HC allows termination of 32-week pregnancy with foetal abnormalities, says it’s the woman’s ‘right to choose’


The Bombay High Court ruled that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to continue the pregnancy and that decision is for her to make, and that a married woman is not allowed at 32 weeks’ gestation after a severe anomaly has been detected in her fetus. He said he would allow abortions. .

Judge Gautam Patel and Judge SG Dige’s subcommittee, in their Jan. 20 ruling, a copy of which was made available Monday, said medical commissioners should not have an abortion even if the fetus has serious abnormalities. refused to accept the Board’s position. Because the pregnancy is almost coming to an end.

The woman contacted HC seeking an abortion after an ultrasound revealed severe fetal abnormalities and the baby was born with physical and mental disabilities.

Read also | Bombay HC refuses bail for ex-police officer Pradeep Sharma in Antilia bombing

“Given the severe fetal anomalies, the length of pregnancy is not an issue. The petitioner has made an informed decision. The right to choose is not the right of the medical board,” the court said in its order.

Not only does refusing an abortion simply because the birth was delayed not only forces the fetus into a suboptimal life, it also leaves the mother with a future that will almost certainly deprive her of all the positive aspects of parenthood. HC said it would be forced.

“It would be a denial of her dignity and her right to reproductive and decision-making autonomy. A mother today knows she has no chance of giving birth to a normal healthy baby at the end of this labor. I will,” said the court.

Read also | Bombay High Court Cancels Write-off of Yes Bank AT1 Bonds

“Accepting the Medical Commission’s view not only condemns the unborn child to a substandard life, but also imposes an unfortunate and traumatic parent-child relationship on the petitioner and her husband.They and their families.” I can’t even imagine the impact on

Petitioner’s fetus has been detected with both microcephaly and lissencephaly, which bodes well for the future, Bench said.

The court argued that women’s rights should never be compromised by “blind application of the law,” and that “justice may have to be blindfolded. We shouldn’t. We can never be agnostic about where justice needs to come.”

Incidents like this often raise serious moral problems and dilemmas, but the fact that “the arc of the moral universe always bends toward justice” remains constant.

Bench said the presence of the fetal anomaly and its severity were as certain as the fact that the detection was delayed.

“Because it is difficult to predict what problems will occur at birth, babies with microcephaly require continuous and regular follow-up and examinations by a health care provider.No known treatments. “There is no standard treatment or standard treatment. In the more extreme cases, babies with microcephaly require the treatment they need. We intervene almost all the time,” the court said.

Most disturbingly, he added, the prognosis for children with lissencephaly depends on the degree of brain malformation.

Bench said the medical board failed to take into account the couple’s social and economic status.

“It completely disregards their circumstances. It is not even possible to imagine the poor quality of life that petitioners will have to endure for an indefinite future if the Commission’s recommendations are to be followed. We haven’t tried,” HC said. He said.

“There’s only one thing the board is really doing: it’s slow, it’s no. And as we’ve seen, it’s clearly wrong,” the court said while acknowledging the abortion.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *