High Court judgement in Mehta abortion case

[Rangarajan nambi]

[tscii:286aea0e48]This is the burning topic being debated elsewhere

Its discovered that the baby if born will not have a healthy life. It will have lots of complications. The couple decided to abort. The hospital didnt approve this move. They went to the Court.
The court has refused the couple’s plea for abortion of the 26-week-old foetus. How will this ruling affect the Mehta family as well as similar cases in future

Questions :

1. Is aborting in such a scenario the best option
2. Fate of the kid upon birth. How much stress it will undergo
3. Is abortion itself to be allowed legally

[/tscii:286aea0e48]

[P_R]

1. Yes
2. Pass
3. Yes

[app_engine]

>>Its discovered that the baby if born will not have a healthy life.<<

This is extremely suspect as there had been any number of cases where the diagnosis was found to be improper and the mother was told "if not for killing the fetus, it would be too bad" and in a number of cases the insistent mother delivered a very normal baby.

Another question, if someone is found to have a serious health problem, will you immediately arrange to kill him / her? Simply because the person is "inside" the womb doesn't mean anyone has the right to kill. From the time of conception, it's another person / life and none has the right to kill a human life.

Fate of the kid upon birth? As if the fate of everyone born is great - all of us have some good and some bad moments and eventually die. Simply because we all have some problems in life, is taking out the life the appropriate thing to do?

Can anyone "give" life to someone who is non-living, in the strict sense? No human can. How can they take away what they can never give?

[Roshan]

1. Yes
2. Pass
3. Yes

:lol: for answer no. 2


Anyway my answers;

1. Yes, No and Not sure - I have been trying to find firm answer to this question for some time but theLivA ethuvum thOna mAttEnguthu :confused2:

2. As a person who has closely seen such cases in 3 families (2 relatives and one friend) the agony,stress and suffering are for the child, parents and suththi irukkiRa sonthangaL.

3. Yes - but it should not be a blanket rule. It has to be used on a case by case basis.

[app_engine]

[tscii:9d37c167cf]

The court has refused the couple’s plea for abortion of the 26-week-old foetus.


Good job!

One of the few institutions in the country that is still not totally corrupt:-)
[/tscii:9d37c167cf]

[app_engine]

Hypothetically, if the court has allowed abortion, we can tomorrow expect cases like the following:

a) My new-born baby is blind & also deaf. We want to get rid of it
b) My husband / wife has got XYZ problem which makes life hell for all of us, we want him / her to be peacefully put to death
c) My 80 year old grandpa / grandma is suffering from XYZ and bed-ridden, a big fuss for all of us while he/she herself suffers extreme difficulties. Kindly permit to silence the person forever
etc.

[app_engine]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jQi7Mqepe1RB63emZIGS9Ywa71yAD92BJIGG0

Interesting to note that there are other provisions in the Indian law for abortion. Can't understand on what basis the law decides it's ok to abort prior to x number of weeks:-(

[app_engine]

Comments from a reader in the TOI website on this issue:
================================================== =========
# re: Do you support the HC judgment in the Mehta abortion case?
I completely support the views of Dr.Rajsekhar and his ilk. Even my child was diagnosed with severe deformities (in Connecticut, USA). Luckily for us we went for advanced 3D scans and ECG tests(not sure whether they are all available here) I also had the guts to wait and watch rather than take some drastic action. NOW WE ARE BLESSED WITH A PERFECTLY HEALTHY BABY BOY to play with our elder daughter. Moral of the story is that - YOU ARE NOT GOD TO DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH HIS CREATION EVEN IF THE BABY IS BORN THROUGH YOU.

Posted by Venkat @ 8/6/2008 7:03 PM
================================================== ================

[wrap07]

Comments from a reader in the TOI website on this issue:
================================================== =========
# re: Do you support the HC judgment in the Mehta abortion case?
I completely support the views of Dr.Rajsekhar and his ilk. Even my child was diagnosed with severe deformities (in Connecticut, USA). Luckily for us we went for advanced 3D scans and ECG tests(not sure whether they are all available here) I also had the guts to wait and watch rather than take some drastic action. NOW WE ARE BLESSED WITH A PERFECTLY HEALTHY BABY BOY to play with our elder daughter. Moral of the story is that - YOU ARE NOT GOD TO DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH HIS CREATION EVEN IF THE BABY IS BORN THROUGH YOU.

Posted by Venkat @ 8/6/2008 7:03 PM
================================================== ================

"Can anyone "give" life to someone who is non-living, in the strict sense? No human can. How can they take away what they can never give?"

well said. :clap:

[P_R]

Hypothetically, if the court has allowed abortion, we can tomorrow expect cases like the following:

a) My new-born baby is blind & also deaf. We want to get rid of it
b) My husband / wife has got XYZ problem which makes life hell for all of us, we want him / her to be peacefully put to death
c) My 80 year old grandpa / grandma is suffering from XYZ and bed-ridden, a big fuss for all of us while he/she herself suffers extreme difficulties. Kindly permit to silence the person forever
etc.

The questions are pretty philosophical. How do you define a "person" ? Sentient being is not the only definition. The most convincing answer I have reached thus far is a person is a "self-aware and sentient being". I don't mean the esoteric spiritual self-awareness. That would disqualify me ! I mean a feeling of 'self'. The difference between a foetus and newborn is marginal here so I dread to answer a.
But once we have such a defintion cases for b and c, what also matters is the choice of the individuals themselves. They are in a position of being 'aware' and able to choose. The irreversibility is a a completely different question.

