Clear or vague? Decide

The government is proposing a bill that at face value is based on solid principle – that is, that if a mother’s life is at serious risk, abortion (a medical term used to describe termination of pregnancy – whether natural or clinical) is permissible.

The prime minister and the deputy prime minister claim that this bill is desperately needed to free us from any grey areas and from situations where a mother and a doctor may be prosecuted for performing the only viable option other than allowing both mother and baby to die.

And, guess what. They are right.

So, if they are so worried about removing vague grey areas and creating litigious situations, why insist on keeping the current proposed wording of the amendment? Wording that does the exact opposite – introduce vague grey areas and create litigious situations.

Let me explain. I am a doctor and this bill scares me. You see, when a law states “life […] in grave jeopardy” we all understand that. It’s simple – high risk of death.

However, when it states, “health in grave jeopardy”, what does that mean? There is no definition of health in Maltese law. If we extend our search to British common law (on which much of our laws are based), we again come up empty-handed. If we go further afield, we can find a definition, completely outside the law, given by the World Health Organisation in 1948, which states: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

There is no definition of health in Maltese law. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier

So, if we were to use this interpretation, is one to assume that if social well-being is in grave jeopardy, then abortion is legally permissible? Well, I hope not, if we are to believe that this is not a bill introducing abortion on request.

To complicate things further, even scientific research shows that when it comes to health, “definitions of practitioners were sometimes radically different from one another” (Julliard et al. 2006).

Our prime minister has brushed this question aside stating that he trusts doctors’ judgement. Yet, in the very same breath he tells us that anyone who stretches or abuses of this law will feel the full force of our legal system.

So, put yourselves in a doctor’s shoes. Do you feel confident in deciding? Do you feel confident enough to risk your licence and possible jail time?

With this conundrum in mind, the prime minister was asked if clear guidelines will be given to doctors. To which he answered that we will follow best practice. A nice sounding phrase with absolutely no meaning, which points us in absolutely no direction.

So, my question to our lawmakers is this: Do you want to eradicate vagueness and produce clarity or eradicate clarity and produce vagueness? Which is it?

My plea is simple. Make things clear. Crystal clear.

PAUL CASSAR MD – Msida

Sauce for the goose

A Vatican official, Fr Eugene Paul Teuma, informs us that MPs voting in favour of abortion suffer the same penalty of excommunication as those actively taking part in abortions (December 11).

How does it happen, then, that the two most prominent Roman Catholics in the US, President Joe Biden and the outgoing speaker of the house of representatives, Nancy Pelosi, both of whom are voluble supporters of a liberal abortion policy, both continue to receive Communion and, one must assume, absolution in the sacrament of confession?

It all seems to depend on where you live and who your bishop is. Some say and do one thing, others quite another. If there is no unanimity among the Church’s bishops on abortion, it surely seems a vain hope for Fr Teuma to expect unanimity among the faithful.

ALAN COOKE – Sliema