Regrets and compassion
Doctors for Choice’s latest extraordinary excuse for legislating in favour of the introduction of abortion services in Malta is that 95 per cent of women asked in a survey apparently expressed no regret over the fact that they ended their unborn children’s prospects of having any sort of life without ever having offered them the choice whether to live or die.
They go on to claim the moral high ground with a plea for compassion.
One is obliged to ask them to justify their absence of compassion for the child evidently afforded no right whatsoever to plead for her/his own life.
“Doctors for choice” indeed! Their “court of law” asked to rule on whether said child is allowed a chance to live is characterised by the absence of a defence attorney, because every abortion clinic any of my patients has ever gone to for “advice” limits their “counselling” to technical matters alone.
Where is the justice in that?
Of course, society should demonstrate compassion towards women who find themselves pregnant and facing what may well be terrible difficulties but similar compassion should be directed towards the blameless unborn infant.
This is the frequently irreconcilable difficulty inherent in this debate, sadly complicated by the fact that giving babies up for adoption appears to be so frequently an unacceptable alternative to abortion whenever the subject is raised these days.
Anton Borg – Gloucestershire, UK
Vaccination efficiency
Photo: Shutterstock.comIn the issue of January 16, Times of Malta reported some problems with the initial vaccination arrangements.
My wife and I have just received our second inoculations at Kirkop primary care centre and, on both occasions, we were treated exactly at the time invited, completely efficiently and with care and kindness.
We would like to put on record through these columns our thanks to the staff and management for such an excellent effort.
Alexander Welsh – Qrendi
COVID rule on tombs
I refer to my letter published on the Times of Malta and titled ‘Transport of corpses between Malta and Gozo’ way back on February 5, 2012, where I asked why the coffin has to be lined in a tin and why Gozo Channel does not transport corpses between Malta and Gozo.
At that time, a private boat was used to transport corpses between Malta and Gozo and vice versa.
Later, both my queries were regulated and the ‘lined in a tin’ was not used anymore except in rare cases, such as decomposed corpses, and Gozo Channel began transporting the deceased naturally by hearse.
Nearly a year ago, if somebody died due to coronavirus, the coffin was taken directly to the cemetery and, on March 30, 2020, the Superintendent of Public Health ordered “…that, with immediate effect, during funeral and burial ceremonies the only persons allowed are the wife/husband/partner and the children of the deceased. All other relatives are not to be permitted to attend…” This rule was prohibiting relatives of the single, priests, nuns and even of children to attend.
This rule was later removed.
Now my query is why 10 years are needed before the tomb of a person who died of COVID-19 can be reopened?
We are informed that, as long as people follow standard cleaning procedures, the risk of transmission of the virus from surfaces is low. Even alcohol rub is effective in a short interval.
So why is there the need for a 10-year-interval to reopen a tomb?
I assume that, by the beginning of May, the deaths from COVID-19 in Malta and Gozo will be over 500.
I don’t know what type of plastic bags are used to seal the deceased in but I feel that degradable bags can be better.
Malta and Gozo can’t afford to have a large number of tombs being reopened only after 10 years.
I think the 10-year closure should be reconsidered and changed to two years.
Carmel Saliba – Victoria
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@timesofmalta.com. Please include your full name, address and ID card number. The editor may disclose personal information to any person or entity seeking legal action on the basis of a published letter.