We have finally and hopefully come to the end of a long saga; a saga which, where it not for periodic spokes in the wheels and other government important matters, could have been resolved years ago

But there still seems a lot of resentment which we must now all put into proper perspective. True, the Church has a right to continue to teach the faithful on the teaching of its magisterium. True, it is right that the government has a duty towards society to enact legislation on a procedure which has been going on for over 20 years.

That this government has been very cautious and sensitive to the wishes of the Church there is no doubt. Calling a ‘reproductive medicine act’, an ‘embryology act’, is admitting to give it a name (as the many Josephs, Marys, Georges and other patron saint names) which not only bows to our normative values as a nation but which satisfies our Christian, no, our Catholic, hearts. In 20 years all committees included several members of the clergy. Parliamentary committees have listened not only to representatives of the Church but to a myriad of other lay movements all crusading for our catholic purposes, from ‘gift of life’ to ‘protection of the embryo’ which gave each other prizes in mutual recognition.

Yet somehow one gets the feeling that our bishops are not only not satisfied, but somehow feel let down. But all along we had an understanding, even with the Church, that the government wanted to regulate this technology (as if not regulated it may be abused in the future) and to achieve this we agreed that there should be the protection of the family and the protection of the embryo. This has been achieved. With all the doubts we may have – especially on whether cryopreservation can work on a population level in an NHS which will fund all couples who have been through the mill – this has been achieved.

Why do we need their approval? Because we value the Church as a stakeholder. But we as a Church should look where we are coming from over the past several decades, politically. The Church is dealing with a government that helped it maintain its rights as an institution. Gone are the days of demanding free schooling; of breaking into Curias. This indeed is the broader picture. At the sacrifice of many of us, who with our taxes pay for the free education which the Church provides, and for the numerous buildings that have cropped up over the island in the name of schooling – buildings which could have been government schools; in the name of the principle that the Church could and should have its own schools and forfeiting, with our tax money, some of the investment which could have gone to a more uniform and fair education system – as ‘fair’ it is not when I cannot send my child to a Church school but for a lost lottery (cheating aside – incidentally reported, filed, and forgotten). The present government has re-instated, at its own cost, the Faculty of Theology which dubbed itself two decades or so ago, the ‘dove’ in the owl’s nest.

This is the broader picture; it is the local picture and the privilege of those who speak and who indeed gave them that privilege and not fought them on the streets.

The Catholic Church has reservations on IVF not merely because it occurs in the lab but because the union of man and wife is forfeited. But in the words of the late Rev. Prof. Serracino Inglott, nay, ‘Fr Peter’, we cannot reduce the relationship between man and woman merely to a sexual act. Be that as it may, when Dr Joseph Muscat said that the IVF law would be the first that he will enact, it suddenly struck home to many that if the act, which now hopefully the leader of the Opposition will be saved from, is going to tell us anything, it is the failure of collaboration between Church and State at high levels in time of dire need – to help with a controversial act. Whilst agreements were going on between the sergeants and colonels, the chiefs still had their reservations.

It is a disappointment indeed to see that we cannot dialogue in bioethics if the bishops still have reservations; if they feel let down; if at the end of the day ‘might’ turned out to be right. Dialogue requires pluralism – and not mere lip service to it. We should be happy, those of us who are Catholic, that with perseverance we have attained the protection of the institution of the family and the status of the embryo. Is this enough? Should we have banned IVF altogether? That was never on the agenda. If it were it should have been stated earlier. That we as a people care is seen in the name (for some even embarrassing but ready to throw it in for good measure): Protection of the Embryo Act.

Are we going to insist that we have an abortificient act? Are we going to harass politicians for voting for an unethical act which allows IVF? Do we still have the ‘dove’ in the owl’s nest? Is the sage that ‘Il-baqra li titma ddur kontrik’ to be applicable? Who will feel let down then? We remain anxious and hopeful of our Shepherds to rejoice with us that Donum Vitae guidelines have prevailed.

Pierre Mallia is Chairman of the Health Ethics Committee and Ethics Adviser to the Medical Council of Malta. He is also former president of the Malta College of Family Doctors (The article is only his personal view and not that of the committees or institutions he represents).