This is reflected by recent statements by our Archbishop who clearly shows that he is not yet comfortable with the situation. The Nationalist Party has historically been the party to uphold catholic values and has always fought battles, as it were, hand in hand with the faith of the people.

Does the Nationalist Party stand to lose by legislating in favour of a procedure, the morality of which is not only questioned by the Church authorities but also listed as ‘illicit’. There are two main contentions, the first being the fact that IVF is seen to bypass the conjugal act between two people. The second is the sacrifice of embryos. To the latter more attention is now being drawn to the miscarriages that occur in IVF. Some note that these miscarriages are foreseen and that therefore, since we are fertilising them in the laboratory, we are responsible for this foresight. Others say that we are favouring life and the loss is unintended and only happens because even in the natural conjugal act, the same amount of naturally fertilised embryos are lost by miscarriages.

What are the major positions? Are government and Church in fact disagreeing? In my opinion they are not disagreeing about the issue of IVF itself. If they were there would be a conflict of values. We have to distinguish between a conflict (and not create one) and simple disputes. You can resolve a hundred of the latter without tackling the former. This is why we still witness the conflict between Israel and Palestine. But let us assume anyway that a conflict exists.

In effect the latest proposal states that we may need to freeze embryos or even give up embryos for adoption. Before we tackle the conflict we must see where the two parties, state (which represents the voice of the people) and religion (which constitutionally represents the normative values of the island), stand. We know the position of the Church. Ideally IVF should not occur.

We also know the position of the government – it can take one of two forms. The first may also state that ideally IVF should not happen but once it is happening it should be regulated. The second can take the form of not confusing religious values with secular ones. This would assume that the conjugal act, if unsuccessful, can be replaced with medical aid. One can argue that this certainly cannot be said to bypass the love existing between a couple.

If we are to resolve the conflict, we must agree on certain principles. From my knowledge there are two major ones, and I will add a third which I think is important politically. The first two have been covered extensively. Any legislation must protect the family and the embryo. Both government and state seem to agree on this. There have been groups which argued that this may be discriminatory; but certainly we can say that there is general agreement between these authorities.

The third, I would say, is that the two parties must accept each other’s responsibilities and once agreement has been reached, agree not to issue statements which take us back to square one. The fact that this happened shows that this exercise has not been done. I believe that this is important for the Nationalist Party, which cherishes its Catholic foundation. It is important also for the Church as it has always found it ‘plays home’ when ‘playing’ with this Party. Other parties may simply be too liberal and bypass anyone who plays the moral card, repeating history.

I was asked to put down my suggestions and have listed them in this column regarding the issue of freezing of embryos. This necessary evil, in essence, can be controlled in stipulating the maximum time an embryo can be frozen before the state takes custody to guarantee its continuing to develop. If the issue is about miscarriages, then we have to sit down again and agree on the moral weight both state and potential parents carry about this foreseen but unintended consequence.

Someone like myself, and I think I speak for many people who adhere morally to both parties, would like to see a consensus and not a conflict, especially on the eve of an election. Both parties may stand to lose by fighting each other. A common statement to the public would be appropriate to show that both have worked together.

Let’s not be naïve, both parties can still make their respective positions clear, but both acknowledge that to move forward, common ground, as prescribed by Donum Vitae, has to be found. This will give our politicians the moral strength to vote with clear consciences and thus minimising harm. The alternative is a status quo which allows anything.

Pierre Mallia is Associate Professor in Family Medicine, Patients’ Rights and Bioethics at the University of Malta; he is also Ethics Advisor to the Medical Council of Malta. He is also former president of the Malta College

of Family Doctors.