In his letter, CJohn Zammit asks, “What gives Dr Asciak authority over my peers?” (TMIS, 28 August). I will ask him another question. What gives him the authority to dispose of other human beings’ lives as he or any body else wishes? In answering that question he may come to the conclusion that laws are made to defend the common good, human life and solidarity among other things. He states that for every embryologist against the destruction of embryos or abortion, there is at least one equally qualified embryologist in favour. But he ought to mention names as I did, because I hardly ever come across these embryologists although many hypothesis’ of personhood abound, all serious ones accept that the human being begins at the zygote stage. Mr Zammit asks me to live and let live. I have no quarrel with that maxim; it is exactly what I wish for. It would do well however for him to examine whether it is really his position too, or whether this is closer to that which is reflected in the title of this article?

Again he makes the classical mistake of mixing up the biological terms cell and organism. A male sperm cell is simply a human cell but not an organism. It merits no moral respect. A human organism however merits full moral respect whatever its stage of development even at the one cell embryonic stage. Mr Zammit should know that there is an international committee in embryology which determines the names and stages of embryology and not every embryologist invents his own! This is called the Terminologia Embryologica, which was last revised on 5 October 2010 by eminent embryologists. It is the joint creation of the Federative International Committee for Anatomical Terminology (FICAT) and the member societies of the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists (IFAA). It says clearly in the footnote to the definition of the word embryo (E1.0.2.6.4.0.5), “Both embryonic and extra-embryonic cell lineages extend forward from the zygote and both embryonic and extra-embryonic tissues are necessary for normal development… Embryo remains the preferred term for all 23 Carnegie Stages (governing the first eight weeks of human life).”

Mr Zammit’s recollections going back to his three-year-old childhood are endearing which I am sure he ought not deny others on any arbitrary whim. His allusion is again here to a different interpretation of the concept of personhood, which I have dealt with before, not to the concept of personhood understood as the individual ontological human being. In Chapter IV article 32, our Constitution, under the heading of “Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual”, declares: “Whereas every person in Malta is entitled to fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual (my italics), that is to say the right, whatever his race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex, but subject to respect for the rights and freedom of others, and for the public interest, to each and all of the following, namely – (a) life, liberty, security of the person, the enjoyment of property and the protection of the law;… the enjoyment of the said rights and freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.”

Since this clause uses the words “person in Malta” by which of course it must mean human persons (not dog persons) and it is written under the heading of “fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual” there is a direct relationship between human persons and individuals, that is human persons are individuals. The individuals it is talking about here must also be of the Homo sapiens kind too. Human individualism in the species Homo sapiens as we have seen above, starts at the zygote stage of the embryo when the organism has its full unchangeable DNA complement and is a self-moving entity, therefore the type of human personhood implied in the Constitution would be the same as meaning an individual human being. All Gift of Life wants to do here is simply state the obvious not change it! Of course our Constitution also mentions the public interest. That is, these issues need to be considered not only from the purely personal dimension that they are sometimes tried to be depicted as, but also have a public or common good dimension which interests all of us.

Mr Zammit goes on to ask, “Are the dissenters all murderers of little children? Since he is dealing with the practical realm here and not expressing a doubt of the speculative type, he ought to be very sure what he and others are saying and/or doing first with regard to innocent human lives. It would be a veritable offence against humanity and against the lives of the children concerned thereof had the answer to that question be a ‘yes’. Would he then be able to live with that and with himself?

Michael Asciak MD

BIRKIRKARA