The basis for any question here is : how can someone else other than the person concerned decide whether a certain life is worth living or not. It is only I who should decide whether it is so bad that I better kick it. But the irreversability of that decision poses its own problems which are historic - : ay! there's the rub"

To put the problem simply, the issue is in defining what is the "origin of life". When do you decide this is a life. And we will temporarily ignore Menaka Gandhi types and talk about human life.
This is not to ignore the worth of other forms but just trying to keep an already complicated question simple. So I will use some dettol to wash my hands off that for now - thereby brutally murdering germs just to furnish my fancy for cleanliness.

The Q is: How far back are we going to extend the argument about "life" ? When does life begin ? After the fertilization of the egg and the sperm ? Well if life is defined as an attribute of being to function independently in the "right" environment, with physical supplements then it can be argued that the human sperm itself is an entity with "life". In which case preventing killing it and preventing it from fertilizing is outright denial of its natural claim to a life, regardless of the extent of misery that it may eventually be born into. So, using contraceptives is extremely violent too. Genocide. There is still a good bulk people who feel that we should taketh what is giveth.

I acknowledge that the case built this far is watertight. It will never be until the definition of "life" is obvious to all of us (which will never be). I would keep it plain and simple that the parents should have the choice. Dictatorial and gives them undue powers yes. But they consciously created the life and through careful nurturing bring the child to the world. Until then I think it is fair that they have the choice.

[kannannn]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jQi7Mqepe1RB63emZIGS9Ywa71yAD92BJIGG0

Interesting to note that there are other provisions in the Indian law for abortion. Can't understand on what basis the law decides it's ok to abort prior to x number of weeks:-(
The main factor deciding the upper limit is the survival chance of the fetus (apparently called 'viability' - a term which lends itself to debate). The survival chance of fetuses after 24 weeks (the legal limit in UK) is high and abortion after that is only allowed in case of fetal abnormality or mental and physical risk to the mother. A recent proposal to lower the number of weeks to 20 has been shot down.

The polemics of abortion doesn't stop at that. The issue also involves fetal pain. The question is still unsettled, but majority thought is that fetus cannot feel pain until after 26 weeks.

The above arguments are purely clinical. PR's post pretty much sums up the moral arguments :D.

[app_engine]

Prabhu Ram,
Those questions were merely to highlight the "limitations of a judicial court" which can only decide matters based on laws and may not be on moral grounds.

Obviously, there are (at least) two possibilities on any moral question for a person (either for oneself or someone who cannot decide himself, like the fetus in this case)-

1. Decide as to what is right and wrong on one's own
2. Accept direction from someone else (state, God, satan, society, parents, spouse , others)

Whether we like it or not, we cannot have #1 for every decision we make, though most would like to have it that way. As soon as it's situation #2, it's out of one's hand and whichever agency is in-charge calls the shots. (In this case, the doctor initially and later the court of law).

[app_engine]

>>But they consciously created the life and through careful nurturing bring the child to the world.<<

I disagree, they "used the procreative powers given to them" and even to deliver that baby & nurture it later, will have to depend upon a doc / others.

While I totally agree that the parents have the best interests of the child than anyone else and unless they are insane state should not poke its nose, my personal conviction is God is the source of life and parents need to submit to His authority. (Per hub policies, cannot discuss more on belief here :-) )

[pavalamani pragasam]

:sigh2: Being practical and fair to all concerned can grossly be misconstrued as being unethical!

[crajkumar_be]

[tscii:9e94e56162]
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jQi7Mqepe1RB63emZIGS9Ywa71yAD92BJIGG0

Interesting to note that there are other provisions in the Indian law for abortion. Can't understand on what basis the law decides it's ok to abort prior to x number of weeks:-(

http://www.hindu.com/2008/08/07/stories/2008080754781000.htm


The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 permits the abortion of foetuses only up to 20 weeks, a limit imposed because anything longer was considered a risk to the mother

Secondly, foetal abnormality — one of the reasons for permitting abortions between 12 and 20 weeks in India — is much more detectable today thanks to a clutch of modern prenatal diagnostic techniques


While the existing abortion Act is clearly out of sync with medical advances and changing social perceptions of quality of life issues, any amended law must have strict and transparent mechanisms to assess foetal abnormality. There must also be checks to see it is not abused, particularly in the cause of son-preference, which is pursued in India and East Asian countries through the awful practice of sex-selective abortion.
ennatha solla![/tscii:9e94e56162]

[P_R]

>>But they consciously created the life and through careful nurturing bring the child to the world.<<

I disagree, they "used the procreative powers given to them" and even to deliver that baby & nurture it later, will have to depend upon a doc / others.

While I totally agree that the parents have the best interests of the child than anyone else and unless they are insane state should not poke it's nose, my personal conviction is God is the source of life and parents need to submit to His authority.


As soon as it's situation #2, it's out of one's hand and whichever agency is in-charge calls the shots. (In this case, the doctor initially and later the court of law).

>digr.>Just to make it clear. My counterarguments are not necessarily linked to my convictions. I have resigned to the fact that I will forever be undecided about Him.

At some level we always do things we cannot undo. While I won't trivialize death, it is certainly not the only irreversible decision an external agency makes on an individual in any social structure.The reversal of erronous life sentence 10 years late is no reversal<end digr<

[Rangarajan nambi]

Some very good discussions happening. Thanks.

The latest news is that Mehta couple have decided not to appeal in the Supreme Court. They have taken things philosophically and Mrs. Mehta says now that she is looking forward to delivering the baby !