The government has very obviously gone to great lengths to make the proposed IVF Bill, or rather the Embryo Protection Bill, as appeasing as possible to the country’s steadfast religious right as well as to those advocating the use of IVF, but it must have known it would face at least some opposition.

But it must be noted that in so doing, the government has fought a battle it was destined to lose from the outset for the Church’s stance on the matter is unshakable. In trying to strike an impossible balance, the Bill stands at risk at the end of the day of falling short of expectation of experts in the field of IVF as well as the expectations of infertile couples who long for children, life’s greatest miracle.

The draft legislation, after several years in the making, at the end of the day attempts to achieve a difficult balance between two very opposing factions, by sitting on the fence, but in the end it has appeased no one completely. Members of the medical profession, the Church and even those contemplating, or those who have had IVF treatments, have all criticised the Bill to varying degrees and for different reasons.

The Bishops’ most recent pastoral letter on the issue, curiously released to the media the day before the government unveiled the draft legislation, made the blanket statement that IVF is “morally wrong” and against “human dignity”.

It later transpired that the pastoral letter had not been read out to all congregations because some priests deemed parts of it as insensitive − and rightly so. Imagine parents who had conceived thanks to IVF sitting in church and hearing that their child’s or children’s existence is, in effect, morally wrong and contrary to human dignity.

The practice was also referred to as “abortive”, which would have sent shivers down the spine of any God fearing person in the congregation currently undergoing IVF treatment. But the Bill itself, as it struggles to walk an impossibly fine line, will not allow for the freezing of embryos but, rather, the freezing of unfertilised eggs.

The use of the abortion card is a repeat of the same dirty trick pulled during the divorce campaign, whose opponents had speculated that divorce would also open the door to abortion. The premise is absolutely ridiculous on both counts.

On Friday, the Church’s Cana Movement pitched its own equally harsh two cents’ worth, two weeks after the Bill was published and after it had been made available online, but made no reference to the basic principles outlined in the Bill – that embryo freezing will not be possible except in very rare cases when the woman dies or succumbs to serious illness. It mainly spoke of the evils of IVF in general terms, and failed to get into the nitty-gritty of the draft legislation itself.

They too said that the introduction of, now regulated, IVF would open the door to “other abuses” and that it would pave the way to the permissibility of abortion.

A child was not a gift that everyone would receive, the movement, which advises married couples on the ins and outs of marriage before a church wedding, said − adding that not everything that was technically and medically possible was ethically and morally acceptable.

While the movement observed that science, ethics and faith could work together and that scientists should continue their research to help infertile couples in a way that was morally and ethically correct such as Natural Procreative Technology. The so-called technology is merely a means of naturally enhancing fertility and while that should always be the first step for an infertile couple, it is not always the solution. In the meantime, the movement said it would continue to support couples having infertility problems through its ‘Wanting and Waiting Group’ – very little consolation for couples desperate for a child.

According to Cana, every medical intervention has to respect the human being, the unity of marriage and the family and the dignity of human sexuality, and in one fell swoop excluded thousands of Maltese from the IVF option. This teaching will no doubt be more strongly incorporated into Cana’s instructions in the future, which will leave many couples that later find they are infertile at a loss over what to do.

Cana, however, neglected to note that unmarried couples, shock horror, could also be deemed eligible for IVF treatments. IVF applicants will be assessed by a state-appointed board but, dubiously from a moral perspective, single parents and homosexual couples will automatically be excluded from such treatment.

As has been pointed out, this is pretty much the same as applying for a state-approved parenthood licence and a board that would approve who is and who is not allowed to reproduce. That is also a very slippery moral slope.

But with the Church and the more fundamentalist factions of the country so strongly opposed to IVF in any form, the government really should not have tip-toed around the issue. It should have gone straight to the heart of the matter once it was legislating on this very sensitive area – that is, going for the best choice of technology possible and leaving the moral decisions up to the people who will be faced with making that choice.

And when they find themselves in such a moral quandary, they could very well turn to the Church for guidance, as happens in other countries. It is not the government that should turn to the Church for guidance.

It will certainly be interesting to watch how the debate unfolds once Parliament reconvenes.