Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/611961
14 PASSIONS invariably run high when debating beginning-of-life issues. In this respect, the ongoing discussion on proposed changes to the 'Em- bryo Protection Act' – the law that regulates assisted fertility treatment in Malta – has been no different to any other controversy surround- ing (however remotely) the unborn child in this country. At the forefront of this debate is 'Life Network Malta', an umbrella NGO for various affiliated pro-life groups, which has recently stepped up its campaign against the intro- duction of embryo freezing. This campaign has now extended to a petition calling for a Constitutional amendment which aims to prevent abortion from ever being legalised. Clearly, the scope of the campaign has extended far beyond the remit of the proposed amendment itself. Equally clearly, a herculean effort is being made to somehow equate 'embryo freezing' with 'abortion'… even though the intention behind the former is to bring new life into the world, whereas the latter aims for the opposite. Dr Miriam Sciberras, chairper- son of Life Malta Network, recently added to this apparent confusion, by stressing at a press conference that she was 'not campaigning against embryo freezing'… even when the NGO itself seems to be in full cam- paign mode. So my first question to her when we meet: is Life Network Malta campaigning against embryo freez- ing, or isn't it? "We are not saying we are not against embryo freezing. But embryo freezing is only part of the bigger picture. To put things into perspec- tive: the Embryo Protection Act, as it stands, strikes the right balance between the rights of the infertile couple, who we all agree need to be helped as much as possible, and the rights of the child. This is not an or- dinary medical treatment: it involves a third person, and that third person is a living child. The rights of this hu- man life need to be protected, too." Here we come to the first of many impasses. Isn't it a slight exaggera- tion to define a newly frozen human embryo as a 'child'? The word has a meaning, and cannot be correctly applied even to a new-born baby. Let alone a fertilised human ova… "It is a living child," she asserts. "Let me just explain our position, then you can ask me what you like. When the amendments started be- ing talked about, the proposals were donation of sperm and ova – the anonymous donation of gametes, on top of everything else. So we are talking about intentionally creating orphans…" This is, in fact, precisely what I in- tended to ask. From 'children' they have now become 'orphans'. Both are decidedly emotive words, to describe newly fertilised ova which haven't even begun to develop into foetal stage. Isn't it a bit extreme? Bear in mind we're not even talking about killing the embryo… merely freezing it, at a point in its develop- ment when there is absolutely no possibility of the embryo experienc- ing pain or suffering. "That's the difference between us. To me, that IS a child. There is no difference. I myself have not changed in any way since I was an embryo…" I hasten to assure her that she has… otherwise we wouldn't be hav- ing this conversation… "My humanity is the same, though. My genetic code is the same." But is humanity something that can be broken down to just a genetic code… a strip of amino acids reading out a perpetual information loop? It's a dangerous definition. Every single human cell contains the same code… "What I mean is that when I was an embryo, all my characteristics were there. I was part of the genus Homo sapiens." In what way, then, can she justify using the word orphans in this sce- nario? "If you are proposing anonymous sperm and egg donation, the child born… and this is what they say themselves: grown up people who are now speaking out. This technol- ogy has been performed for years, and if you look at other countries you will find groups like 'Anony- mous US' in America, or 'Tangled Webs' in England. These people, who are 30 years old plus are speak- ing out about the suffering they went through, because they were created intentionally to be deprived of their biological mother and father." But was that really the intention? Some might say it was to help bring them into the world in the first place. Besides: the same problems are also associated with adoption. Like chil- dren born through gamete donation, adopted children also struggle with the phenomenon of biological par- ents they might never meet. Why is this only an issue with IVF? "There is a major difference – adoption involves a victim of cir- cumstance. There is a very big differ- ence between creating an intentional pain, and dealing with the pain that was already there…." And yet, the intention behind IVF is not to cause pain. It is to overcome the medical issue of infertility, which ironically – given that her associa- tion calls itself 'pro-life' – also means it is intended to make life possible, where it otherwise would not be. In what way is opposing that technol- ogy an example of being 'pro-life'? You could argue it is the opposite… "That's what you're saying, not what