Mumbai: Recently, when the Supreme Court rejected an abortion plea by a 28-year-old city-based woman who had been informed that her foetus had several anomalies, it raised questions on the use of diagnostic facilities available. Doctors say there is no point in pushing women to undergo obstetric sonography at regular intervals when they cannot decide the fate of such a foetus.
“It might be better to ensure that the pregnant woman’s vitals are stable throughout pregnancy. There is no reason why the woman should spend on conducting tests to check on the growth of the foetus,” gynaecologist Dr. Nikhil Datar, who was the first doctor to approach the courts in 2008 on behalf of Niketa Mehta, who was in the 24th week of her pregnancy and wanted an abortion due to fetal anomaly. The HC had rejected her plea, but Ms. Mehta miscarried before they approached the Supreme Court. “If you are providing diagnostics but fail to provide therapeutics, it is all a waste,” Dr. Datar said.
Law forcing abortion
A 28-year-old from Diva is the third woman since 2008 whose abortion plea has been rejected by the court. On March 27, the SC turned down a woman’s plea for abortion saying the baby could be “born alive” during the abortion process. The 27-week-old foetus was suffering from a conditioncalled the Arnold-Chiari malformation, in which brain tissue extends into the spinal canal.
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act allows abortions of foetuses till they are 20 weeks old, and women across the country have had to approach the court after they crossed this limit. “In this case, the woman has done regular check-ups and sonographies. By the time she got to know about the anomaly, she was in her 24th week. There is no reason why the law should force her to bear a baby who will suffer after birth,” Dr. Datar said. He added that though ethics and medicine have evolved, law hasn’t. “She is adhering to the law, but the law is forcing people like her to explore illegal options.”
A draft amendment to the MTP Act in 2104 that extends the abortion time limit to 24 weeks and allows abortions at any time during pregnancy in cases of severe fetal anomaly is yet to be taken up in Parliament. “Had that law been in place, this woman would have stood to gain,” Dr. Datar said. Doctors also point out that babies show sign of life even within 20 weeks, the permitted time limit for abortions.
‘I will leave the baby’
“I had agreed to approach the court with a lot of hope, but now I have no choice but to walk out of the hospital leaving the baby there. The court and the government can take care of him or her,” the distraught woman from Diva, who feels the court has been unfair, said. “Who will pay for the baby’s health-related expenses? Will the court step in? Is it even fair to consider the baby a burden after birth?” she said, not bothering to hold back tears. Her younger brother, aged 27, is mentally and physical challenged. “I have seen what it takes to care for children with special needs. It is unfair for us to go through it all over again,” she said.
Due in June, she is now in the process of writing to the Chief Justice of India and the Prime Minister’s Office with her plea. “I hope someone steps in to help me,” she said. Doctors say her baby could live for anything between a month and a year or more, depending on the severity of the condition.
