Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

8/3/2016

AtrickydebateonabortionTheHindu

TOPICS

Itmightbemoreprudenttolookatcounsellinginsteadofrushing
throughalawliberalisingabortion.

Recently,inacasebeforetheSupremeCourt,awomansuccessfullyobtained
directionformedicalterminationofpregnancy(abortion)after24weeksona
pleathatshewasrapedbyherboyfriendonthefalsepromiseofmarriage.Inanothercase,theDelhi
HighCourtinterveneddirectingmedicalexaminationforfitnessforabortionrespondingtothe
poignanttaleofa16yearoldkidnappedbyunknownpersons,sexuallyabusedbythemfortwoyears,
andfinallyfoundabandonedneartheDelhiUniversitycampus.Theordersinbothcaseswerebeyond
thepermissibleperiodintheMedicalTerminationofPregnancyAct(MTPAct).Thereisan
outcryforchangeinlawforeasyavailabilityoftheoptiontoabortwithoutcourtintervention.Doesit
discardpatientautonomyandimposeunnecessaryrestrictions?Canawomanhavetherighttoseek
abortionatanytimeshepleases?Shouldthestatehaveasayinanintimatematterofwhatawoman
wantstodowiththefoetus?
health

Abortionisanexception
InIndia,thetransitionfromaregimeofproscriptionagainstabortionbytreatingitasacriminaloffence
liableforpunishmentundertheIndianPenalCode(IPC)tolegitimisingthepracticeasahealthand
familyplanningmeasurethroughtheenactmentoftheMTPActof1971hadbeenfairlyeasy,unlikein
theWest,wherethemovementtowardslegalisingabortionhasbeentumultuousinvolvingmajorheated
publicdebates.
AccordingtotheIPCtheoffencefallsunderOffencesAffectingtheHumanBody,andprovidesthat
causingamiscarriagewithorwithoutconsentforapurposeotherthansavingthelifeofthewomanis
punishable.TheMTPActmakesforaquantumdifferenceinapproach,asifbyalegislativesleight
throughanonobstanteclause,bydecriminalisingabortionwithoutbringinganamendmenttotheIPC
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/atrickydebateonabortion/article8934071.ece

1/3

8/3/2016

AtrickydebateonabortionTheHindu

orabrogatingthepenalprovisions.TheMTPActsetssomelimitationsregardingthe
circumstanceswhenabortionispermissible,thepersonswhoarecompetentto
performtheprocedure,andtheplacewhereitcouldbeperformed.Outsidetheringof
protectionthattheActdraws,theIPCstilloperates.
Itiscommonknowledgethatabortionispossiblewithin12weeksattheoptionofthe
pregnantwomanandwithinanextendedperiodof20weekswiththepermissionofa
K.Kannan
MedicalBoardconsistingofnotlessthantwopersons.Inbothcases,thefreedomof
choiceofawomanislimitedtoasituationwhen(i)continuanceofthepregnancy
wouldinvolvearisktothelifeofthepregnantwoman,orofgraveinjurytophysicalormentalhealth
thatincludesrapeor(ii)thereisasubstantialriskthatifthechildwereborn,itwouldsufferfromsuch
physicalormentalabnormalitiesastobeseriouslyhandicapped.Butthelatterlimitationdoesnotapply
totheterminationofpregnancybyaregisteredmedicalpractitionerincaseheisoftheopinion,formed
ingoodfaith,thatitisimmediatelynecessarytosavethelifeofthepregnantwoman.Mostfoetal
abnormalitiesaresaidtobecapableofbeingdetectedaround20weeksandalawthatallowsfor
abortioninthesecondsituationmentionedabovethereforecapsthelimittothatperiod.Thereare
strongethicalobjectionstotheideaofabortionperseaswellastoabortingachildwithdisability.
TheMTPActdoesnotaddressanyethicalissues,butinlegalregimesthatdonotallowabortions,the
moralstandpointisthatmedicalterminationofpregnancyresultsinthedeathofalivingbeing.The
fundamentalquestionis:whatmakeskillingahumanbeingwrong?Wemaythenconsiderwhether
thesecharacteristics,whatevertheymightbe,applytotheearlieststagesofhumanlifeinthewomb.
ExplanationsthathaverootsinreligionincludethetraditionalChristiandoctrinessuchasthatall
humansaremadeintheimageofGodorthatallhumanshaveanimmortalsoul.InRoev.Wade(1973),
theU.S.SupremeCourtdecidedbya72majoritythatanimpliedconstitutionalrighttoprivacy,
whetherbasedontheFourteenthAmendmentsconceptofpersonallibertyorintheNinth
Amendmentsreservationofrightstothepeople,wassufficientlybroadtoencompassawomansright
toterminateherpregnancybutitagainsetlimitationforStatestodeclaretheouterlimittocarryout
theprocedure.
Issueofavoidingdisability
Themorecriticaldecisionsaretheoneswherethechildinthewombisdiagnosedtohavesomemental
orphysicaldeformitiesandthemotherdecidestoterminatethepregnancy.Notonlycanwethenask
ourselvesifwewantachild,butwithgeneticinformationwecanaskourselves:dowewantthis
particularchild?Thisreframesthenatureoftheparentingrelationship,makingourparenting
conditionaluponthechildmeetingcertaincriteria.Theissuenowswingsfromhealthconcernsto
avoidingdisability.Withinthisunderstandingofdisability,genetictechnologythenbecomesatoolnot
forpromotingcommunityhealthbutamechanismofsocialcontrolforavoidingtheappearanceof
difference.
Apartfromthepointofviewofhealthandavoidanceofdisability,withmodernnotionsofindividual
liberty,manyapregnantwomanbelievesthatapartfromher,nooneelsewillhavearighttodecide
aboutwhatshewishestodowiththefoetus.Intodayssociety,somepregnantwomendenythe
biologicalfactthattheyaremothersuntiltheirbabyisborn.Latetermabortionisjustifiedasaformof
selfdefencetogetridofinvoluntaryservitudeandaformofslaverycausedbypregnancy.Instancesof
partialbirthabortionperformedonfoetuseswithchromosomalabnormalities,performedunderthe
guiseofreducingsuffering,threatenthebestinterestsofthemotherandinfant.TheSupremeCourt
courtedtheissueinSuchitaSrivastavav.ChandigarhAdministration(2009)asanissueofeugenics,
whiledecliningtoaccedetothestatesrequestforabortionfora20yearoldinmateofastaterun
protectionhomewhowasarapevictimandwasmentallyretarded,havingamentalmaturityofanine
yearold.Thecourtreminded:Empiricalstudieshaveconclusivelydisprovedtheeugenicstheorythat
mentaldefectsarelikelytobepassedontothenextgeneration.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/atrickydebateonabortion/article8934071.ece

