Amendment must be watertight

The loss of life of the unborn as an undesirable, unintended and inseparable secondary outcome of life-saving medical treatment given to a woman out of absolute necessity in real, grave danger of loss of life during pregnancy is tragic.

The loss of life of the unborn as the intended primary outcome of an abortion during pregnancy when the above circumstances do not prevail is barbaric.

In the first scenario, where possible, all efforts would be taken to deliver intensive post-natal care if a pre-term delivery is part of the required medical life-saving treatment and all measures to limit harm to the unborn continue to be taken at all times. In the second scenario, the unborn can be brutally dismembered and discarded.

The administration of real life-saving medical care to a mother in the knowledge that this may compromise a pregnancy is not only morally and ethically permissible but is also endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church and commonly referred to by the philosophical principle of ‘double effect’, introduced by St Thomas Aquinas.

This is exactly how the law article 243 of Chapter 9) has always been interpreted and applied. In contrast, an abortion is carried out with the intent to kill life and is thus a reprehensible and criminal offence.

The division between the above two contrasting scenarios is clear, yet, several of the pro-abortion arguments may obscure these differences, confuse and desensitise the public to the horrors of abortion while presenting distorted views of false compassion together with a misrepresentation of medical facts and misinterpretation of the law that is now in force.

The bill tabled by the government is not really an amendment to current legislation but introduces a completely new, profoundly dangerous law that is loosely worded and opens abortion on demand for any health reason,  which would include mental and social well-being, to the extent that abortion of a healthy pre-term or term pregnancy in these situations could be considered a completely acceptable alternative to a delivery.

The bill makes no reference to gestational age, does not define the terms “risk” and “grave jeopardy” and makes no apparent effort to ensure a pre-term delivered under these conditions is given life-saving healthcare.

The remedy proposed in a legal article by a group of academics approves of medical intervention conducted with the aim of saving the life of the mother where there is a ‘’real and substantial risk of loss of the mother’s life from a physical illness’’ even if this results in an unintended death or bodily harm of the unborn child.

This is a significant improvement and a reflection of current practice; however, the terms “physical illness and “substantial risk of loss” merit a detailed definition.

The clinician/s should also be able to demonstrate that in these circumstances – for any gestational age of pregnancy – all efforts would have been taken, at all times to limit bodily harm and safeguard the life of the child to all extents possible. 

The truth is that there exists no legal loophole in current law except for those who wrongly claim so to be the case.

The political opposition has correctly made it clear that it would not back the bill as tabled by the government but endorses the position of the academics.

This is a better proposition – if an amendment to current law is at all required – but it is to be made completely watertight, so it is not subject to abuse.

SILVAN AZZOPARDI, consultant maxillofacial surgeon, Sliema