The Opposition is quite right in objecting to the prospect, as proposed in the government’s IVF Bill that couples seeking to undergo IVF are to appear before a board that would judge their eligibility for the treatment.

The suggestion not only undermines the medical profession as a whole, but it also runs the risk of hitherto unparalleled privacy invasion.  The Opposition has used the phrase ‘Big Brother’ in this context and although the invocation is a little sensationalistic, it is fitting.

The Labour Party this week said that issues related to IVF were confidential matters within the doctor-patient relationship and that while it would back the IVF Bill, it would be submitting a number of amendments − one of which will deal with the party’s strong objection to what it described as ‘licences to have children’.

Certainly, an ‘Embryo Protection Authority’ does need to be established to ensure that best practices are upheld when it comes to IVF treatments, and that they are upheld to the letter of the law, but that authority should have no remit to delve into matters that couples are far more comfortable discussing with their own doctors or medical experts who they have already been dealing with, and who would recommend them for such treatment.

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 conservative element as well as to those advocating the use of IVF, but in so doing it has erred on so many different levels by proposing the vetting of couples seeking to have IVF treatments.  And what we got at the end of the day from the government’s heightened sensitivity on the issue was one of, if not the most conservative and careful IVF legislations in the whole of Europe. 

While the Bill, currently under discussion in the House of Representatives, does not go into exactly how such an authority would determine if a couple is deserving of IVF treatment or not, there were some answers this week from the Social Affairs Committee. 

The Committee’s chairman, government MP Edwin Vassallo, shed some light on the matter when he explained that, for example, the authority should, among other things, ascertain whether couples seeking treatment are in a stable relationship or not. 

Justifying the proposed authority’s powers, he noted that one could no longer count on stable marriages, and said that the authority should ensure that couples seeking to have children are in a sufficiently stable relationship.

How, exactly, will that be determined and, really and truly, is it any of the state’s business? We think not; this is tantamount to a modern day inquisition and if this process does see the light of day, we might suggest that such hearings are carried out at a certain address in Vittoriosa where similar tortuous hearings were held once upon a time.

The concept was subsequently objected to by PL MP Owen Bonnici, among others, who quite rightly described the notion as ‘terrifying’.

One can only wonder at this stage what sort of questions the couple might be asked, presumably already agonised over their failure to conceive. Will they be asked how many times they have attempted to conceive that week, and what, pray tell, constitutes a ‘stable relationship’? Every relationship has its own quirks and it is certainly no government authority's business to pass judgement on other people’s lifestyles or the strength of their relationships based on preconceived notions.

In even suggesting such a thing, we are treading on a very slippery slope indeed here, one riddled with ethical pitfalls.

Who would this authority be comprised of and what kinds of questions will they be asking of the poor couples who are called to appear before it? The mere suggestion of couples need to justify themselves is ludicrous and, as the Opposition has put it, unacceptable.

If anything, couples seeking IVF should by no means have to humiliate themselves before a government authority on any matter that was purely medical, as Labour MP Evarist Bartolo suggested this week.  He described the proposed authority as a “Mepa for births”.  He also proposed that the Embryo Protection Authority should be comprised entirely of medical experts under the chairmanship of a serving judge with the sole function of overseeing technical, medical issues.

The Opposition is quite right on this, and with the Bill going into its second reading tomorrow, the debate is due to gather steam. The amendments being promised by the Opposition, and possibly by the House’s independent MP, in this respect and others related to the Bill will be very interesting indeed.