I am writing to try and shed some light of logical discussion onto the ethical and legal quagmire of embryo freezing.
Treating patients with reproductive system problems, including by IVF, is definitely just as relevant as treating any other human system disorder. This makes sense in the context of caring for all our citizens through our national health service. This is why medical professionals including myself, who oppose embryo freezing, campaigned for making IVF a free national service.
But when we start freezing embryos we are making it clear that the embryo at these early stages is an object of desire by the parents and not a citizen at its youngest stages to be protected by our health service. Therefore a mature discussion will have to include when we are going to recognize human life and when such life is worth protecting through or tax-paid health service.
Once we make this decision, then any stage of human life before this will not be worthy of care on the national health service, as this only caters for paying to protect and saves lives, not to help us get objects we desire such as bigger breasts, longer penises, facelifts and such. Do we want to pay for these by our tax euros too?
If the national health service is going to not only treat illness but also pay for parents who desire a child, why should it then not also pay for those who opt for adoption? Is an older adopted child less worthy of financial support? Are parents willing to love a child who is not biologically their own less worthy of my tax euro support than those who are willing to freeze their children to have the chance of having biological children? I think not.
So once that decision of when we start to care for our citizens is taken ....all treatment before, whether to save life or to freeze it, or to chop it up, ....should be done and paid for privately.
Whilst on the subject of objects of desire ....can I have a free Ferrari please?
Dr Pierre Schembri-Wismayer