The revamped abortion bill presented on Friday would not have made any difference in the case of Andrea Prudente, according to two gynaecologists who hold opposing views on the bill.

Prudente’s case hit international headlines when she was denied an abortion in Malta after suffering a ruptured membrane while 16 weeks pregnant. Doctors told her they could only intervene if her life was at imminent risk. Her pregnancy was medically terminated in Spain.

The case prompted Prime Minister Robert Abela to propose a legal amendment to prevent a repeat of the incident.

The original bill was sent back to the drawing board following criticism from anti-abortion activists and several high-profile public figures, including President George Vella and his predecessor Marie Louise Coleiro Preca.

The new bill, presented on Friday by Health Minister Chris Fearne and Justice Minister Jonathan Attard, allows for the termination of a pregnancy if a woman’s life is at immediate risk or if her health is in “grave jeopardy which may lead to her death”.

The bill says the intervention needs to be approved by a team of three medical professionals, two of whom must be obstetricians or gynaecologists, and can only be carried out in cases where the foetus is not deemed to be viable.

Bill prolongs suffering

Speaking to Times of Malta, consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist Mark Sant described the new bill as “regressive”, arguing it would not have made any difference in the case of Andrea Prudente.

According to Sant, the new law would not have enabled Prudente to abort her foetus when she suffered a ruptured membrane at 16 weeks of pregnancy.

It now takes three specialists to say that an infection is life-threatening instead of just one

Describing the situation as “status quo”, Sant said one would still need to wait for a “massive infection for her life to be in jeopardy and action taken”.

Furthermore, Sant argued, the bill risks prolonging the time needed to treat a woman suffering from a similar rupture.

Mark Sant is a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist at Mater Dei Hospital. Photo: Veduta Clinic

“It now takes three specialists to say that an infection is life-threatening instead of just the one taking care of her. In the past, the consultant would discuss with their team and decide that yes, this is serious. Now there will be some complex mechanism requiring three approved specialists to decide this, which will invariably take up more time and possibly bring around further delays.”

‘Sensible’ amendment

Consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist Christine Schembri Deguara agreed that the new bill appears unlikely to have any impact on cases such as Prudente’s.

Stressing that she is not privy to the medical details of Prudente’s case, Schembri Deguara said that information in the public domain suggests that Prudente’s health was not yet in grave jeopardy as defined by the bill, so she would have been unable to terminate her pregnancy under the proposed law.

Christine Schembri Deguara is a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist at Hope Fertility Malta.

However, unlike Sant, Schembri Deguara described the new bill as “sensible”, as it removes ambiguity around what constitutes grave jeopardy, clarifies terminology, and protects medical professionals by codifying existing medical practices into law.

She also disagreed with the view that having a three-person medical team review, the case will cause additional delays, saying that “medically it is quite clear whether a situation is life-threatening or not”.