Embryo Protection (Amendment) Bill : Bill no. 38 (2018) : matters of concern : reflections by academics

Abstract

This document reflects the opinion of 100 academics at the Faculties of Science, Medicine and Surgery, Laws, Built Environment, Theology, Education, Arts, Economics, Management and Accountancy, Health Sciences, Engineering, Information and Communication Technology, Media and Knowledge Sciences and Social Wellbeing at the University of Malta on The Embryo Protection (Amendment) Bill, Bill No. 38 (2018). They note that the existing law focuses on the dignity of the human embryo and its protection. The proposed amendments gravely weaken the protection of the human embryo at its most vulnerable stage by allowing: a) Embryo freezing: The proposed changes are based on the assumption that increasing the odds would increase the chances of success. This is potentially true. However, this does come at a psychological, legal and moral cost – namely the production of excess embryos and the need for ‘embryo orphanages’ and ‘embryo donations’. It also involves selecting some for implantation and others for freezing, giving the former a chance to develop and placing the latter in a ‘frozen limbo’. One should note also that, under the current legislation, IVF service in Malta, including oocyte vitrification, has been performing fairly well in comparison with other European countries. b) The disposal of surplus embryos that are not adopted/implanted: The proposed selection of two out of three or five fertilised embryos entails unequal treatment between one embryo and another, discriminating against some simply because they cannot take action to protect their interests. The amended law prescribes that these embryos (already deemed to be inferior at the first selection process), if not taken up by their biological parents, will be offered for adoption by other couples. Prospective parents would most probably be reluctant to adopt these frozen embryos who would have already been deemed inferior at the first selection process. c) Anonymous donation of gametes [sperm and ova]: Anonymous gamete donation may lead to a number of health risks. The proposed amendments to the Embryo Protection Act do attempt to reduce the transmission of genetic disease. Risk reduction, however, is not the only issue. Gamete donation may result in potential psychological consequences which may complicate the identity formation process of eventual offspring. Anonymous gamete donation makes a mockery of the child’s right to know his or her biological origin. Children born as a result of gamete donation will never be able to establish any relationship with their biological parents. d) Surrogacy: Surrogacy, which is another form of commodification of women’s body, involves a fragmentation and trivialisation of parenthood. The proposed legislation permits only ‘altruistic surrogacy’. The very term ‘altruistic surrogacy’ is a subterfuge since, according to the law, the surrogate mother would relinquish any responsibility to bring up the child as her own, and the child would not have the possibility of being conceived, gestated, born and raised by the same mother. Although prima facie maternal surrogacy would appear to constitute a wonderful gesture of selfless altruism, it is, in practice, fraught with numerous biological, legal and ethical problems.