Health Minister says bill 'focuses on protecting embryo', Opposition: 'we seek changes'

Kicking off the debate on the Embryo Protection Bill, Health Minister Joe Cassar stressed that the ultimate aim of the bill was to protect the embryo, "an unborn human life".

"We believe and are convinced that human life begins either at conception or fertilisation. Science has taught us that during the fertilisation process, the first cell is developed with the intrinsic capacity to develop into a human life. It's because we believe that human life must always be protected that this bill was created," he said.

Speaking in parliament, Cassar said he wanted to be clear that the bill the House of Representatives would be discussing was "a Bill that intentionally seeks to protect the embryos."

"This law will regulate in vitro fertilisation procedure and therefore IVF is included because it leads to the creation of an embryo. However, the law doesn't only pertain to the IVF process but for something much bigger," the minister said.

Cassar said the bill was built on the premise that the rights of the embryo are identified and safeguarded while seeking to ensure the obligations and responsibilities of the parents and the institutions towards the embryos.

"The law obliges those involved to respect these rules and that responsibility is shouldered by all concerned parties," he said.

The parties involved include parents, health workers and professionals and entities who offer service and care related to the embryo.

Cassar said that following years of consultation and discussions, government was convinced that it has finally reached a bill that satisfied the protection of the embryo.

The draft bill bans embryo freezing and instead opts for the vitrification, a form of fast freezing, of oocytes, limiting their fertilisation to three ova while the rest of the ova are frozen for later fertilisation.

"Not more than two ova will be fertilised during each cycle. Access to IVF will be authorised by the authority, who will decide which individuals and when will be given the necessary treatment," he said.

Cassar said government was limiting the implantation of embryos to two as it wanted to eliminate multiple pregnancies.

The new law will for the first time offer IVF to both married and unmarried couples on the national health system, as well as set-up an authority that will regulate medical protocols and best practice on IVF.

"The law will permit embryo freezing only in rare emergency cases, where the mother dies or falls seriously sick. In this case, the embryo would be frozen to save its life. The embryo would then be implanted in the mother at a later stage, or if she passes away, will be put up for adoption," Cassar said, adding that the committee would be responsible for this.

The 'Authority for the Protection of the Embryo' will be a five-man committee of medical and bioethical specialists, who will also have to certify prospective parents as to whether they are eligible for IVF.

"The authority will be independent, will base its decisions on its own judgement without any outside influence," the health minister said. "The authority will also issue licences for clinics and will carry out regular inspections."

The draft law also provides for "harsh penalties" if the practice of the assisted reproduction is carried out in breach of the law. Cassar however said that the prison sentence will never be applicable to the mother.

'We don't want a Big Brother law'

While Labour MP Michael Farrugia said that the Opposition will be supporting the bill, he said his side of the House expected changes to be carried out.

Farrugia said that even though it was high time that this law was presented in parliament, he said that the Opposition didn't want a "Big Brother law, that undermines the medical professional." According to the MP, the bill provided more penalties and prison sentences to the medical profession rather than tools to work with.

He added that the proposal was "a one-size-fits-all law".

Farrugia lambasted the law's proposal that the authority would decide whether a couple should be allowed to undergo fertility treatments or not.

"It is clear that this bill was not prepared by doctors... which doctor would prepare a law in blatant breach of the doctor and patient confidentiality?" Farrugia said. He explained that providing five individuals with all the medical history was in blatant breach of this confidentiality.

Moreover, Farrugia said, he couldn't believe with what authority five strangers should tell a couple who want children whether they can or not.

"Why should a couple be forced to appear this board, begging on its knees asking them for a licence to have children? It's like I need an operation and have to ask permission for it. It's already difficult enough for the couple to accept they cannot have children. But forcing them to ask the permission of others is unacceptable," he said.

Farrugia also asked the Health Minister to explain how the employment of the board members will be regulated and who would be financing the authority.

Speaking about the problems faced by childless couples, Farrugia said that 10% of couples had fertility problems: "A reality not only in Malta but also abroad."

Farrugia said that 80% of fertilised eggs are rejected by the body, a third of the rest result in miscarriage. "The chances of pregnancy are not always present. This means that while we should indeed protect the embryo, yet we should also be giving these couples the opportunity to have children.

"We must give life the opportunity to be," he said.

Farrugia said a shortcoming of the draft law was, that while it set 18 as the minimum age, yet no maximum age limit was provided for. "Does this mean that we're saying a 60-year-old couple can have a baby?"

He also said that the law failed to point out the increased risks brought about by age of the mother and whether couples who are already parents would be allowed to undergo the fertility treatment to have more kids.

Another technical point raised by Farrugia included how a health professional could object to participating in any procedure for the application of medically assisted procreation at public hospitals, but yet this would not be simultaneously applied to private practice.

Farrugia also lambasted government for having denied patients the access to free assisted procreation for five years despite having had the available technology. "How many couples have lost the opportunity to have children during these five years?"