we're saying. It's a manipula- tion of words…" In that case, we can always com- pare notes on our respective ma- nipulations later. The question still stands, though. Isn't it a contradic- tion that a 'pro-life' lobby opposes medical technologies that help with the creation of life? "If we are helping people to create life, and children are being born of this technology – undoubtedly, life is being created. Our point is that these children cannot be made to measure to suit adult needs, without taking into consideration the rights of the child. Otherwise, you'd be turning children into objects. Amendments to this law will weaken protection of the child from conception. And that means that suddenly, we will be treating these created children as objects, made simply to suit adults's needs. We have infertile couples, and their pain is evident… we're agreed on that." What does her movement say to these people, incidentally? "We are all in favour of the govern- ment helping these couples. And we have said that there are other ways in which this can be done…" But that's not all Life Network Malta is saying. One of its commit- tee members, Dr Patrick Pullicino, had this to say on the organisation's official blog: "Even if you don't be- lieve that children are a gift that only God should give, there is something sacred and even mystical in the way that children are conceived through the love of natural sexual intercourse. Test-tube conception devalues sexual intercourse and the family ties that it enriches." Does she agree that assisted con- ception 'devalues sexual inter- course'? "That's not what I said. I can only comment about my own posi- tion. You're putting words into my mouth…." It was said by a committee member of the NGO of which Dr Sciberras in chairperson… and I'm asking about Life Network Malta's position, not just her own. She is its chairperson, and cannot exactly disclaim respon- sibility for the organisation's pub- licly expressed views. What emerges from this is an ingrained ideological position, based on a value judgement system that clearly places more value on natural birth than assisted. Isn't that unfair on people who can't have children by natural means? "I will not comment on other peo- ple's opinions. Our main issue is the protection of life at all stages." Let's talk about embryo freezing, then. What we are actually discuss- ing is a procedure that freezes ferti- lised ova for eventual implantation. The intention is certainly not to kill them – quite the reverse – so what is the actual objection from a pro-life perspective? "We're not saying that embryo freezing equates to abortion. But there is a link. The problem with em- bryo freezing is that it temporarily suspends the life of the embryo. And you are putting the embryo at risk of losing its life. During the thawing process, 10 to 30% will die…" Those statistics are questionable. Other sources put the figure at closer to five per cent. But even if we accept her figures… how do they compare to nature's statistics? We are after all talking about a technology that steps in where natural methods fail. One reason why natural methods fail is that newly-fertilised embryos are rejected as 'foreign bodies'. In most cases, their (brief) existence would remain completely unknown to the parents. Considering that couples only re- sort to assisted fertility treatment after trying unsuccessfully to have children… the implication is that a higher success rate in assisted fertil- ity would result in fewer spontane- ous abortions. What would she ulti- mately prefer – that some embryos are lost in the thawing process, or that a far greater number are lost in fruitless attempts to bear children? "There is a very important differ- ence we are not making here. A mis- carriage is something that happens in nature, over which we have no control…" Same goes for any disease or con- dition. Even infertility, which this technology tries to help resolve… "Yes, but when we are trying to make a law to regulate a procedure, you cannot intentionally put a life in danger. It falls under the Hippocrat- ic oath: 'First, do no harm'. If there is a chance to prejudice life, you don't take that chance. When there is another technique where you can avoid that, it would be much wiser to avoid putting that life at risk." Again, this depends heavily on the emotive attachment to the word 'life' here, which is not necessarily a reflection of the reality. "I assure you, I have been speak- ing about this for the last four years. The people I have met who have given me their experience… it's not just about emotional attachment. Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2015 Embryonic emotions If we somehow tamper with the law, and remove this protection, that means we are opening a window which would eventually lead to abortion. Abortion always comes in gradually: first because of the exception, then the exception becomes the rule ABORTION We are not trying to deprive childless couples of having children; nor are we trying to ruin their options. It is that they are not being told the truth. They are given false hopes FALSE HOPES 14 Interview