Abort the law?

Sir — It is shocking that a foetus with a heart block had to wait for the settlement of a legal hitch (“Court upholds abortion bar”, Aug 5). This exposes how detached legal provisions are from human sentiments. Knowing that the foetus could be born with a heart disease that would require lifelong medical support, it is nothing short of beastly to force a couple to experience the trauma of seeing their child suffer. Every legal case is unique and cannot be resolved with uniform legal codes. The rejected plea for abortion from Haresh and Niketa Mehta probably did not fall entirely within the purview of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act that bans abortion of foetuses after 20 weeks of conception. It was distinctly not about an illegal attempt at foeticide. The rigidity of the law must not pose an impediment to normal human living.

Yours faithfully,
Debasmita Shee, Calcutta

Sir — Niketa and Haresh Mehta’s painful wait for nearly a fortnight has come to a nought, thanks to conflicting medical reports. Earlier it appeared that Niketa’s giving birth to an ill baby was almost certain. But another report by a different panel of doctors challenged the findings of the previous one. Unfortunately the judges have had to depend on medical experts even though their confusion is perhaps doing more harm to the expecting mother’s health, especially when she is already aggrieved about possible dangers to the foetus. What was needed in this case was fast action and some humane consideration.

Yours faithfully,
Ashok Mehta, Calcutta

Sir — The MTPA is an archaic law, which depends too much on the predictions of doctors, whose claims in turn seem to be based more on assumptions than on clinical examination. There are modern gadgets today that detect foetal abnormalities after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The MTPA needs to be amended to let such evidence be taken into account. It is unfortunate that the Mehtas are being called self-centred by some, because they expressed unwillingness to bring their child into the world knowing that it might suffer from a heart disease. Is it wrong to not want one’s child to suffer throughout her or his life?

Yours faithfully,
S. Mukherjee, Burdwan

Sir — The case of Niketa and Haresh Mehta has revived the controversy about the ethical justification of abortion. It has also brought into question the efficacy of the MTPA to deal with situations such as the one faced by the Mehtas. The couple’s wish to abort the endangered foetus has irked those with a conservative mindset. Niketa could easily have opted for a clandestine abortion in any of the numerous clinics where it is routine practice. But instead, she sought a legal sanction and was made to pay the price for it. Some were probably scared that to let Niketa go ahead with the planned abortion might loosen the reins of morality in Indian society. Hers would not have been just another illegal abortion. Indeed, it was a painfully taken decision to save a newborn from leading an undignified life. It is time the lawmakers set about resolving the discrepancy between human requirements and the scripted codes of law.

Yours faithfully,
Srikanta Bhattacharjee,Calcutta

Sir — The Bombay High Court deserves praise for rejecting Haresh and Niketa Mehta’s plea to terminate Niketa’s pregnancy. Agreed, the mother may have a traumatic time giving birth knowing that her baby has a chance of being born with a cardiac ailment. But the couple must also remember that they do not have the right to end another human life. Advances in modern medicine have made it possible for all diseases to be combated successfully. Even if the parents cannot afford to provide lifelong medical support to their child, there are several charitable organizations to assist them. The Mehtas should take heart from the fact that there have been numerous cases of individuals overcoming their physical challenges and becoming successful. They should be brave and hopeful about the child about to be born.

Yours faithfully,
B. Chatterjee, Faridabad

Sir — On the one hand, the Bombay High Court’s refusal to allow the termination of Niketa Mehta’s pregnancy and the life of her unborn child is a landmark judgment; but on the other hand, the couple were justified in arguing that their financial instability would make life difficult for them and the child in future. The case will be remembered as one that had made the judiciary face the horns of a real dilemma.

Yours faithfully,
Anweshan Dutta, Calcutta

Sir — For a mother, a child’s life is more important than petty monetary concerns. Even a physically or mentally challenged baby is priceless to its mother. It is therefore shocking how the Mehtas kept pressing the judiciary for approving their cruel decision to abort a foetus past 20 weeks of its life. They seemed unwilling to consider the possibility of spending money on their child’s treatment for several years to come. The case shows that today, even motherhood is conditioned by selfishness and financial concerns.

Yours faithfully,
Meenakshi Maity, Bandel

Sir — Since Niketa Mehta has now been ordered to give birth to her child, even if it develops a heart problem, perhaps the State should come forward to shoulder a part or whole of the medical expenses, should that be required. If needed, the Mehtas should move court to get the government to pay for the child’s treatment.

Yours faithfully,
A.K. Ghosh, Calcutta