We started 2022 with the sad news of the tragic death of Victor Calvagna, a doctor who dedicated his life to save the lives of children. The invasion of Ukraine ran all through 2022 and is yet to be resolved. This contrasted sharply with the international effort to save lives and manage the COVID pandemic.
The Malta election was overshadowed by the global situation and did not have the bang characterising previous electoral campaigns. There was, however, a tiny virus which, for many, was not expected to grow so quickly.
The topic of abortion was raised, with persons from both sides not objecting to have a debate about abortion. What do we mean when we encourage a debate? We mean that the scenario is not out of question – it is possible and may be acceptable. For example, it would be abhorrible to discuss the decriminalisation of domestic violence or abuse. Why? Because the scenario is out of question – unthinkable.
That tiny virus grew quickly and, even before the so-called national debate, we are faced with proposed legislation to decriminalise abortion, albeit in certain circumstances. This is causing shivers in people of goodwill.
To speak about ‘health’ rather than ‘life at risk’ is dangerous and opens the doors wide open, more so when including mental health in the equation.
I am aware of the suffering and distress brought about by mental health difficulties. I am a defender of the rights of the mentally distressed. However, it does not make any sense to justify abortion on the basis of mental health.
Do persons whose husbands, wives, neighbours, work colleagues etc. are causing them mental health difficulties have a right to kill them? Definitely not. Killing is only decriminalised in self-defence, that is, when the life of the individual concerned is in imminent danger.
A pregnant woman needs to be offered treatment for whatever ailment, whether physical, psychiatric or psychological. There is no question about that but to directly kill the unborn child is abominable.
Furthermore, a person passing through emotional or mental health difficulties is not in an ideal state to take important decisions, let alone a decision to kill. Pregnancy itself brings about emotional changes which, at times, may cause distress.
What about the psychological scars on the person who has committed an abortion? Such person may suffer from the multifaceted symptoms of guilt which may emerge later. Alternatively, the person may become emotionally numb. This will have an effect on those around and, in turn, boomerang to the same person.
A chilling experience I heard was that of a young lady who had no empathy towards her mother who was terminally ill, telling me: “My mum wanted a career and aborted an elder sibling I might have had, why should I risk to sacrifice my career and social life to care for her?”
This is not an amendment to protect doctors, it was not asked for by the Medical Association of Malta. It is not an amendment to protect mothers either. It is an amendment pushed by persons who call themselves ‘pro-choice’ even if that choice is to terminate a life of another.
We have a society speaking about rights without emphasising responsibility- Bernard Caruana
Such persons are then fuelled by individuals who believe that morals are old-fashioned and society must lessen the influence of such life-tested morals and the institutions which promote them. Fuelling freedom from such institutions, regulations and morals without highlighting a sense of responsibility (morality) will lead nowhere except to the law of the jungle where might is right and the most vulnerable will suffer.
A society which does away with morals is paving the way for its decay. History has shown us this. We have a society speaking about rights without emphasising responsibility.
It was reported that abortion pills are purchased in Malta and that abortions are carried out. Because something is happening should we endorse it or decriminalise it? We all know that corruption is a reality around the globe but it never occurred to anyone to decriminalise it. We hear talk about exceptional cases. If I overspeed and is caught by a speed camera, I am fined.
There are, however, exceptional cases, for example a person taking a relative in a critical situation to the hospital emergency.
Should we do away with speed cameras and speeding regulations because of such exceptional cases? Definitely not. The individual may get his penalty waived by a tribunal but this does not lead to the decriminalisation of traffic offences.
We are speaking about the right over one’s body. First of all, a pregnant woman has got her body and the life of another within her womb. But even here do we allow anybody wanting to commit suicide to do so, or open painless suicide clinics, on the premise that one has a right over one’s body? Definitely not, even though this concerns only the person and not others.
We do not argue that if a person has mental health difficulties that person has a right to take his life. On the contrary, we acknowledge that the person may be in a crisis and then regret what he/she tried to do. Persons passing through metal health issues or other difficulties need help, support and care not to opt for an apparent easy way out.
Let us dedicate our efforts to build a society of love and solidarity. Let us work together to understand and help each other more. Let us get out of an egocentric mentality – change a society with a sense of ownership to a society which is altruistic.
After all, we all appreciate the taste of such a society when we have such marathons as L-Istrina. Can we dedicate our intellectual and other resources to try to bring about that atmosphere all year round?
Bernard Caruana is a clinical psychologist. He has served as president of the Malta Union and Professional Body of Psychologists for nine years.