I thank Rev. Dr Hector Scerri for his insightful letter (What is immoral always militates against human dignity, TMID, 2 May).

There are two opinions regarding natural law and by coincidence, Rev. Prof. Peter Seraccino Inglott explained this in his article on 3 May (The Sunday Times).

There are those who equate Natural Law with Divine law and those who separate the two. From a theological point of view (not my field of expertise) it would seem that both hold. One is Thomistic, the other following St Augustine.

Experience shows that man interprets natural law in quite different ways; I therefore tend to believe more in the Thomistic position. We perhaps can never fully understand divine law; natural law on the other hand may not be enough for all men of good will to agree on everything.

Medicine is one of these field. With regard to IVF, for example, there are those who interpret natural law as meaning that couples should accept their fate. Others believe that the medical field (although not infallible) is also an illumination, as reinforced by scriptures, and therefore perhaps these couples may be helped.

What we should be aware of is ‘playing God’ – this for me is not mere rhetoric but a warning to scientists and doctors that they are not infallible and omnipotent and we can never know all the consequences. As the authors he quotes say, we have insight to agree on ‘fundamentals’; on specifics, we can sometimes disagree. However I accept his criticism.

Thank you for this insightful letter once again.

Prof. Pierre Mallia

Ethics Advisor, Medical Council of Malta

Coordinator, Bioethics Research Programme

Associate Professor, Bioethics, Family Medicine & Patients’ Rights