ANNA BORG, university lecturer and women’s rights activist, sees the recent proposal of a law to protect foetuses from their own mothers as indicative of a deep-seated prejudice against women. She shares her concerns with Raphael Vassallo
Dr Anna Borg, a lecturer at the University of Malta’s Centre for Labour Studies, has lambasted as ‘tyrannical’ and ‘paternalistic’ a proposal by parliament’s Social Affairs Committee to extend the existing concept of ‘child care orders’ also to unborn foetuses .
Dr Borg is also president of the Malta Confederation of Women’s Organisations, though she made it clear that her comments on the proposed legislation reflect only her own personal views, as the MCWO has yet to discuss this issue at committee level.
“This type of law is nothing but a tyrant law trying to take control over other persons at all costs, without taking into consideration different scenarios, the rights of all those involved, and without creating limits to the extent of intrusion,” Dr Borg told MaltaToday. “It is a proposal that raises more questions than it answers, and poses serious questions about how women are being treated and looked upon in Malta.”
The idea was first floated by SAC chair Edwin Vassallo, after consultation meetings with representatives of Sedqa: the government’s drug and alcohol abuse agency.
Sedqa’s experts recommended giving legal recognition to the foetus in a way that the state would be able to intervene by issuing a ‘care order’ on the mother, if her behaviour was considered to in any way threaten the unborn life inside her.
However, it seems that little thought was given to the effect such legislation may have on the rights of the mother, to whose person the foetus is inextricably linked.
Ceryainly, no attempt made to seek the views of organisations representing women in Malta. Dr Borg confirmed with this newspaper that at no point was there any consultation between the SAC and the MCWO, despite the issue’s evident ramifications on issues relating to women’s rights.
“Are we speaking of forced medical treatment, or of psychological counselling aimed at preparing the mother to take responsibility?” she asked. “Instead of doing drugs, let‘s say the mother drinks, smokes or has diabetes or high blood pressure, she doesn’t care what she eats. Shall we also issue a care order also in this case? And where will the unborn baby be cared for, in order to force treatment on the mother? In a drug rehabilitation centre? In prison? Where?”
Edwin Vassallo himself last week suggested that such venues may be considered, when he told The Times that: “The mother would be put under observation to protect the child. She could be put in an institution or housed with another family,”
However, the Nationalist MP later clarified that he did not have prison or hospital in mind at the time.
Either way, Dr Borg openly questions whether any form of institutionalisation would be helpful under such circumstances.
“Is this truly the best solution for pregnant victims of drugs and their children? Will the legislator, the court or medical experts decide on what is the best way forward? In making this decision, is there a balance between woman and unborn (possibly also unviable) foetus? What are the medical and legal guidelines that will be followed in these cases? What happens when the mother refuses medical treatment as it would keep her away from her other children? Who takes responsibility for the death of the foetus, following forced treatment?”
Proposal ‘will endanger women’s health’
Dr Borg also warns that the law may achieve an aim opposite to that intended, and cause more harm than good to both mother and foetus.
“This type of extremist law will only lead to women staying away from seeking medical attention or care, as it is a law that removes from a pregnant woman decisions that relate to her health,” she warned.
“The effects of this proposal will endanger the health of the woman and the foetus, as it will keep those women in need of medical attention away from seeking it, knowing that treatment may be imposed upon them.”
Beyond the immediate practical consequences of such legislation, she also fears that the proposal itself betrays an underlying prejudice against women.
“This extreme form of protection for the feotus indicates a paternalistic view of women as being ‘a vehicle for procreation’.”
Borg buttresses this argument by alluding to an apparent discrimination in the thrust of the debate so far: the omission of any reference to the foetus’ presumed father.
“If we are to force treatment on smoking mothers... who will force treatment on smoking fathers? If the aim of the proposal is to protect the unborn, then do we remove the father and ban him from being anywhere next to the mother during this pregnancy?”
Furthermore, the long-term effects of such an invasive form of legislation are hard to predict.
“Do we really know what are the consequences of this interference on the health of the mother and father – not just physical health, but also psychological health – or are we a society that would rather create a parent with psychological traumas and problems? And then: who takes care of this child?”
Ironically, this sort of psychological pressure on an expecting mother could create the very problems it purported to solve.
“Do we then issue another care order on this child, once it is born, because his mother is unable to take care of him due to psychological problems that we have caused ourselves? And will the government be ensuring that all pregnant women are removed from areas in Malta where there is high level of pollution, so that the foetus will not be harmed?
Furthermore, Dr Borg argues that the premise of the entire proposal is flawed. If, in the case of drug addiction, a mother can be imposed upon in the interest of the life she carries inside her... then the same principle should apply equally to other social problems unrelated to drug or alcohol addiction.
“Will mothers who are poor ,and cannot afford a good healthy diet, be given free food?” Dr Borg queries. “What happens with those mothers whose health, or the health of their partner, medically indicates that their child will be born with some medical condition? Do we tell these women not to have children? Are we after a healthy child being born at all costs? Is this turning into a eugenic practice? Which harmful pre-natal conduct are we speaking of and where does the control stop? What happens when the action we impose upon the woman causes her harm?”
Dr Borg also questions the wisdom of legislating on matters which should really remain at the discretion of medical, and not legal, experts.
“It’s as if we are distrusting the strength of our doctors, counsellors and persons within the medical field. What there should be is not a law on this issue, but medical guidelines, proposed first and foremost by medical experts who consider all the medical consequences involved, and who aptly guide their fellow doctors in dealing with and treating mothers who need medical attention.”
Whilst we condemn literature and pornography because it objectifies women’s body, we now have a proposal wherein the body of the mother is seen as a simple vessel for incubating children and we forget that the mother is also a person who merits respect and who needs attention and support rather than condemnation and care orders. Pregnancy may be the best time to motivate mothers to change so rather than care orders that go against the rights of the mother; we should instead focus on preventive and support services to mother’s victims of drugs and to their born and unborn children.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
