Delhi HC recalls order allowing 26-year-old widow to terminate pregnancy
Advertisement
New Delhi: In a significant turn of events, the Delhi High Court, taking cognizance of medical reports from AIIMS, has reconsidered its earlier stance on allowing the termination of a normal fetus for a widowed woman in her 29th week of pregnancy and has passed a judgment against the termination.
The court, led by Justice Subramonium Prasad, revealed its revised decision on Tuesday, asserting that the woman, now in her 32nd week of gestation, has been instructed to proceed with delivery at AIIMS or any central or state government hospital. Furthermore, if she opts for adoption, the Centre has committed to ensuring a seamless process.
Also Read: Lack of Medical Infrastructure: Delhi HC seeks status of funds allocation for Govt hospitals
Justice Prasad's latest decision came after the Centre filed a plea seeking recall of the January 4 order allowing medical termination of the pregnancy on the grounds that the child has a fair chance of survival and the court should consider protecting the right to life of the unborn infant.
In its application, the central government said in the present case, "Termination of pregnancy cannot happen unless the doctors conduct a foeticide, failing which there will be pre-term delivery with huge complications".
"In view of the reports dated Jan 6, Jan 12 and Jan 13 of AIIMS hospital, which have been brought to the notice of this court subsequent to the order dated Jan 4, the court is inclined to recall the judgment dated Jan 4," HC noted.
Justice Prasad, deferring to the medical expertise of the AIIMS board, emphasized that as the fetus exhibits no abnormalities, feticide is neither justified nor ethical in this case. This marks a significant shift from the court's initial order that had granted the 26-year-old widow, struggling with depression since her husband's demise in October last year, the right to terminate the fetus at 29 weeks, reports TOI.
The court further stated that the respective government would shoulder all medical and incidental expenses related to the upcoming delivery. When the patient first approached the court with a plea of seeking permission to terminate pregnancy, the High Court had sanctioned the termination, taking into account the woman's mental health and asserting the right to reproductive choice, including the right not to procreate.
However, an issue emerged when the woman approached AIIMS for the intended termination. The hospital expressed reservations, asserting that continuing the pregnancy for an additional two to three weeks would be beneficial for both the mother and the child's well-being. The medical facility highlighted that the provision for termination of pregnancies beyond 24 weeks is typically reserved for fetuses with significant abnormalities. In this case, the hospital maintained that feticide is neither justified nor ethical, as the fetus is deemed grossly normal.
AIIMS, in its report, said the woman was provisionally diagnosed with depression with problems related to the death of a spouse and a differential diagnosis of adjustment disorder and added that at this time, it cannot be speculated definitively whether the continuation of pregnancy can be detrimental to the petitioner's health from a psychiatric viewpoint. The court considered the suggestion of the experts and reversed its previous judgement regarding the termination.
Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.