The Niketa Mehta Case : Much needed food for thought

Not many moral, ethical or legal dilemmas have caught the attention of the nation more than the Mehta case. For those who came in late (or are not readers of ToI from where I found out about it), a little background would help.

So, I come across this article on a couple requesting permission from the high court to abort a 23 week foetus when current laws state that no abortions are legally allowed beyond the 20th week of pregnancy. My first thought was, what the hell is wrong with these people, why do they want these complications? Then I read that the trouble was that the child was seen to have severe congenital defects that held the potential to make it impossible for the child to lead a healthy, "normal" life. On the contrary the child may not survive long and would probably live painfully for as long as it would live. The court did what you expect of it - it said the laws don't allow it, you can't do it. Then the Supreme Court, higher court, same result. The next thought that came to my mind was that this decision means nothing. After all, the couple can always have it aborted illegally and claim that there was a miscarriage. But there would definitely be inquiries afterwards. Now, the whole thing had played out as predictably as any of those ancient Hindi soaps. Not that I am staking any claim to be a soothsayer, I'd say most people saw this coming!

Finally there seems to be some piece of news that is stirring the country into intelligent debate (if the comments section in ToI is anything to go by, admittedly not an authoritative benchmark) rather than fits of rioting and violence. There is so much to discuss and so many opinions - bordering on all possible extremes. And the thing is that all of them are right in their own sense! First off, no one knows whether it was really a miscarriage, but its reasonable to assume that it wasn't. For the purposes of this piece, I will work on the assumption that it was an abortion portrayed as a miscarriage.

Unfortunately I have nothing beyond this point planned out, so it will be haphazard at times. This is me being delusional that someone is actually reading this :) . The moral issue is the most pressing of all. Were they justified in "murdering" an "individual" irrespective of their intentions? View 1, they are cold blooded killers, who murdered their baby whom they had chosen to give birth to, just to save themselves from the extra effort and expense of raising a "deformed" child. View 2, they are saints who have saved their child from enormous pain and suffering, despite how difficult the decision must have been for them. Personally I haven't made my choice between the two, put my pro-liberal stance should put me somewhere in the saint area. Strangely, it doesn't! I still find both sides to have compelling arguments that apply even to the far wider areas of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The case for view 1 is based on a fundamental set of doctrines that have remained unchallenged for much of human existence. The first is probability. How do the Mehtas know for sure that the child will not be normal or almost normal? After all, medical science is at the point where we can only predict with limited certainty. Maybe they just aborted a perfectly healthy child. The second is the right to choose. They argue that if man does not have the right to create life, what gives him the right to end it, an argument used ad nauseum by anti capital punishment activists. I must beg to differ here, copulation which gives rise to life is very much in our hands, children are not born randomly out of God's will. The point here is, that the choice did not rest with the foetus. The parent's chose to create it, and now it is the foetus' prerogative to choose to live. Thus, the parent's are unjustified in terminating it, ostensibly in all cases. The "right to live" argument holds a little water, but cannot turn this debate. All other arguments are variations on the two above points. I saw a lot of strong comments from people with this view, including folks quoting about their own handicapped siblings and how they would have never thought of "killing" them even if bringing them up is difficult.

But don't get swayed by that. There was also a comment from the parents of a handicapped child who said that as much as they hate it, they hope that their child will die before they do. Cruel as it may sound, they make perfect sense when they say that they do not want someone else and the child to suffer in their absence. Can you imagine what goes on through the mind of a parent who is crushed between a love for their child that wants to keep them from harm, but at the same time cannot bear to see their pain? This brings us to the arguments from people with view 2, who commend the couple for their courageous choice. Their first point is that the emotional and economic drain of taking care of someone like that would ruin the entire family. Which is probably true. Their second point is that it is better for a child who could have those many problems to not be born at all, for its own sake. If it can be spared of the pain, why not? That, to some extent, also makes sense. But where does one stop then? Taking it to the extreme, one person commented that why don't we kill all the old and handicapped then? While that may be really pushing it, lines do need to be drawn. The boundaries are hard to discern and in all likelihood do not exist. Much of the region where the said "line" is are shrouded in gray that will never clear. It will always be subject to each individual's interpretation of what is "right" and that can never be agreed upon.

The second issue that comes in is the ethical issue. What were the Mehtas thinking when they turned this into a media circus? Something so personal should never be turned into a farce. And the media has pounced on it (assumption, I bet a good one) as it always does sensationalizing it beyond all justification. Then when the "miscarriage" happens, Mr. Mehta gives a statement saying that the media exposure resulted in stress which may have caused it. Then he goes on to add that if not the law, at least God was with us. That, frankly, is a very presumptuous statement. Now that its happened (or done, whatever the case may be) why not shut up? The media went far out of bounds with the Aarushi case, they have lost all sensitivity so long ago, its even before the late Triassic. Knowing this, why does a man still keep speaking and licking the media like a dog?

The third is the legal. The less said the better, there is neither use not content for a debate here. No one can disagree that our laws are antiquated, but the levels of judicial activism in our country have been quite poor and the lawmakers are busy with more pressing matters like creating a ruckus in parliament and walking out. Also occasionally walking in with wads of cash. I don't wish to continue on this thread, it's fast becoming a rant.

As always, this debate will also end with no action being taken. We derive so much comfort from the status quo, it will take much more than this to stir our collective conscience into motion. However, it is heartening that the issue is being discussed on its merits - without coercion, violence, and not resorting to "culture" half as many times as we usually do. A few more cases such as this, and things will move. All is never lost.