No sign of IVF law despite Nationalist Party ‘policy shift’

At present, this therapy – deemed controversial on account of its perceived ‘wastage’ of fertilized human ova, for which reason it is firmly opposed by the Catholic Church – is available from private clinics in Malta in the absence of any regulation at law.

But despite an exhaustive parliamentary discussion involving at least three separate parliamentary committees – the social affairs and bioethics committees, as well as a specially appointed, ad hoc committee set up only to discuss outstanding unresolved issues such as egg freezing and gamete donation – a proposed bill to regulate the practice has been postponed for well over two years.

Ironically, government’s reluctance to proceed with a law that is opposed by the Catholic Church appears to persist even after the Nationalist Party declared last Saturday that it recognises that “Church and State are separate entities, and (that) one cannot impinge on the other”.

But critics of government’s stance on IVF have since asked what obstacles remain to the approval of this law, now that the last parliamentary hurdle appears to have been overcome.

Dr Michael Farrugia, Labour’s representative on the ad hoc committee set up specifically to iron out the last remaining objections to IVF therapy, explained yesterday that a clear bipartisan consensus had been reached as long ago as August 2010.

“15 months ago an agreement was reached between myself, Dr Jean Pierre Farrugia and Dr Frans Agius of the Nationalist Party, on the three points which had previously remained unresolved. These concerned the freezing of ova, gamete donations by third parties, and who would be considered eligible for the treatment.”

Notwithstanding this bipartisan consensus, the law remains firmly in parliamentary limbo: having been met with objections from Health Minister Joe Cassar and also Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi: both of whom cited their own ‘conscience’ as a reason to resist the legislation, and expressed a preference for ‘oocyte vitrification’ as opposed to embryo freezing.

Farrugia explains that this technology, which is considered more acceptable from a Catholic morality point of view, was also discussed at committee level. “We have no objection to oocyte vitrification; we just feel that it is insufficient on its own.”

Farrugia said that the ad hoc committee had agreed that embryo freezing could not be excluded out of hand: an opinion shared also by his counterparts, both medical doctors, on the other side of the House.

Contacted separately, Dr Jean Pierre Farrugia pointed out that he was no longer involved in the issue.

“It has since moved on. The ball is no longer in our court; we have done our bit, and it is now up to others to decide,” he said in resigned tones.

Given the PN’s recent commitment to a more secular identity, as expressed in the document ‘Our Roots’, it remains unclear what exactly is keeping this law from being passed. 

But one thing is certain: the proposed bill has not been included in the parliamentary schedule for the next five weeks. This means that contrary to a previous commitment to see the law through by the end of the year, come 2012 Malta will still lack regulatory legislation for IVF.