This is really unfortunate that the court could not grant permission for the abortion because of legality involved. The fact of life is that this couple and the child will have to face a hell ahead.It has become a fashion to talk and lecture about a hard ship or trouble some one else has to face. The parents of the child come from a middle class family and can not bear the expenses besides it is they who have to look after the disabled child. Looking after a disabled child means that the caretakers have to be around him/her always which will have a direct impact on their earnings, then how can they manage him/her. the best way would have been seeking opinion of those who are bringing up or have brought such disabled children, their opinion has to be taken seriously for framing such laws. The government is also said to have said they can not frame such a law where such abortions could be legalised, In that case government should take whole responsibility of such people, instead of spending the money on the treatment of corrupt politicians and anti national parasites, who have not to run from pillar to post for such facilities but are delivered to their door steps. We need to place our selves in the shoes of these parents before commenting.
While observing many messeages, it was observed that many peoples were not happy on court's dicision. We have to remember that court has it's own limitation and they have to give decision based on current laws and court cannot cross laws inacted by parliamnet. Secondly we have to remember that it is due to scince's progress wecan atleast discuss and decide regarding fate of foetus. In old days when somebody got defective chils, there are numerous exapmples that parents have given all due care to child despite their physical or mental incapacitation. Secondly we should also remember that sonography technology can detect only physical deformities and any mental retardness cannot be detected by this technoloy. Under such circumstances if any child is born with autisem, or mongol willl their parents kill child or mange him throughout his life. There is a proverb that peoples who were born are taking decision about unborn foetus.
RE:limitationes of coutrs
by Parth Mehta on Aug 04, 2008 11:45 PM Permalink
You are right in saying that court has its own limitations but we need to change the laws then. Whatever happened in past should not happen in present or future especiallt when we havet sophisticated technology. Ultrasonography can not detect mental retardation but there are lot of tests available which can detect that. Genetic testing, triple marker screen, AFP (Alpha Feto Protein), LDH (Lactate Dehydrogenase), Beta-HCG (Beta-Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin) which can detect neural tube defects, anencephaly, Down's Syndrome (Mongoloid Child) so you can not argue on that base. We have the technology available then why not make the use for the betterment of life for everyone. If court has its own limitations, government should provide a legislature where parents like these can be helped. I am not proabortion or antiabortion. I am just saying that people should have a right to make decision about their own body and own health and that is how the most important principle of ethics which is autonomy is served. There are blood tests, Amniocentesis, Chorionic Villi Sampling which can all help along with triple marker screen and it is not an uncommon test. This couple should be helped by the government by providing a legislature.
When I was in medical college, we used to study the MTP act in Obstetrics and Gynecology. This act was passed in 1971 and amended in 2002. There are several provisions and one of them is that is this 20 weeks time limit. I would say it is time to change this act. This child is going to be born with congenital heart block. That means that this child will require permanent pacemakers which have to be replaced every 4-5 years depending on its battery life. It is not easy to do this. Pacemakers are expensive and replacing them every 4 years is also expensive. Apart from that, the court should also consider the emotional trauma and suffering the child and the family will suffer for rest of their lives. Could this child perform all the usual strenous activities that other adults would perform when he/she becomes an adult? Would someone marry him/her with this condition? When the doctors are saying that they are not sure whether the child will need a cardiac surgery or not, how can they deny abortion? They say that there are LEAST CHANCES OF SUFFERING SERIOUS HANDICAPS. So in other words there are at least some chances of suffering some degree of handicaps which the child has to live with. In any case, a person has a complete right over his/her own body and in this case the mother has. Child is hers. She has to bear the pain. It is not easy for a mother to say I want to abort my child. When she says that there must be a strong reason and we have it in this case. Time to change laws.
RE:Abortion Laws in India
by aandhi on Aug 04, 2008 11:57 PM Permalink
Parth Mehta, Very correct observation by a practicing doctor and a right thinking of a concerned person for fellow human being. But, unfortunately, in India it has become fashion with the so called intelligentsia to comment, beyond a common mans comprehension, on troubles and trauma, which some one else has to face. In our government also people like Ramdoss, who have become doctors by accident of being from reserved categories fail to understand commonsense. I feel very sorry for this couple whose decision to abort would have saved the child and the poor parents from emotional trauma and untold sufferings.
RE:Abortion Laws in India
by naveen on Aug 05, 2008 05:51 AM Permalink
Hi Parth Mehta, text books say.. the prognosis for this fetus (transposition of great vessels with cingenital heart block) is poor. I don't know how the medical pannel has given the opinion of"LEAST CHANCES OF SUFFERING SERIOUS HANDICAPS"... (Evidences.. Callen's USG book, 4th edition page no.414 and William's Obstetrics text book, 21st edition, page no.675)
RE:Abortion Laws in India
by Parth Mehta on Aug 04, 2008 10:13 PM Permalink
Thank you for appreciating the points. I am practicing medicine in US these days & abortion is also the most controversial topic here. Few years back, we tried to publish a paper in Obstetrics & Gyencology on developing easier & more effective abortion techniques. Guess what, when the paper went for review, it got stuck in ethical issues & never got published only because it was based abortion. In US, there is much more emphasis given on the principle of autonomy where the person has the full right over his or her own health & can deny any treatment if desired. No doctor can force them. It is a free society but when the matter comes to abortion, this free society becomes extremely conservative. A major portion of the society still considers abortion a crime. That is a mere hypocricy I believe. If the mother has a full right over her own body then child is also the part of the mother but all the time people cry out loud protesting abortion while promoting autonomy. Elections are won over abortion issues here. Abortion is a very controversial issue anyways. In India, we need to change the laws because if a poor woman is denied abortion then she may go to a quack which introduces unhealthy unsterile techniques to induce abortion. I saw a case where a quack introduced a branch of a tree laiden with some toxic metal ointment which caused sepsis in that poor lady & she died. This couple is financially stable so can go to court. Think about the poor ones in rural villages.
