Opposition shows no sign of disagreement on embryo freezing ban

A debate that kicked off yesterday on Malta's first law to regulate in vitro fertilisation appears to have enjoyed the tacit agreement of the Opposition on the banning og embryo freezing.

Health minister Joe Cassar yesterday said the Embryo Protection Bill that will regulate oocyte vitrification and outlaw embryo freezing will protect "unborn human life".

The law comes after years of debate in parliamentary committees on whether to regulate Malta's 22-year-old IVF industry, practised by private hospitals, and whether to include it in the national health service.

Controversially it outlaws embryo freezing and proposed the novel science of freezing the female gametes - ova - which are then fertilised in pairs: after harvesting, two eggs are fertilised with sperm, while the rest of the eggs are frozen for later use. Unlike embryo freezing, vitrification skirts the ethical dilemmas of leaving 'unclaimed' human embryos in freezers.

But although Labour has pledged to make IVF its first legislative act if elected to power, it has so far failed to raise any policy difference on the science being proposed by the government and whether it agrees with embryo freezing, which determines the efficiency of IVF for infertile couples.

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

He said no more than two ova can be fertilised during each fertilisation cycle, and access to IVF will be regulated by an embryology authority to decide who is entitled to the free treatment. Cassar claimed the limitation to two ova was necessitated in a bid to limit multiple pregnancies.

The new law will 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.

Cassar said that 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."

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

But Labour MP Michael Farrugia yesterday said the Opposition will be supporting the bill, even though it expected changes to the law - although no mention was made of reversing the ban on embryo freezing.

Farrugia's main gripes were that the 'one-size-fits-all' law placed unnecessary weight on the embryology authority determining which couples get the free treatment 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.

"Providing five individuals with all the medical history was in blatant breach of this confidentiality."

"Why should a couple be forced to appear before 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 hinted that egg freezing might not be entirely successful, saying 80% of fertilised eggs are rejected by the body, while 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.