Is The Defect In The Foetus A Sufficient Ground To Terminate The Pregnancy Irrespective Of The Gestation Period.docx

Is the defect in the foetus a sufficient ground to terminate the pregnancy irrespective of the gestation period The Petitioner quote section of ------------ herein below :-

SECTION(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner,(a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twelve weeks if such medical practitioner is, or (b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twelve weeks but does not exceed twenty weeks, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are. Of opinion, formed in good faith, that,(i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury physical or mental health ; or (ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. The MTP Act allows abortions up to 20 weeks gestation if the mother's life is at risk, if the foetus suffers severe abnormalities or, if the contraceptive method used fails to prevent pregnancy. Governmental facilities may provide abortions given that the medical practitioner is trained in abortion care. Private clinics can only provide abortion care after a governmental approval (2). In an effort to increase access to safe abortion services in India, the latest MTP amendments of 2002 and MTP rules of 2003 enabled decentralization of the certification system of private providers and facilities to district level and allowed for use of medical abortion pills outside of certified facilities, however, provided by certified providers (3). In spite of these efforts, the six states (Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal) with highest incidence of abortions have the least amount of facilities per population, indication a persisting lack of access (3)

A common utilitarian argument in favour of abortion for fetal defects rests on some controversial assumptions about what counts as a life worth living. Yet critics of

abortion for fetal defects are also in need of an argument free from controversial assumptions about the future child's quality of life.

Termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality (TOPFA) is currently one of a few clinical practices that persistently lack international recognition in terms of its indications and medico legal aspects. Some countries have strict laws that forbid TOPFA Abortion because of birth defects is at least understandable, especially if the child is not expected to live. Try to imagine for just for a moment the heartbreak of a young couple discovering that their unborn child faces a serious or fatal birth defect, such as ________ . After the initial shock, they quickly realize that many tough obstacles lay ahead, problems that other parents just don’t have to face. But as there were chances that the child can live a life with a help of artificial pacemaker later on with the advancement & wonders in science & technology, the child would’ve live a happy life. One young husband and wife we know faced this tragedy last year. In addition to hearing that their preborn baby had _____ , the mother was immediately put on full bed rest. Her husband worked himself to nearexhaustion cooking all of their meals, cleaning the house, caring for their very active toddler, commuting, and working a full-time job. They did everything they could to make sure their baby would be born large enough so that she could survive the surgeries needed to heal her “tiny broken heart.”

The majority of women are strongly motivated to maximise the wellbeing of their foetus and to accept treatment that has that intention. The probable quality of life may be assessed from the extent to which the affected child would be:

   

Able to communicate. Self-aware. Dependent on medical support. Self-sufficient in the future.

 Expected to suffer. It is clear that these criteria were interpreted quite narrowly when the gestational age was greater than 24 weeks

For a child with the most severe of disabilities, we must ask ourselves which is the most loving way to deal with the situation: To allow the child to die in the loving arms of his parents or in agony at the hands of the abortionist’s merciless, razor-sharp surgical instruments?

Why Does Society Reject the “Imperfect”? While our world celebrates beauty and perfection, many of us are losing our ability to see the loveliness in the face of a disabled child who may not meet our standards of beauty. To kill someone because he or she is less than perfect is to reject the battered and marred face as well. Truly, just as parents are most beautiful when they suffer and sacrifice for the sake of their disabled child. To judge a person by his or her disabilities is to see that person as a material good, not as a person with intrinsic worth. Our Lord embraced and healed the poor, the disabled, the deformed, the diseased. If we are to follow His example, we must do the same. Abortion because of birth defects rejects the worth of the child as loved by God. Society in general is finding it easier and easier to dispose of the disabled. Thirty years ago, we cared for those weaker than ourselves. Now, genetic testing is leading to more and more eugenic abortion for smaller and less important disabilities, such as deafness or cleft palate. In fact, more than a million babies worldwide are aborted each year because of the dreaded “disability” of being female! No matter how strictly lawmakers draw up exceptions, the abortionists will always construct elaborate and dishonest rationales to bypass them.

Parents who abort their defective child are thinking only of themselves. After all, our greatest hope should be that our children are happy, and as anyone who has lived with or worked with children like them knows, they tend to be happier. Abortion because of birth defects often kills a child who would be very happy. A child with a birth defect is still a child — no matter how serious his disability. We poor human beings, with our limited intelligence and vision, cannot even begin to perceive the intricacies of God’s plans for our own lives, let alone His intentions for a child who has not even been born yet. God tells us , “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you came to birth I consecrated you.” A disability — even a serious one — does not make a person any less human. This means that abortion because of birth defects can never be justified.

Disabled children present us with a difficult problem. Society’s answer to this problem will decide whether we truly reflect the glory of God in our families and in our society. If we welcome the child who is “less than perfect,” in either his appearance or his abilities, then we are more truly a human — and Godly — people. Abortion because of birth defects rejects the child in our midst, God’s gift to us — therefore rejecting God Himself.

,1 whereas other countries provide almost total freedom for both families and clinicians when the procedure is preferred.2 The only published scholarly guide related to TOPFA is a study by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist (RCOG), which was revised in May 2010.3 This unique resource includes the first attempts to conceptualize the arguments that are used to reach a termination of pregnancy (TOP) decision. The most commonly mentioned ‘ground’ for TOPFA is ‘serious handicap’; however, instead of providing a definitive list of conditions, the report advises that the argument should be considered on a case‐by‐case basis.