2/3

8/3/2016

AtrickydebateonabortionTheHindu

Itisalsosuggestedthatanalternativeforparentsfacedwiththedecisiontoterminatetheirpregnancyis
aperinatalhospice.Aperinatalhospicerecognisesthevalueofbringingtheseinfantstotermbytreating
themasbeingsconceivedwithatangiblefuture.Thisalternativeispreferredbecauseofpost
terminationpsychologicaldistressandbecausebiblicalteachingsemphasisethedignityandworthof
eachfoetus.
Ifthepregnantwomanhasnotattainedtheageof18,orifsheisalunatic,thestatuteallowsasurrogate
decisiontobetakenbytheguardian.ThiswasfoundtobenotinviolablebytheMadrasHighCourtinV.
Krishnanv.G.RajanaliasMadipuRajanandTheInspectorofPolice(LawandOrder(1993)whena
DivisionBenchoftheMadrasHighCourtconsideredthecaseofaminorgirlwhomarriedanadultman
withoutherfamilysconsentandgotpregnant.HerfatherapproachedtheHighCourtforpermissionto
abort,andtheHighCourtruledafterelicitingthedesireofthepregnantgirlthatshewascapableof
understandingtheworldaswellastheconsequencesofthepregnancy.Thecourtsaidthatif
terminationofpregnancywastobeorderedagainstthegirlswill,itwouldharmhermentalhealthand
mightalsoaffectherphysicalhealth.Thecourtassertedthatitwasherfundamentalrighttohaveachild
havingbecomepregnant.SuchitaSrivastava,referredtoabove,wasanotherinstancewhereamentally
retardedwomanwhowasavictimofrapeandwhoboreachildofthewatchmanwhomisguardedthe
safetyofahaplessresidentofaprotectionhomewaspermittedtoretainthefoetusagainstthepetition
fromthestateforterminationofpregnancy.
Asearchforthemiddlepath
Perhapstherightofawomantochoosewhattodowiththefoetushastobebalancedwiththerightof
thefoetustosurvive.Itisonlythatafoetusdoesnothavetheabilitytoexerciseanoptionwhilethe
personwhocarriesitdoes.Therecouldbenotwoopinionsthatavictimofrapeshallbeallowedthe
choicetoabort.Butwhyshouldthechoicebemadeatatimewhenthefoetusisviableandtermination
ofpregnancycarriedoutatabelatedstagecouldimperilthesafetyofthemotherandthelifeofthe
foetus?IntheV.Krishnancase,elopementagainstparentalwishes,framingacaseofrapeagainstthe
maninwhosecompanytheminorgirlwas,andthepetitionerseagernesstosubjecthisdaughterto
abortionagainstherwillweretheharshrealities.
Again,whyshouldachildbornwithdisabilitybeeliminatedwithoutdevisinganinclusiveapproachof
dignitytoevenachildwithdisabilities?InGermany,thelawpermitsabortionaftermandatory
counsellingandathreedaywaitingperiod.Ratherthancriminalisingabortion,Germanlawfocusseson
counselling,employmentsecurity,socialwelfare,andfinancialsupporttopersuadepregnantwomento
givebirthtotheirchildren.Inthisway,Germanlawsuccessfullyachievessomedegreeofprotectionfor
theunbornbyobtainingvoluntaryrecognitionofpersonalresponsibilityandrespectforthe
personhoodoftheunborn.Shallwegivegreateremphasistocounsellinginsteadofrushingthrougha
lawliberalisingabortion?
JusticeK.KannanisaformerjudgeofthePunjabandHaryanaHighCourtandpresentlyChairmanof
theRailwayClaimsTribunal,Delhi.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/atrickydebateonabortion/article8934071.ece

3/3

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen