Niketa's choice
The Niketa and Harish Mehta case has thrown issues that concern individual choice, ethics, technology and the law. In each instance, there are no clear guidelines, there is nothing that is black and white, writes Kalpana Sharma.
Thanks to media interest, millions of people have had a direct peek into the life and the choices before a 25-weeks pregnant woman and her husband in Mumbai. Niketa and Haresh Mehta, who were married earlier this year, decided to seek the court’s permission to have an abortion when their doctor informed them that the foetus in Niketa’s womb had a complete congenital heart block. Rather than going through with the pregnancy, the couple decided on an abortion only to come up against stipulations in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 that permits abortions only up to 20 weeks, and that too on certification by at least two medical practitioners that either the mother’s or the child’s life is at risk.
The Bombay High Court heard the case. On Monday, August 4, it denied the petition stating that they could not make an exception in the case and that nothing in the report of the expert committee they had instituted suggested that the child’s life was at risk. They also suggested that the court could not change the law, that this was the job of legislators and that people like the Mehtas should seek a change in the law.
Grey areas
The case has thrown up a fascinating number of issues that concern individual choice, ethics, technology and the law. In each instance, there are no clear guidelines, there is nothing that is black and white.
Much of the press coverage, for instance, has stressed the right of Niketa as a mother to choose whether she wants to bring this child into the world or not and whether she wants to be burdened with the possibility of a disabled child. There is nothing wrong with this formulation. The battle for women’s reproductive rights has rested on the issue of choice. Yet, there are limitations — ethical, scientific and legal.
For example, women’s groups around the world have fought for liberal abortion laws so that women do not have to put their lives at risk by seeking illegal abortions as a result of unwanted pregnancies. Yet in India, women’s groups have had to figure out how to prevent a liberal law from being misused for sex-selective abortions. Of course, it could be argued, and indeed has been argued, that this too is a woman’s choice. Women prefer not to give birth to girls because they want to spare them the suffering that they are bound to encounter for the rest of their lives as well as the problems they themselves will face as mothers of girls. Yet, the “choice” for sex-selective abortions has been denied under law in India because of the growing evidence of the impact of this on sex ratios in some parts of the country.
Niketa’s case also brings into focus the question of the use and misuse of technology. Ultra-sonography and earlier, amniocentesis, were principally meant to detect genetic abnormalities. Yet in India they have been deliberately and callously misused to detect the sex of the foetus following which women seek an abortion. There would be cases of genetic disorders followed by abortions too but as these are usually detected at a later stage in the pregnancy, as happened to Niketa, legal abortions are not an option.
The same mother who uses technology to ensure that the child in her womb is normal and healthy also has the knowledge that even if there is a problem, there is now a medical solution.
But, like choice, technology too has a flip side. Thus, while the technology to detect genetic abnormalities has been misused to determine the sex of the child, advances in science today are ensuring that even children born with congenital problems, such as arterial blocks, can actually be treated and can go on to live normal lives. So the same mother who uses technology to ensure that the child in her womb is normal and healthy also has the knowledge that even if there is a problem, there is now a medical solution.
The case has raised legal issues including the need to amend the MTP Act. Those against sex-selective abortions have argued fiercely for maintaining the 20-week limit while others would argue that there is a case for relaxing it by a few weeks. The time limit varies from country to country where abortion is legal. Therefore, there should be no objection to debating the possibility of amending the law.
Not an easy choice
While changes in the law can be debated, the ethical dimension, on whether abortions are right or wrong, is not as emotive an issue in India as it is in countries like the U.S. Although there are religious groups that strictly prohibit abortion, this dimension has not been central to the debate. Yet, while women constrained by religious belief would not consider abortion as an option, even those not bound by religious belief often hesitate and feel guilty when seeking an abortion. It is never an easy or simple choice for any woman.
Of course, the question of choice is restricted to an urban class in India that has access to and can afford to use technology to monitor the progress of a pregnancy. Poor mothers have neither the time, nor the money, to go for regular check-ups during pregnancy. If they and the child survive the pregnancy, that in itself is often a miracle given the high rate of maternal and infant mortality in this country. And if at the end of nine months, a deformed or incapacitated child is born, the gods are blamed for it and life goes on. The question of choice simply does not arise, not on whether to get pregnant, or on what to do about an infant with severe health problems.
Niketa and Haresh will now have to live with the choice that has been made for them by the court and the law. But they should be lauded for being open and seeking a legal way out. As a result, they have thrown open an important issue for people to understand and debate.
Filed under
Cite this article
Kalpana Sharma (2008) ‘Niketa's choice’, India Together, 11 August 2008. https://indiatogether.org/mtpchoice-op-ed/
4 reader responses
Add a response
B N Goyal · 16 August 2008
She has become a victim of media hype. Pl stop it. My sysmpathies are with the lady.
R.Sajan · 21 August 2008
The ancient Semitic communities needed hands to work in the fields and fight the wars. If members chose to commit suicide or prevent childbirth, the number of hands would decrease. This could not be allowed or encouraged. As with all other things that the community leaders wanted members to do, suicide and prevention of child birth were declared ungodly. Onan could not even shed his seed on to the earth! The abortion debate that arises out of this thinking is frivolous in communities that have a population problem. At least in India and China, this can only contribute to more poverty now. That is why birth control is a national policy in India. Prevention of unaffordable births thus being a patriotic duty, the controversy about abortions is mere highbrow stuff here. Urban socialite intelligentsia can entertain themselves with such debates. They do such stuff with the issue of child labour also. They insist that children must not work, but do not say how the children can feed themselves otherwise. The callous windbags in our society now demand that Niketa and Harish Mehta, and others like them should suffer so that the busybodies can feel happy with themselves. Ridiculous!
Vispi Jokhi · 29 August 2008
Abortion is legalized murder and should never be allowed. I am an orthopedic surgeon and a father of a 18 year old female child born with Down's syndrome. We had access to USG in those days but amniocentesis was offered to only high risk mothers. It is possible that if our daughter was conceived now she would have been detected as a child with Down's syndrome, an incurable birth defect characterized by mental and physical disabilities and we might have had the choice to abort her. I shudder to think what a crime I may have done in not allowing my child to be born. My child will never be "normal" but she possesses qualities which most of us can only dream of having. She can give love unconditionally to all of God's creation without distinction of class, creed,caste,color or gender. How many of us "normal" people can do that effortlessly at all times. It can be argued that I am selfish and a mentally and physically challenged child does not have much of a future and cannot survive this selfish competitive world, so I would have been better off not bringing to life this child. This attitude in my view betrays a lack of faith in God. In the case of the Mehta's their child was still-born and the medical condition of the child was such that it was treatable quite easily. It almost seemed that their murderous thoughts resulted in divine intervention leading to a still-born child. It seemed as though they did not deserve a child they never wanted in the first place. There rests my case.
Julie Simeon · 15 October 2008
I followed the Harshad and Niketa Mehta case in the news closely reading the newspaper reports and watching news documentaries that were related. I have just been forwarded your article from the net in IndiaTogether You mentioned several times in your article the rights and choice of the mother. At no time did you mention the rights of the unborn child within the womb. Who speaks for those children? It is a concern to me that reporting on the issue of abortion is biased in this way and that even the law focuses on the woman, not equally on the unborn child. I know that this is an issue that has been debated much and that there are very many viewpoints on what constitutes life and when does life actually begin sometimes this comes down to personal or religious beliefs, sometimes it is legislated. But it would be nice if some of the reporting had some focus on the unborn child and his or her rights, rather than completely ignoring the child as if it does not exist. Julie Simeon Chennai