Theologians suffered damage to careers over IVF, says top ethics expert

Headstrong bishops had no appreciation for moral theologians sitting on the government's bioethics committee: their fervent stand against in vitro fertilisation laws in 2012 which even banned embryo freezing, was proof that having ecclesiastical representatives on committees does not mean the Maltese curia will agree with them.

It's a bitter reflection from medical ethicist Pierre Mallia, the chairman of the national health ethics committee and associate professor in bioethics at the University of Malta. In a candid piece for the university's research magazine Think, Prof. Mallia writes that moral theologians who did not oppose the IVF law - even when this banned embryo freezing - "suffered considerable damage to their careers unless they pulled the traditional line".

In an insight into the power that the Catholic church wields on matters of public policy, Prof. Mallia said that the Maltese bishops reacted strongly to conclusions on reproductive technology by the Bioethics Committee, in what was "an early warning of what was to come" during the debate on IVF in parliament, when the Church urged MPs to vote against the bill.

"The Curia was represented on the committee, and many committee members were Catholic... the present bill [now law] has changed little from the original document," Prof. Mallia said of the law that introduced egg freezing to skirt the moral conundrum of embryo freezing.

Despite the Bioethics Committee being guided by the Vatican's Donum Vitae document, which says IVF is illicit because it goes against normal human procreation, theologians agreed that the same document guides Catholic politicians to respect the family and embryo if laws on reproductive medicine are contemplated.

"The final document should be considered an official agreement since theologians always occupied 20-40% of the committee. The Curia's reactions clearly show this was inadequate. When push came to shove, the Bishops went back to basics and spoke fervently against IVF, warning about the danger to the embryos. The bill had taken these issues into account since it only allows limited freezing to safeguard an embryo whose mother, for example, falls ill in the process."

Prof. Mallia's personal perspective ends on a sour note: "Make no assumptions. The moral position has always been clear, but having ecclesiastical representatives at all stages does not mean that the curia will agree - despite continuous reassurances that their representatives are on the committee.

"I would like to think this was not done purposely, but moral theologians suffered a big loss along the way. Bioethics committees cannot continue to assume that theologians' advice will satisfy the Church. Many people working in good faith on the committees have suffered considerable damage to their careers unless they pulled the traditional line."