Biotechnology regulation 'conducive' to better decisions, safeguards

Regulating the use of biotechnology would help users and providers to arrive at better informed ethical decisions and safeguards against abuse, Family and Social Solidarity Minister Dolores Cristina said.

Ms Cristina was speaking in the wake of the stand adopted by the Bioethics Consultative Committee, appointed by the government to advise it on bioethical issues, against surrogacy, the freezing of embryos and the donation of sperm and ova.

Until now, there has been very little regulation, if at all, regarding the use of biotechnology and the implications arising from it, Ms Cristina said.

In-vitro fertilisation, for example, has been in use for over 12 years and regulation would ensure that standards were set, laws were enacted and abuse was prevented, thereby safeguarding the interests of all parties involved, the minister continued.

The social affairs committee of the House of Representatives has heard extensive testimonies on the use of biotechnology, specifically in assisted reproduction and genetic technology. It has heard experts on medicine, genetics, scientific research, law, human rights, public administration, morality, philosophy, theology and bioethics, including the Bioethics Consultative Committee itself.

Apart from expert testimonies, the consultation process has also included the testimony of patients who have made use of biotechnology, WAW - the Infertility Support Group and various commissions and groups representing a wide spectrum of interests and perspectives.

Subsequently, the president of the House social affairs committee presented a report on the use of biotechnology in assisted reproduction and genetic technology.

Ms Cristina said the aim of the report was to help the social affairs committee by presenting an intelligible compilation of thoughts and issues arising from the research and evidence accrued.

As a result, the committee should be in a position to widen the discussion and finally to provide its recommendations to Parliament.

It is pointed out in the document that, until the drafting of recommendations takes place, no particular stand is promoted and an objective presentation of relevant material is offered, Ms Cristina said, adding that the report demonstrates the complexity of the various issues involved.

"One cannot be simplistic or dogmatic before exploring all the possible angles," she said. The issues present many perspectives that need to be taken into account before any standpoint is contemplated.

The Commissioner for Children, Sonia Camilleri, felt the conclusions of the Bioethics Consultative Committee indicated "some very positive elements when looked at from the angle of the protagonist, the child".

It appeared to be supportive of the social, legal and cultural values cherished in Malta and has taken note of the lessons learnt from other countries, where in-vitro fertilisation has been practised for the past 25 years.

Ms Camilleri said the Bioethics Committee has "rightly" taken a stand against surrogacy and donor schemes and it suggests that implantation be limited to two, preferably one embryo, at every IVF attempt.

"These recommendations, if adopted by the legislator, would avert the traumas in children of unknown or 'additional' fathers and mothers and prevent artificially created high-risk multiple pregnancies," Ms Camilleri said.

A genuine attempt has also been made to avoid freezing of embryos, a procedure which has resulted in Operation Snowflake in the US, where 400,000 frozen embryos are up for adoption.

In allowing for special cases, the committee has, however, left a loophole, which the legislators would have to address, Ms Camilleri said.

The bottom line in the proposed legislation would be to see whether Malta will honour its commitment to article 6 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This lays down that countries should recognise that every child has the inherent right to life and ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

The report issued by the Bioethics Consultative Committee is also in line with the comments made by the National Council of Women to the parliamentary committee, its vice president, Doreen Susanne Micallef, said.

Bioethics Consultative Committee chairman Michael Asciak told The Times that the freezing of embryos would unnecessarily endanger human life and also present a problem to the authorities, with a large number of extra embryos remaining frozen and unclaimed.

However, temporary freezing in the case of illness or death of the mother in the short period between the fertilisation of the ova and the implantation of the fertilised eggs in the uterus was considered to be a special case, which the Bioethics Committee decided should be dealt with by a special medical board.

The Bioethics Committee had also agreed that married couples should have recourse to IVF but it did not reach a consensus on whether unmarried couples should be allowed access to the procedure, although the majority of its members were in favour of allowing stable but unmarried cohabiting couples.

On certain aspects of IVF, the Bioethics Committee reached a consensus that medical, or diagnostic interventions on the embryo, or foetus should only take place for the benefit of the same embryo, or foetus.

Dr Asciak said the committee had unanimously opposed surrogacy because it would involve the inclusion of a third person in the sexual relationship and that the child would have both a genetic and a nurturing mother, which would create an internal conflict.

On the donation of sperm, or ova, the Bioethics Committee argued that it would introduce a third party into the sexual relationship and would create identity problems for the affected child, who had the right to know the real parents, as well as cause legal problems.