejected applicants to their country of original; 3) finance oper- ational support, such as in- frastructure and personnel." But, oh well. Less than three months later, a total of 11,000 migrants landed on Lampedusa, in the space of a few days – that's more than the island's entire pop- ulation, by the way (in oth- er words: the equivalent of 600,000, all landing in Malta at once)... and, well, what do you know? Suddenly, the European Commission's brave new 'Migration and Asylum Pact' is nowhere to be seen! All those 'breakthroughs' we mentioned earlier? Not one of them actually came into play, as Europe scram- bled to cope with the after- math of this latest catastro- phe. And not only that: but just two days ago, Germany be- came the first member state to officially opt out of this co-called 'pact', altogether. As the FT reported it yes- terday: "The German gov- ernment has suspended a voluntary agreement with Italy to take in migrants, accusing Rome of failing to live up to its obligations under the EU's Dublin rules on asylum..." (That's right, folks! the same 'Dublin II' regulations that this imag- inary 'pact' was also sup- posed to reform... but clear- ly, never did.) At which point, the ques- tion has to be asked. How gullible does the European Commission even think we are, anyway... if it seriously expects us to believe in the existence of any such thing as a 'New Migration and Asylum Pact'; or – even less – that it is capable of achiev- ing this 'voluntary responsi- bility-sharing mechanism', within just four months... when the same target has eluded the European Union for the last three years, now (and arguably, for the last two decades, at least)? I mean, come on. We're not THAT backwards in this country, you know... IN the past months, Malta has witnessed the di- luted version of Bill 28 (the 'Diluted Amendment') (Act XXII of 2023) signed into law by the Presi- dent. Prime Minister Robert Abela had touted the former Criminal Code amendment (the 'Origi- nal Amendment') as a way to protect women's lives and health, saying these principles were 'non-negotiable'. Apart from being well received by those within Malta who believe pregnant women should not be left to die with an unviable pregnancy, the Original Amendment was also commended by the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe. The Original Amendment was proposed in re- action to the constitutional case brought against the Health Minister by Andrea Prudente, an American woman holidaying in Malta who sought an abortion but was denied access to it. At week 16 of her pregnancy, Prudente suf- fered a complication known as PPROM (pre- term premature rupture of membranes), where her waters broke early, and her pregnancy was no longer viable. Despite the acute vulnerabili- ty to haemorrhage and infection, Prudente was still denied an abortion. She was then medically evacuated to Spain for the life-saving treatment. In her court application, Prudente argued Mal- ta's rigid abortion laws amounted to a violation of the Constitution and the European Conven- tion on Human Rights. Bill 28 set out to amend the Criminal Code to allow an abortion if a woman's life or health were to be threatened by the pregnancy. The lat- ter idea did not sit well with anti-choice circles, who claimed mental health would be dishonestly used as a pretext for legalising abortion through the back-door. This argument inadvertently re- veals an underlying mistrust in women's capac- ity for self-determination, and simultaneously highlights the trivial role occupied by mental health in any serious Maltese debate. In stark contrast, the Diluted Amendment limits the scope of who may access the neces- sary treatment, since it requires that the life or health of the patient must be 'in grave jeopardy which may lead to death'. This change means there is no substantive reform to protect preg- nant women's health and lives. Maltese gynae- cologists have already stated that the Diluted Amendment would probably mean that Andrea would still be refused life-saving treatment. For Prudente to meet the contemporary criteria, she would have to go on to develop sepsis and be- come seriously ill. Furthermore, under the new legislation, access to an abortion that can save the woman from serious harm to her health which may lead to death, can only be provided once three doctors on the specialist registry approve of it. Apart from introducing cruel unnecessary delays, and even endangering a woman's life further, the new clause assumes one of two things: It either implies that Maltese specialists are incompetent at making clinical judgements independently, or that they simply cannot be trusted to act alone despite several years of intensive training and passing objective college membership examina- tions. While the enacted changes afford medical pro- fessionals a degree of legal protection against criminal prosecution, no substantial advances have been made to safeguard pregnant people's health and well-being. The tragic death of Dorota Lalik, 33, in Poland serves as a sobering reminder of the repercus- sions of poor health standards. Dorota suffered the common complication of PPROM at five months of pregnancy, followed by a preventable death from sepsis just three days later. Polish law permits for termination of pregnan- cy in cases of rape, incest and if the woman's 'health or life' are in danger. This is a relatively liberal law compared to the Maltese counter- part, which does not allow termination of preg- nancy in cases of rape or incest. The Polish ver- sion also specifically intends to protect both life and health like the forsaken version of Malta's Bill 28. Despite operating under a 'liberalised' version of our current law and a comparative element of Catholic conservative structuralism, doctors in Poland still refused to undertake a legal abor- tion, resulting in the young woman's death. Pol- ish physicians have been practising under the constant threat of imprisonment for performing an abortion too early; an issue that draws paral- lels to the Maltese situation. A way forward With a record number of medical abortion pills being sent to Malta in 2022, it is clear that the regressive Criminal Code amendment does nothing to improve the bleak state of national reproductive health standards. It is also hoped that the apparent bias evi- denced by the Malta College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists comes to an end. In their reaction to the proposed amendment, they in- correctly refer to the unborn foetus as a 'child' and make ominous references to the 'perceived' right to abortion. Reproductive medicine in Malta must be released from subjectivist mor- al and religious custody before it can take its place amongst other evidence-based medical specialties. It must start endorsing researched guidelines set out by governing bodies such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynae- cologists. Women seeking support can find evi- dence-based information regarding abortion through Doctors for Choice, whilst pregnant people experiencing complications can discuss abortion options through the Abortion Dou- la Support Service on +356 20341683 or +356 27782758. maltatoday | SUNDAY • 1 OCTOBER 2023 OPINION 11 Neil Muscat Neil Muscat is a Maltese surgical trainee based in the UK Abortion change that preserved the status quo