YESSSSSSSSSS……..!!!!!!!!!!!! When is abortion legal? It is submitted that Some societies ban abortion almost completely while others permit it in certain cases. Such societies usually lay down a maximum age after which the foetus must not be aborted, regardless of the circumstances. At various times some of the following have been allowed in some societies: 

abortion for the sake of the mother's health 



including her mental health

abortion where a pregnancy is the result of a crime 



such as crimes like rape, incest, or child abuse

abortion where the child of the pregnancy would have an ' unacceptable quality of life' such as cases where the child would have 

serious physical handicaps,



serious genetic problems,



serious mental defects



abortion for social reasons, including: 

poverty,



mother unable to cope with a child (or another child),



mother being too young to cope with a child



abortion as a matter of government policy 

as a way of regulating population size



as a way of regulating groups within a population



as a way of improving the population

The Section3(2) is offensive to many people; it reinforces negative stereotypes of disability and there is substantial support for the view that to permit terminations at any point during a pregnancy on the ground of risk of disability, while time limits apply to other grounds set out in the Abortion Act, is incompatible with valuing disability and nondisability equally. In common with a wide range of disability and other organisations, it believes the context in which parents choose whether to have a child should be one in which disability and non-disability are valued equally.

Women can refuse to have their foetus treated, even if this would result in its death in utero or early in life. Abortion is also legal in other countries (Great Britain) at any gestation when there is a substantial risk that if the child would born it would suffer from such mental or physical abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped or with serious disability as such in our case.

Once abortion following prenatal diagnosis of foetal abnormalities is legal, a gestational age limit is meaningless. And if we start from the premise that it is a woman`s right to terminate a pregnancy that she does not want, even a planned pregnancy can become unwanted once foetal abnormalities are detected, regardless of how far the pregnancy has progressed. Further, a logical consequence of the provision for abortion in the case of foetal abnormalities is that each development in pre-natal diagnostics will necessarily be followed by revisions in the law that the development necessitates. Also, there may be a social context to the choice to undergo an abortion rather than carry a pregnancy to term. The family of the disabled child bears almost all the burden of care, support and even financial costs. Unlike other countries, no comprehensive social support system for people with special needs exists

in India. As a result, disability is looked upon with a sense of fear and a lack of understanding, which is perpetuated through images in the popular media.

However, removing the social barriers to care, stigma and discrimination would not automatically make disability a “non-issue”. The decision to give birth to a child who is disabled can never be easy, even in the best of circumstances, though several women choose to continue a pregnancy even when they know that they will give birth to a disabled child, and many willingly adopt a disabled child. I believe that no law or person can ethically compel a woman to carry on a pregnancy that she does not want. However, when the pregnancy has progressed to a point where the foetus has become viable, one is compelled to view the situation from the point of the woman as well as the potential child. Thus, while a woman`s choice not to continue a pregnancy which harms her sense of well-being remains at any point in the pregnancy, it may be impossible to fulfil her choice when a late abortion could amount to a prematurely induced birth of a child. The only exception is when the pregnancy poses a grave danger to the woman`s life her interests take precedence over all other considerations.

The problem arises when the reason for abortion is not the risk posed by the pregnancy but the perceived consequences of giving birth to that child. These risks are not physical but social. It would be incorrect to posit this as a conflict between woman and foetus. One would have to explore the woman`s reasons for wanting an abortion. In this case, Mrs.Joshi was as concerned about the possible suffering of the future child as her own suffering.

Does the right to abortion threaten disability rights? The question remains: does one`s endorsement of the right to abortion on grounds of disability at any point in the pregnancy weaken one`s commitment to the rights of the disabled? I argue that the value of living persons cannot be equated with the foetus which is not a person. Thus, the right of a woman to decide on the fate of her pregnancy does not conflict with, or interfere with, the human rights of the disabled.

The decision to abort a foetus for no other reason but congenital defects is largely based on the parents` prediction of the quality of life that such a child would have, and their own emotional response to it. These in turn are mostly determined by the existing condition of the disabled. There is little acceptance of the rights of the disabled in society, and scant attention paid to their needs, making disability appear to be a greater tragedy than it needs to be. There is a role for society and the state to minimise the disadvantages that the disabled face due to institutional rules and infrastructural arrangements. This is a question of not merely providing services and resources for rehabilitation, but also of acknowledging the right of the disabled to be part of society, and accepting different definitions of success and fulfilment in life.

It is submitted that the response of parents, and their experiences, after the child is born can be different; at least some parents of disabled children note that the experience of parenthood with that

child was as rewarding as with any other child. However, their experiences have still failed to challenge the dominant image of disability, which is also shared by a large part of the medical profession.

In this case, one is inclined to vote in favour of Mrs.Joshi , as an endorsement of her right as a woman to choose whether to give birth or not. There was speculation and there were unsubtle hints that she had eventually induced the abortion on failing to obtain a favourable judgment.

Despite of the development of diagnostic technology which enables better detection of foetal abnormalities it was came to know after the 22 nd week of her visit, which left the parents and other family members at shock & later decided to abort. While each family finds its own way of coping with the burden of care, in the search for individual solutions to seemingly personal tragedies, the larger struggle may be lost even before it is begun.