Whether to abort or not is an issue, which has psychological and ethical overtones, but the legal implications cannot be overlooked. The Law has a role to play in deciding whether a parent can abort a child or not. Such has been the case in the latest abortion issue involving the Mehtas- Haresh and Niketa.
The Mehtas were keen on aborting the fetus, which was 25-weeks old as they felt that the child would be born with congenital heart blockages and arteries that were mal positioned. The doctors felt that a pace-maker would have to be implanted into the child soon after the birth. But their desire remains unfilled. The Bombay High Court dismissed the plea as it felt that the Mehtas could not make out a case, which indicated that the child was at a major risk of severe mental and physical disability. It did not permit the Mehtas to take a life.
This decision of the court had serious implications as far as the Mehtas were concerned. They felt giving birth to a handicapped child caused much unhappiness and by aborting the child, they were preventing the child from much suffering.
The decision of the High Court may not have been much help to the Mehtas, but it definitely has raised many questions among conscious citizens. Many felt that the Mehtas should have been permitted to abort. After all, they felt that abortion was no longer a taboo, and the parents had a right to decide what is good for the future of the child. The opinion held was that one should change with the times. Societal values have changed and medicine has advanced much. Naturally, such laws, which were enacted under different circumstances, need to be changed. Of course, some who believe that abortion is morally and ethically wrong, did not support the Mehtas in their decision to abort.
Several international human rights treatises state:
“The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”
The U.S. and several other countries have explicit obligations to protect unborn life. The United States is a signatory without any reservation to “the legal protection of child before birth” It supports : “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception.”
Even the Parliament in Britain spent hours debating the abortion issue. The question was whether a woman had a right to choose or whether the fetus had a right to live. The decision was either to decrease the abortion time period to 12 weeks of pregnancy or increase it to limit to what it was before 1990 i.e. 28 weeks. Neither was decided upon. The House favored status quo, keeping 24 weeks as the maximum age for the fetus before it could be aborted. The debate was also influenced by the progress made in the medical field. Even the tiniest, those born prematurely after a 26 period of pregnancy, baby, and weighing not more than 800 grams could survive.
British Lobbyists demanded that the abortion time period should be increased to 28 weeks, so that parents could decide whether to have the child or not in case it may be born with physical and mental defects. Parents can decide the future of their baby, whether he or she can lead an abnormal life.
The Mehtas felt the same way. They did not want their child to lead an abnormal life. As parents they were concerned about the future of the child. Only they approached the court for relief, but got no for an answer. To this approach of the court, the Mehtas reacted rather emotionally and felt they could have gone to the quack as many do, rather than knock the doors of the court. They now have the choice of appealing to the Supreme Court.
The experience has been traumatic for them. Even their gynecologist, Dr.Nikhil Datar felt so. Yet he felt it was good that such an issue had been debated upon. It brought into focus many issues concerning abortion and made people aware of the problem. Women, according to him, go through a lot of stress during pregnancy, and the fact that they have to cope up with a sick child adds more to the stress.
Of course medical opinion about the Niketa’s baby landing up on the operation table immediately after birth varies. Dr. Bharat Dalvi, paediatic cardiologist, practicing at Breach Candy Hospital and Nanavati Hospital, commenting on congenital complete heart blockages feels that there are two possibilities- on one hand one can hope that the child will have no symptoms and life would be normal. On the other hand, the child may face several problems such as breathing problems, difficulty in feeding etc. Dr. Swati Gharekar, paediatric cardiologist, Wockhardt Hospital feels that the child may develop a leaky valve at any stage. She further states that a pacemaker may be required at birth.
Whatever maybe the medical opinion and whatever the court may declare, the fact remains that the Mehtas are the people who are undergoing and will undergo the trauma of bringing up a child with deformities. Whether their decision to abort the child can be justified on moral or ethical grounds, the question that arises is whether the existing abortion laws prevailing within the country appreciate their perspective, that of giving birth to a child who cannot fend for himself or herself. The child, if born with physical and mental defects has to cope up with life and face up to the harsh realities that he or she cannot manage on his or her own.
In the US, the Supreme Court ruled that a pregnant woman had the right to abort in the first trimester of pregnancy. It regulated the procedures in the second trimester depending upon the health of the mother. In the third trimester, the state can proscribe abortion, exception being in the case of preserving life or health of the mother”.
In 1973 the U.S Supreme Court also rued that it was unconstitutional for state laws to declare abortions up to three months of pregnancy as being illegal. Up to three months of pregnancy, it was for the woman and her doctor to decide whether abortion should be carried out. Opinions varied whether a woman should be given a right to abort a child at all times or whether the law could regulate such an act.
The fact remains that whether the right to abort should be only the woman’s prerogative or whether the court should also intervene has been a debatable issue. It will continue to be so as attitudinal changes continue to take place. The law has to perhaps keep in mind the changing sentiments of the people and the pace of life that one is living in. The abortion issue has been in the forefront in several countries, some favoring some not favoring it. A review perhaps, as many feel, needs to be done in India to accommodate the new perception about abortion.
Related posts:
![Related posts:Wise Ways to Manage Money..!!
Save Capitalism from Greedy Capitalists
Eating Less Salt Can Save Money and Reduce the Risk of Heart Diseases
Top 10 ways to Save Power
World Health Day 2009-Save [...]](http://www.ygoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/How-to-save-more-money-36x36.jpg "How to Save More Money"){kind=small}
![Related posts:What Are The Various Pros And Cons Of Stay-At-Home Mothers ?
What Are The Various Pros And Cons Of Working Mothers ?
Why You Should Not Avoid Health Insurance?
Gifts for Working [...]](http://www.ygoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Pros-and-cons-of-freelancing-36x36.jpg "Pros and Cons of Freelancing"){kind=small}