The National Council of Women deplores the mixed messages that are being made public on the media on the proposed legislation on the Protection of Embryos, in particular now that it is in its final stages before Parliament. The title of the Act focuses directly and specifically on the protection of embryos and it is in this context that the debate should be directed.

It is ethically irresponsible that such a sensitive issue is being dramatised in this manner playing upon people’s emotions and at the same time creating confusion in people’s minds, who as expected are not familiar with the implications of the importance of a legislation that will realistically protect embryos and that will make sure that as much as is humanly possible no loopholes are left, which can give rise to abuse.  This certainly does not mean that the proposed legislation is ignoring important aspects such as the dignity of couples who are genuinely seeking this type of IVF treatment. At the same time one cannot ignore the fact that there can be abuse form other sources.

The public debate raises issues on the number of eggs to be implanted, which again should be directed to reducing the health risks of the mother and the unborn child. Raising the number of eggs to be implanted from two to three in treatment of women over 40 years or other identified difficulties should reach agreement  

The debate on the role of the Embryo Protection Authority has also served to create misconceptions. This does not mean that it in any way it should interfere in the relationship between the medical professional and the parents; however, its regulatory role cannot be strangled to such an extent that it cannot regulate at all.

There is certainly the need to redefine the working methods rather than the role of the Authority to safeguard this ethical concept. One of its most crucial roles is to ensure ethical standards are kept by all medical practitioners. It is in the interest of all such practitioners, to provide information to the Authority ( data collection) , including an outline of the case history ,without divulging the identity of the couple, thus respecting and protecting their privacy as is normal practice in  all medical (and other) professions. The medical practitioner has the responsibility before the law to also protect his/her integrity as a professional according to legislation. If this information has not been collected so far, because there was no regulation in place, who can guarantee that there was no abuse! Is there any data to prove statements such as these that are being made, giving the impression that everything was or would be fine! Moreover, There is no reason at all for couples to go before the said Authority to ‘get permission’ if the process goes through the medical practitioner in consultation with the parents

In the case of post natal visits in hospital, relevant medical information might need to be provided in certain situations where the health of both the mother and the child is at risk or where there is the need for a particular treatment, however such decisions can made by the couple in consultation with their medical practitioner

There is also the need to clarify the composition of the Authority to ensure it is made up of experts on this form of IVF treatment in the medical field, experts in ethics, psychologists and other paramedics if necessary. Its functions should be twofold - regulatory and support to all parties involved.