The Malta Independent on Sunday of last week reports that during her presentation at a public forum entitled Women and Fertility organised by the Malta Confederation of Women’s Organisations, Dr Mary Darmanin stated that: “...the final recommendations and report on biotechnology the Social Affairs Committee put forward to Parliament should not pass”. In the absence of a more detailed account of the actual presentation and its underlying rationale, one has no option but to rely solely on what has been reported.

Dr Darmanin’s call for refusal sounds somewhat as a call for the wholesale rejection of the recommendations. If this is indeed the case I find myself diametrically opposed to such a proposition. For we could argue at length whether, for instance, formal legislation is superior or otherwise to other methods of regulation.

However it would be another thing to argue against the Committee’s recommendations in favour of the protection of life, from the moment of conception, whether inside or outside the womb, and its recommendations against cloning and embryonic stem cell research.

Of course, I understand that it is a question of values. However, not only Social Affairs Committee members subscribe to these values, but also society at large. One survey after another has established that a huge majority of Maltese society is against abortion because it believes that human life should be respected and protected from the very moment it comes into existence. On this premise, the Committee has called on government to remedy the present legal anomaly where early life is protected inside the womb but not outside it. I genuinely cannot see any sound reason for government not to accept the protection required by such widely held values.

I think that, at this point, some clarification is needed. It is necessary to distinguish between two separate documents: the Chairman’s Report L-Uzu tal-Bioteknologija: Teknologija Genetika u Prokreazzjoni Assistita dated June 2005 and the eventual recommendations L-Uzu tal-Bioteknologija: Teknologija Genetika u Prokreazzjoni Assistita, Rakkomand-azzjonijiet dated July 2005.

The former is a collection of evidence and related research compiled by myself as chairman of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Social Affairs, and as such needing no formal approval, while the latter is the eventual resolution approved by the parliamentary Committee. It should be further noted that the resolution/recommendations of the Committee are neither the legislation itself nor the draft legislation which is to be discussed in parliament. In fact, a number of issues have been left open for further discussion. It is Government that will eventually draft legislation and not the Committee, and further discussions will then be held during a plenary session.

One of Dr Darmanin’s main reasons for refusing the Committee’s recommendations is based on the fact that “more statistical data” is needed. It is categorically stated in the introduction to the chairman’s report that the report is intended “to assist the members of the Committee by organising the issues emanating from evidence given during committee hearings, and from further research, in an intelligible manner”. The introduction also clears the report of any false pretensions by clearly stating that it is not a report prepared by experts, even if compiled with the assistance of various experts in the field.

It also categorically states that the report does not and should not be taken as an exhaustive piece of work, which is why further research and evaluation was recommended. Nonetheless, it should be noted that, in the compilation of the report, we tried our best to gather the necessary statistical data. Unfortunately, statistical data was, at times, virtually non-existent.

The report not only takes note of this but also recommends that government should see that the relevant data is gathered to facilitate future policy decisions. Had Dr Darmanin read the chairman’s report, she might have realised that most of the recommendations, as those listed above, were based on principles that do not necessitate any statistical backing. This might have led her to a different stance than the wholesale rejection of the committee’s recommendations.

The Malta Independent on Sunday also reports that Dr Darmanin “queried whether methods of assisted reproduction should be promoted when there are children who do not have families and adoption is possible”. Apart from finding this statement somewhat surprising, coming from someone who has the reputation of being a liberal if not a radical, would not the logic of such a policy lead to future similar impositions on, for instance, newly-wed couples who would be asked not to have children of their own before all family-less children had been adopted? If this logic were not followed, then would not Dr Darmanin’s statement be simply a statement of discrimination against couples that have infertility problems? Is this suggested policy less authoritarian than the one-child-per-family policy practiced by communist regimes? Is it a suitable policy for a liberal democracy like ours?

It seems that Dr Darmanin’s preference for adoption over artificial methods of procreation lies in the belief that the latter promotes the commodification of the child who would now be seen as something to be ordered on the market. Quite frankly, I do not adhere to this type of sociological theorising, as this line of thought could be easily extended to adoption, where it could be argued that a couple with infertility problems are still “choosing their commodity from the shelf” – that is, from a selection of society’s extras. Dr Darmanin’s argument, that IVF “eases the privilege wants and needs of an individual and not the community” does not hold water, for reproduction is not solely a natural individual need but also a communal need.

Indeed, procreation is a commendable self-sacrifice towards the production of the next generation and thus a vital exercise for the regeneration of society itself. Therefore, considering that a wave of declining fertility is being experienced all over Europe – not excluding, even if to a lesser degree, Malta – wouldn’t a sound

policy be based on incentives to maintain national vitality? Providing medically-assisted procreation technology to couples with infertility problems (approximately 10 per cent) is definitely one such directed policy. It is also – even if not solely – for this reason that the Committee recommended that not only should assisted procreation technology remain legal, but the state should provide this technology in the same way in which it provides other medical treatment.

Dr Darmanin is quoted as stating, “It is extremely dangerous to suggest the adoption of embryos in the recommendations.” In its recommendations, the Committee makes a distinction between the production of extra embryos for donation and the adoption of embryos which, due to extraordinary circumstances – for instance, the mother’s death – cannot be implanted in the womb. In such circumstances, those who value life would have no second thoughts in doing what is necessary to save the embryo from an otherwise certain death. So the Committee considered it appropriate to recommend that, in such cases, adoption would be a remedial desirable action.

In the final instance, I would like to reaffirm my position on the issue of assisted procreation. The technology has been available in Malta since 1991, but it has not yet been regulated and, at present, anything is lawful. The Social Affairs Committee is suggesting regulation through a legal framework and not the prohibition of the technology. Legislation should primarily protect the interests of the eventual child, in addition to the protection of the eventual parents who might also be in need of assistance due to their vulnerability at the moment. I strongly believe that medically assisted reproduction, if regulated properly, would be in the interest of both the individual and the community, and as such there is no reason for not being compassionate towards those 10 per cent who require the aid of technology.

Clyde Puli MP

Chairman,

Standing Committee on Social Affairs

House of Representatives