In vitro fertilisation, or IVF, is part of a process called artificial insemination or AI. AI has been practised in Malta since I was a student more than 20 years ago, as I distinctly remember ‘people’ asking students for sperm donations in return for what was a good price in those days. Over the last 15 years IVF, that is fertilisation has also been carried out in Malta quite regularly. That is good for the patients with intrinsic problems of fertility and a feather in the cap of the pioneers who learnt about this new medical procedure. However, it also means that IVF has been done with no regulation at all, not even by the Department of Health. During the Parliamentary hearings, it transpired that the DG Health stated that such procedures should be covered by a permit from the Department of Health and that no application had ever been submitted. All activity related to IVF procedures are considered to be legal and one must of course then suppose that there could be questions asked as to the moral legitimacy of certain procedures that could be carried out when walking the fine line between what should and what should not be allowed to be practised in the Maltese Islands. Having a legal vacuum in this sphere of activity is very dangerous and all those who are clamouring to leave things as they are, are simply sticking their heads in the sand. To me, government inactivity on this issue would be morally unacceptable. It would signify that the State is unable or unwilling to really come to grips with developments in the field of science and technology. Closing our eyes will not make the problem disappear.

It is essential to highlight the fact that the intention of the legislator should be to preserve human life and to protect the family vis-á-vis IVF. One would not be forcing anyone to use natural family planning, Napro technology or any system that one feels free or compelled to choose, it is simply regulating IVF when it is chosen as the preferred method by the couple involved. The German Embryo Law and the Italian Embryo law both have good points that may be copied. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. With regard to the Italian Embryo Law, which also deals with IVF, the Italian Church felt duty bound to campaign in favour of this law, even though it felt that it did not exactly conform with moral law! Incidentally, the Italian law contains many things that the Church would consider illicit such as IVF for unmarried couples and several other issues. It does not make any direct reference to when life starts, but if one reads between the lines of article 1, one can deduce that it simply refers to conception or fertilisation, without going into any other details and leaving things open to interpretation. On the whole, I personally prefer the German Law for several reasons. It is technically better and its definition of the human embryo adheres to that observed by scientific methods. Incidentally, the Catholic Church in Germany corroborates this position! Due to their past history on Human Rights, the Germans today are second to none in their respect for these same rights.

With regard to the beginning of human individuality, one has to keep in mind that there are two opinions that put this within the fertilisation process or conception. That at penetration or the beginning, and that of pro-nuclear syngamy about two thirds through to the formation of the zygote at the end of the process. There are of course many others who hold nidation or the formation of the primitive streak after 14 days of fertilisation as the beginning of human life, others who argue this to be at birth while some still hold Aristotelian-Thomistic views with 40 days for males and 90 days for females. The Parliamentary Committee unanimously has said that it must not be later than syngamy while the Bioethics Consultative Committee unanimously prefers syngamy itself. Both positions are still within fertilisation or conception! One must remember that in order to have a process, one must first have a subject and it is useless to speak of a process without a human subject, so proving the exact point of human individuality is essential at this stage. Penetration as the point of human individuation, presents its own scientific and philosophical problems and this is not the place to tackle them. Conscious of this, the Catholic Church does not formally teach that human life starts at penetration, but uses the term conception or fertilisation and lets science and philosophy determine the exact moment.

That is why the Church has a profound interest in the mature scientific and philosophical debate surrounding this issue and today many pointers signal towards pro-nuclear syngamy as the start of human life, as in fact attested to, by the English version of Donum Vitae itself. The Latin version says Fusorum Duorum Gametum, which may be widely interpreted as meaning anything! Incidentally, the position in favour of syngamy is not a gradualist position at all and argues for the instant beginning of human life. Neither is it the preferred choice mentioned in the Warnock report, which is that of 14 days after fertilisation, not syngamy during fertilisation. In this case, science shows that there are no valid doubts that should lead one to apply the principle of precaution to the point of defining the beginning of human life at the time of penetration of the human egg, which incidentally is not the real human egg at all. That comes much later in the process. On this issue my conscience is at rest.

It is strange that we have heard nothing from the Labour Party on this issue. Could this be because it is not interested in solving personal and civil problems of this nature, or could there possibly be another agenda?

Michael Asciak MP

[email protected]