Leader of the Opposition Adrian Delia did not turn up to testify in a civil lawsuit on Thursday, where he had been summoned as witness.
Dr Delia was expected to testify in a constitutional case filed by human rights lawyer Tonio Azzopardi, in his personal capacity, against amendments to the Embryo Protection Act, arguing that legislation allowing embryo freezing, places the life of the unborn child in clear and manifest danger.
But when the proceedings continued today, the court was informed by lawyer Vincent Galea that Dr Delia was unable to attend because “of commitments of an urgent nature related to his post.”
The court duly minuted this fact, declaring that Dr Delia would testify at the next hearing.
Meanwhile, the court heard the testimony of Dr Josie Muscat, Chairman and Founder of the Saint James Hospital Group, who “introduced IVF locally 25 years ago,” and who described embryo protection as “a very complicated subject that could not be discussed in a matter of a few minutes.”
Whilst giving a brief overview of the delicate issues at play, Dr Muscat pointed out that although he “would say no to freezing of embryos” yet each case was to be taken on its own merits since each couple presented a distinct case study.
“I have often written in the papers, but I must admit that recently I have given up,” said the doctor, observing that the amendments had made the law “worse than it was.”
In his view, the way forward ought to be the introduction of a medical process known as Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) which is not envisaged under Maltese law.
This procedure involves taking a “single cell” from an embryo to have it screened in the lab and its chromosomes checked to identify genetic defects within embryos.
Dr Muscat explained to the First Hall, Civil Court, presided over by Mr Justice Francesco Depasquale, that embryos could be classified as healthy or defective, the latter having “no chance” of developing after implantation.
This procedure would provide better chances for both the mother and the child and ensure less wastage of embryos, the doctor observed, and urged discussion between the medical profession and the Embryo Protection Authority which was lacking.
One of the major drawbacks was the fact that doctors today would simply fill in a form, forward it to the Authority who would reply with “approved” or otherwise, without engaging in discussion with the doctors concerned, said Dr Muscat.
The psychological aspects at play could not be dismissed either, said the doctor, referring to the emotional struggles that couples went through and the negative repercussions this could have on their relationship.
“How can you understand a woman who travels the world to bear a child,” said the doctor, also speaking of the many marriage breakdowns he had personally witnessed.
As for the fate of frozen embryos, Dr Muscat said that a number would “burst” upon thawing or subsequently upon being handled.
Dr Azzopardi is arguing that by allowing for the selection of the ‘best’ three embryos, out of the fertilized five, the current law was a threat to the right to life, as protected under article 33 of the Constitution and article 2 of the European Convention.
Such medical selection led to the discarding of the ‘weaker’ embryos, a clear threat to their right to life, which was tantamount to a crime punishable with imprisonment under our law.
The case continues.