So, they’re going to sue. Andrea Prudente, the US tourist who was denied a termination of her non-viable pregnancy, and her partner, Jay Weeldreyer, say their treatment was inhumane and they’re going to demand damages from the Maltese government. They blame the law for their ordeal.

Whatever your views on abortion, that has to be good news. We need to know the truth of what happened.

If you’re confident about your views, the truth should vindicate you.

If you’re undecided, the evidence will help make up your mind. At this stage, it seems the truth can only come out in court.

It’s astounding how little independently confirmed information we have. During the turmoil, the couple spoke to the press. As with any point of view, theirs needs to be independently verified. All we have, so far (this piece was written on Tuesday), are claims and counterclaims by lobbies.

The couple has made three grave charges. It has said Mater Dei Hospital endangered Prudente’s life. It has said it placed her under needless stress. It has blamed the inaction of her doctors on our anti-abortion law.

Those are three very different claims. One is about the mismanagement of her physical treatment. The second claims mismanagement of her mental health. The third says the doctors’ hands were tied by the law. What’s been reported doesn’t allow us to sort out those issues.

We were told that the mother was physically at risk because the doctors refused to take action as long as a foetal heartbeat could be heard. We were also told that the frequent checking of the heartbeat was a cause of considerable stress. Who among us would not be plunged into turmoil by the vital signs of the heart of our dying child?

This detail, however, opens up a different possible reading of what was happening. If the heartbeat was checked regularly, it means that Prudente was being monitored. You could say the stress was the result of medical attention, not of neglect.

Or, to be more precise, in this scenario the stress arose because physical medical attention was not accompanied by the necessary care for mental health.

That still amounts to horrifying treatment but the fault is one of medical mismanagement, not necessarily due to the law.

Blaming the law is an issue that needs to be determined separately. It cannot be a layperson, let alone a foreign couple, that makes the determination.

What we need to know is what the law permits in such an emergency. Does the law, as it stands, give doctors more certainty than doctors believe it does? Can the law’s wording be tweaked to remove any ambiguity? That’s a matter for legal experts.

There’s also an issue for medical experts. If the determining legal criterion is heartbeat, is that a good enough datapoint to safeguard the mother’s life if everything else is managed well? Does the law set up a criterion that makes it impossible for doctors to guarantee that they will do no grave harm?

What we need to know is what the law permits in such an emergency- Ranier Fsadni

Or does the law work well but only on PowerPoint, so to speak; that is, if everything else in an overworked hospital is assumed to work perfectly?

If there is a grave danger to women in practice, is it because the law is interfering with doctors’ better judgement? If so, we need a revised law to permit our anti-abortion law to meet the very standard it sets itself – not to endanger the life of the mother.

If you’re anti-abortion, you should want such a revision as much as you want the treatment of ectopic pregnancies to be straightforward and free of unnecessary red tape.

I repeat: all we know so far is what the contending lobbies – pro-life and pro-choice – have said about the law, medical practice and each other’s honesty. There’s been no independent investigation.

It’s true that we have had a prominent gynaecologist, George Buttigieg, say there’s no problem with the law; he’s confident that any clear-thinking colleague will back him. Do his equally prominent colleagues agree?

What we need is an authoritative collective view (if there is one). The College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has declared it always puts mothers at the forefront of care. Fine but do they think the forefront is good enough, given the law?

Understandably, the college can’t comment about the particulars of this case. But confidentiality issues are not stopping it from saying that it believes the law is good enough. What is the actual statistical record?

Then there’s Mater Dei, itself accused of betraying its mission. So far, no defining statement. It leaves the rest of us wondering whether this is an admission of guilt or indifference or a politically imposed silence. To each, his own suspicion.

One thing is for sure. Institutional silence risks adding unnecessary anxiety for all the women, and their families, who need the services of our general hospital.

Abortion is an inherently divisive issue. It divides us among ourselves and divides us within ourselves. Difficult, heart-wrenching cases are of its essence. It raises a conflict between two of our society’s organising ethical principles and political rights: life and choice. It pits individual choice against democratic choice. To top it all, technological development keeps stirring the debate.

We don’t need to add to our difficulties by debating difficult cases without even knowing quite what we’re talking about.