Last year a controversial law was introduced by the centre-right ruling majority in Italy, to govern the conditions under which assisted procreation may take place.
The requirement for legislation governing this area was not in itself controversial. Most recognised that there existed a ‘far-west’ situation, where ethics and medical standards were dubious to say the least. It has been in Italy previously that Severino Antinori famously both helped women in their 50s and 60s to conceive through in vitro fertilisation, and also advocated the use of cloning technology to help infertile couples.
The one thing that virtually everyone agrees on now is that the law 40/2004 is a mess. Full of contradictions and dangerous implications for both Mother and Embryo.
What should be done about it, though, remains the subject of a fierce debate. The Radical party have managed to push forward a referendum whereby Italians will get to vote on four of the most contentious elements of the law:
[1]
It’s not the aim of this entry to discuss fully the particular articles – though there will be further talk about the issues in Three Monkeys Online in due course.
No, what interests us in this entry, is the position that Church and State have taken in relation to this referendum, and the advice that is being given to voters.
It’s a complex issue, and not one that has easy answers – unless that is you happen to be the President of the Italian Episcopal Conference, head of the Bishops, Cardinal Ruini. On the 11th of March he made the Church’s position clear. The law 40/2004 should be kept as it is, and so good Catholics should abstain from voting on the issue…
Wait. Surely there’s a typographical mistake. Surely you mean vote no (i.e vote to retain the law as is)? Well, you might think that. The Church, though, along with various members of the ruling majority, have decided strategically that the best way to defeat the referendum is to persuade people not to vote. As referendums traditionally have a low turn out, and to be valid require 50%+1 or more of the voting public, the more people who stay away from voting means the less chance there is of achieving a legal quorum. As Ruini said, “many abstain in any case, [keep in mind that the referendum is held on a june weekend], so there’s already a quota of abstentions to which we’ll be added”.
Before the righteous start bombarding this monkey with e-mails, let it be said that Ruini’s stance is also a principled stance. His argument goes that the issues being voted on are too complex to be discussed and decided by a democratic vote, and should be settled by Parliament. Strange that the Church might be opposed to democratic choice, but legitimate in its own twisted way.
The argument that the Parliament is the place where complex issues such as these should be decided sounds inviting, until you consider that these geniuses created this contradictory law in the first place (against the advice of numerous medical experts, it should be added).
The Government’s understanding of the complexities of the issue are highlighted by many of the contradictions in the shambolic law they created. Let’s take one brief example. Under 40/2004, once an embryo has been artificially created it can not undergo any tests for genetic diseases before implantation. Reasonable you might think (particularly if you follow the Church’s catechism), to protect the right to life of embryos. After all, a mother to be who learns that her child will definitely have a debilitating congential disease may choose not to go ahead with the implantation, and thus the embryo would be destroyed. The catch here is that in Italy there is abortion on demand. So, the law as it is, forces women in such cases to implant the embryo, develop a pregnancy, and then if they so wish, choose an abortion. Hardly a convincing argument for the primacy of the politician in framing complex laws.
To keep the law though in the hands solely of the parliamentarians is useful in a country where there is a strong tradition of catholic based party politics. Ex-president Francesco Cossiga said he would be abstaining from voting. When asked why, he explained it was because he was a catholic[3], and thus, by inference, that when the Bishops spoke he would follow suit, or renounce his democratic rights (depending upon your viewpoint).
To jump back to where we started: these are complex issues, concerning the dignity of life, scientific research, morals and ethics. As a society we need to look at these questions face on, and debate the issues.
Or we can just go to the beach and bask in the sun, and the warm glow of certainty that the powers that be know best…
[1] Ministero dell’Interno
[2] “molti si astengono in ogni caso e dunque c