Proposed changes ‘seriou the dignity and protectio

The Dean of the Faculty for Social Wellbeing, Andrew Azzopardi, has called for reflection on this delicate matter by first and foremost taking a non-partisan approach to such an important national debate.

The press release he issued, he said, intended to lay out the matters on the table and commend legislators, policymakers, experts, stakeholders and the general public to take in cognisance the following as we reflect on the proposed changes to the act to amend the Embryo Protection Act, Cap. 524.

In this press release he lists the pros and cons to avoid simplistic entrenching and turf defending. Above all, our discourse needs to be informed by rational, ethical and considerate argumentation.

His initial reactions are the following: • that the proposed changes seriously dilute the focus on the dignity and protection of the human embryo; • that the consultation period has been too brief and that the matter is being rushed through prematurely.

The three major bones of contention are; the ‘freezing of embryos’; ‘anonymous donation’; and ‘surrogacy’. cultivated and only the ones implanted will be fertilised. The remaining ova can then be frozen. During subsequent cycles, the ova can be thawed and then fertilised to be implanted. The national health system only gives you three cycles. If we really want to help these women, we should not introduce embryo freezing but more IVF cycles.”

Commissioner for Children Pauline Miceli has said that “cryo-preservation or freezing of human embryos has become a medically viable practice by virtue of the high rate of survival of cryo-preserved or frozen human embryos. The bill provides a framework for the cryopreservation of embryos to be conducted in a way that maximises the chances of the individual human embryo to survive throughout the freezing and thawing process and thus to eventually develop healthily.”