RE:Abortion Laws in India
by italyseaayi on Aug 04, 2008 09:16 PM Permalink
Well said. Hope that these judges will not give their personal opinions in the form of judgement. No one including the court cannot decide what is good or bad for oneself, unless it is truly considered as bad or unethical/unsubstantiated for humanity. where as in this case it is a clear case of medical problem that the child has to undergo as long as it lives and the societal problem to parents. Indian courts should not behave like some courts in Muslim countries like what chaddi/panty to wear. Only women should close their face to stop attracting men (They consider their own Muslim men are libido's and cant resist themself)
In many countries where gene therapy is allowed there is a committee to study individual cases. In India too we should have a committee to look into these situations irrespective of any beliefs because the child is the sufferer. There are many instances where the child asks the mother as to what I was not killed and now I have to suffer from genetic defects e.g lung fibrosis, muscular dystrophy etc. It is the home and surrounding people who have to face the problems in genetic abnormalities. The genetic abnormalities are on the rise due to the intake of many drugs, exposure to ioniing and non ionizing radiations, chemicals in food and last but not the least - inbreeding amidst the communities. All this change only after we educate the public because the city dwellers of many metropolitan population donot know what precaution has to be taken in the first trimester.
RE:A committee has to be appointed for future decisions
by Seenu Subbu on Aug 05, 2008 12:57 AM Permalink
Asoul. Are you a human being, you filthy animal. This is such a heart rending subject and why are you bringing in your filth in here?
RE:A committee has to be appointed for future decisions
by Seenu Subbu on Aug 05, 2008 01:01 AM Permalink
Sorry, my reply is not for Rajendra Nayak, it's for that filthy animal abusing the forum to keep spamming about Islam.
Judiciary system in India especially in medico-legal and medico-ethical cases rarely takes a good decision. This is one of the example. When the panel of doctors themself are not quite sure of the good health of the baby, how can technically ignorant court say not to terminate the pregnancy. When a court always dismisses a murder/theft/rape cases based on lack of evidence/ benefit of doubdt, why cant they give green signal to terminate the pragnancy here as expert doctors are not sure. Even if the baby is born, who will take the expenses of the medical treatment. Does this court has the capacity/power to direct the government to take the expenses??? This is an injustice done to the tramautic parents by court. Supreme court should intervene as soon as possible and squash the lower court decision and give the parents their rightes to choose the decision. Instead of showing their directive powers on cases like this, courts in India should start directing and punishing the governments which fails to maintain the infrastructure in mass gatherings ( Naina devi temple) and affect the society badly.
RE:HIGH COURT IS EVIL !!!
by Mahesh on Aug 04, 2008 09:00 PM Permalink
It is one thing to express your opinion and another to call High Court evil. You are in contempt of court. There are many here that don't even live in India and they think they can say anything without the fear of ever being traced or prosecuted. Shame on you people.
RE:RE:HIGH COURT IS EVIL !!!
by eskinol on Aug 05, 2008 02:03 AM Permalink
This is mad. The court is not perfect. It has made many wrong, and even some evil decisions. The judges on it are human too - some good, some clever, some bad some foolish. Just like all people. On an issue like this people have strong moral opinions: killing disabled fetuses versus forcing poor people to bring them up, and infringing the rights of the woman. Of course people are going to think decisions on such emotional matters wrong, crazy, immoral and yes evil. They are perfectly within their rights to think and say so. Stop being so afraid man! You live in a democracy. You have some rights.
RE:HIGH COURT IS EVIL !!!
by Loan Shark on Aug 04, 2008 07:59 PM Permalink
having and expressing an opinion in disagreement with the court or its judgement is not a contempt of court. it is normal in democracy.
not following the orders of the court is contempt.
RE:HIGH COURT IS EVIL !!!
by Indoamerican on Aug 04, 2008 08:05 PM Permalink
I dont see any contempt of court in Terminators opinion. In India you can disagree with any court (Even supreme courts decision) and re-appeal to the same court. Contempt is - if one dose'nt follow the court orders but dont appeal to higher court.
I understand this is a difficult decision for the parents but we should look at the unborn child as well. The law, with a reason, decided that at 20 weeks the baby takes a form of life that should be protected. The issues are... 1. Do the parents have a right to abort at any stage of pregnancy? 2. If there is a time limit how long should they be allowed to do that? Till a few days before actual birth? 3. With medical advances we are able to find some problems in advance. What if an issue was found just a day before the birth? Should they still be allowed to abort? 4. When is it abortion and when is it killing? 5. The baby was born prematurely and simultaneously they found an abnormality. Parents don't want to take care. They have a right to kill? 6. In all the above or some of the cases, if the husband wants to have the baby and mother does not or the other way round. Who gets to decide then? 7. Are children property of parents? Do they have a right to decide on the fate of the child?
There are many difficult questions here. The best thing is to go by the law and then debate the law rather than abusing the parents or the judges.
