At first glance, the position that has been adopted by the Labour Party on the establishment of an authority that will be responsible for the implementation of IVF regulations could be seen as one that makes sense. What the PL is arguing is that couples should not need to apply for a licence or a permit from this authority to resort to IVF procedures in an attempt to have children.

On the surface, this line of thinking is aimed at not having a kind of big brother that decides what couples should be able to do or not. Couples who want to have children, the PL is saying, should need no scrutiny of their private lives to have them, just like couples who have no problems with conceiving babies in a natural way need no permission to procreate, so to speak. This reflection, on its own, has a lot of weight, because nobody likes to expose one’s private life.

But this argument does not stand on its own. There are other, serious considerations that need to be made in the circumstances. This is because what has been described as a jungle as a result of the fact that IVF has been practiced in Malta for 20 years, without any sort of rules, will continue to remain a jungle if there is no authority to oversee that the rules that are to be established through the law are complied with. What is the point of a law if there is no authority to supervise its implementation? Would it not be like having a law against any type of crime but no police officers to enforce it?

As things stand now, any couples with procreation issues can go to their doctor and start procedures to have children via IVF practices. No questions are asked. The couple simply walks into a clinic, asks for the service, and it is given. They could be two people who have never seen each other but are being paid to conceive a child who is then sold to human traffickers.

This kind of practice – the “jungle”, to use the same expression as those who have been calling for IVF to be regulated – is to make way for a more organised system. But if this controlled arrangement does not have an authority to implement it, as the PL is suggesting, why is there a need to regulate IVF in the first place? The whole concept of regulating IVF will be lost if no authority is there to maintain order. The exercise that has taken so long to see the light of day will be futile, because the jungle will remain a jungle. This regulation would be nothing but a piece of legislation that cannot be executed.

Let us, for a moment, shift the argument to a different situation. Today, people can walk into a clinic, and ask a doctor to certify them as being unable to work anymore, for whatever reason they might have. The acceptance of this request for what is known as an invalidity pension is not, however, in the hands of the doctor. The physician may recommend that this validity pension is given, but it is up to an established authority, within the social service structure, to approve or disapprove it. This is done to have an impartial sanctioning or otherwise of any application made for an invalidity pension. I am sure that most doctors would not support frivolous situations, but this authority is there to decide whether such claims are justified or not. It serves to curb possible abuse.

In spite of such authority, some do slip through the net and are granted an invalidity pension even though they do not deserve one because they are fit to continue working. I therefore wonder how many would claim to be unable to work for good if it was just their family doctor who needed to approve it – and get the pension while doing the odd job here and there without paying the tax due.

We already see this, in a smaller version, when it comes to sick leave. So many abuse the system because some physicians are quick to sign certificates for a few euros when the person who is reporting sick is healthy and just wants to have a day off or two, maybe to whitewash the house or clean up the garage.

We can expand the subject to other, non-medical issues. How could we have a law about the protection of the environment without an authority to enforce it? Some would say that, even with Mepa, environmental abuse is common. It’s true, there are many cases of abuse; but there would be even more if Mepa was not there to exercise some form of control.

And what about financial services? Can we have a law about this and then have companies operating on the market without someone to check what they’re doing? Again, like any other sector, abuse could be taking place anyway, but it would certainly be of much bigger proportions if no authority existed.

The same goes for IVF, which is certainly a more serious issue than a couple of days of sick leave, a few trees or a bagful of money.

Let us remember, from the first instance, that we are talking about human beings here. We are talking about defenceless children whose rights need to be safeguarded. With so many unscrupulous people around, they need the best protection. Without an authority to defend their interests, the IVF law would not change matters as they are today.

[email protected]