From Dr M. Asciak

I have been following with great interest and some consternation the debate on the morality surrounding the issue of in vitro fertilization, or IVF in short. Whenever I read articles by correspondents in all the media, I distinctly remember what the inimitable Bernard Häring had written in one of his books on morality, which runs something to the tune that when dealing with these issues some people will inevitably consider these matters as verging on the diabolical, while others would view these issues as helping people in distress. How to reconcile these different viewpoints and all the ones in between is not that easy.

The values of the Maltese nation are primarily formed by those espoused by the Catholic Church. That is an undeniable fact. The Maltese State however is a lay State and legislation is ultimately founded on what is acceptable in a liberal democratic tradition with the attendant rights that go with it. That is also an undeniable fact. Some people, sometimes for their own ends, would find this situation irreconcilable and choose an attitude of conflict to overcome this tension. I honestly find it neither conflicting nor irreconcilable.

The position of the Catholic Church is what it is at present. IVF is considered an intrinsically immoral act particularly due to several issues that currently surround biotechnology. Much of the Church’s position is based on its own tradition and that of natural law determined by our reasonable grasp of eternal law as informed by the laws of nature.

One ought to keep in mind however that biotechnology is ever changing with new techniques overcoming many previous objections (e.g. freezing of ova instead of embryos!), and also that our own knowledge of the laws of nature is constantly evolving, which means that our present knowledge of these laws may be incomplete with respect to both physical and psychological parameters.

The Church can never ignore the possibility of the evolution of its doctrine. It can only say that things being as they are today, this is its position now. In fact, it frequently draws up new documents on doctrine, which it has recently done with Dignitas Personae in 2008 as an overview of Donum Vitae in 1987. I sincerely suggest that the Church should adopt a pastoral approach in dealing with these sensitive issues and should completely avoid any hard condescending attitudes to couples who have already been through a lot and who have examined themselves conscientiously in the informed choices that they ultimately make.

The State’s main position should respect the tenets of the common good within the parameters of a liberal democratic State and not to reproduce the Church’s morality. Benedict XVI himself says in one of his publications that it is not expected of the State to reproduce the morality of the Church in IVF, but it is important for the State to legislate in order to maintain the common good parameters it considers adequate. These would include the defence of human life at all stages of development and concepts of the family, which are conducive to the proper raising of children in the building of a strong society.

However, there is another factor one ought to consider. Morality is not simply a rigid system of determining of what is good and what is bad. Sometimes decisions, which are not usually considered, need to be taken to limit the damage that might be otherwise done.

For example, were I an MP with an anti-abortion position, I would still be justified in voting in favour of a law that reduces the possibility of abortions in the country from a limit of 24 weeks pregnancy to one of 16 weeks pregnancy because it limits the damage that is currently being done on human life in pregnancies between 17 and 24 weeks! It is morally acceptable to choose to endorse positions that limit the damage done in a particular circumstance.

Likewise, the situation with IVF in Malta is that it has been carried out unregulated for the past 25 years with all the potential for abuse that it brings with it. A law in favour of regulating IVF would at worse limit the damage that may potentially be done during these procedures. It also helps to bring the procedure out into the open and also to allow the State to provide couples that personally opt for these procedures to be fully or partially financed.

Michael Asciak