Opinion - Letters to the Editor

Difficult question

The couple, Niketa and Haresh Mehta, seeking permission to abort Niketa’s pregnancy in the 26th week — as the foetus was diagnosed with a complete heart blockage in the 24th week of her pregnancy — are caught between ethics and anguish. Abortion of a foetus after 25 weeks is akin to euthanasia. Euthanasia is a transgression and should not be encouraged in this poignant case either.

A human being does not ask to be born and he or she has no right to take away his or her life (or, as in this case, his or her unborn baby’s life). Human life is precious and no one has the right to interfere with it, including those who give birth to a human being. Doctors should save, not end lives. Human illnesses should be combated with advances in modern medicine.

K. Chidanand Kumar,

Bangalore

The Bombay High Court deserves praise for disallowing the Mehtas’ plea to terminate Niketa’s pregnancy. Though the evidence is not concrete, the parents contend that the child will suffer disability in future. Even if it is so, does it take away his or her right to life? How can parents themselves knock the door of the court to kill their progeny? This is not mercy but the height of callousness. A handicap does not come in the way of achievement.

The only thing required for a successful life is will power, and it is the duty of parents to infuse in their children the will to achieve. It is hoped that the Mehtas will refrain from resorting to further efforts to legalise what I call ‘notorious homicide.’

Khan Yasir,

New Delhi

The child will have to thank the court for letting it see the world against its parents’ wishes. Any Indian mother will feed it. Our country is not so inhuman as not to look after one of its less fortunate children.

K.A.K.D. Sivasubramanian,

Virudhunagar

It is better to save the 26-week foetus than to go for a medical termination. Prevention is good but facing the problem is, at times, better.

V.M. Raja,

Thiruvananthapuram

The very objective of pre-natal scanning is to determine that the foetus is normal and healthy. Niketa’s foetus has been diagnosed with a complete heart blockage and it will be traumatic for her to bring forth the baby with abnormalities. The law can be amended suitably as a baby with an infirmity will be a burden on not only the parents but also society.

Ukkarai M. Chitra,

Chennai

I think Niketa should be allowed to abort her foetus. The baby may suffer all its life if it is allowed to be born. The court could have prevented the trauma of the baby and its parents.

Bhuvaneswari VamciKrishna,

Chennai

Two male judges of the Bombay High Court have decided the fate of a foetus and the prerogative of a woman to have a baby or not. A woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy when she has scientific reason to believe that the child would suffer even from a minor handicap. A foetus does not have any right and the right of a woman should not be overshadowed by it.

As the law dictates for how long a foetus stays in the womb, the judiciary has closed the door on the couple. Justice has not been well served in this case because of a grey area in the law.

Sriram Varadharajan,

Pasadena, California

I believe there are two aspects to the verdict. One, as seen by the government, according to which a foetus cannot be terminated after 20 weeks, as such termination would harm the mother’s health. The other aspect pertains to the parents who do not want to suffer the impending problems of giving birth to a child with a heart disease. In this case, I disagree with the Bombay High Court. Irrespective of what the law says, the judiciary should have noted that Niketa Mehta was willing to abort the foetus to avoid trauma in future. The couple should be allowed to have the final say in the matter. While deciding such matters, the courts should not feel pressured by judicial limits; they must think beyond the law.

C.R. Aditya Narayan,

Chennai

One can imagine what the couple would have gone through on discovering that the foetus had a complete heart blockage. Is it not painful for the parents to have a child with a heart ailment from the time of its birth and even earlier? Considering the plight of the Mehtas, it would be in the fitness of things for the court to take a second and lenient look at the issue. Doesn’t every rule have an exception?

Mani Nataraajan,

Chennai

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu