Women's health

Opinion: Denying abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim is to inflict more violence on her

The Supreme Court denied medical termination of pregnancy after doctors said it was not safe either for the girl or the foetus.

On Friday, the Supreme Court refused to allow an abortion for a pregnant 10-year old girl who was raped allegedly by her uncle. The Chandigarh resident’s plea for abortion was turned down last week by the district court. News reports also suggest that she had an anomaly in her heart and had to be operated for it three years ago.

The doctors’ panel at Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh who examined the girl said that a medical termination was not safe either for the girl or the foetus, NDTV reported.

The girl is reportedly 32 weeks pregnant now. From the medical point of view there is no basis to say that her pregnancy is going to get safer as it progresses. In fact, it is only going to get more dangerous. The child is only 10 years old with a complication of heart disease and it is not safe for her to carry a full size foetus and deliver it. While a girl can get pregnant as soon as she starts menstruating, her pelvic bones are not fully developed till several years later and therefore carrying a pregnancy and delivering it can result in several complications for her.

The fact that the doctors said that they were considering two lives – that of the pregnant girl and that of the foetus – is unacceptable. This articulation of “the health of the foetus” in this scenario is worrying, since it is juxtaposed against the health of the girl who is carrying the pregnancy, herself a young child in this case. It is indeed cruel to force the girl to bring the foetus to maturity as she alone will bear the physical and mental trauma of pregnancy and childbirth.

This child is also a survivor of sexual violence. A psychiatric evaluation of the girl suggested that she is unaware of her pregnancy. It is also medically necessary for her to heal from the sexual violence and forcing her to continue the pregnancy that is an outcome of rape will impede her healing and obtaining any closure.

Restrictive policies

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act allows for abortion outside of the criteria laid down by the Act. Section 5 of the Act says that the restriction of 20 weeks of pregnancy does not apply if two registered doctors form an opinion in good faith that the termination of such a pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. This section should have been invoked.

Even so, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act is restrictive and there is a lot of evidence to show that abortion may be safely allowed up to much later in the pregnancy, at least up to 24 weeks.

In 2014, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare prepared a draft amendment to the law, which provided for abortion at up to 24 weeks. This amendment does not seem to be making progress.

A news report on the order said that the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar to consider its suggestion to set up a permanent medical court in every state to take a prompt decision on prospects of early abortion. While this is a welcome decision, we have to place it in the larger context of access to abortion. The state level board does not guarantee access to abortion. A woman dies because of unsafe abortion every two hours in this country. By restricting access to safe abortion, we are pushing them towards unsafe abortion.

Health system barriers

Most states do not provide access to abortion in institutions of primary health care. Abortion services are only provided at district hospitals or at medical colleges within the public sector. Women are then pushed to seek abortion in the private sector, which is expensive and exploitative. There is evidence to show that the more desperate the woman is, the higher the price of abortion services. High prices then force her to go to unqualified providers performing abortions.

We know that women who delay decisions to get abortions are women in very difficult circumstances. They might be single women, women who have become pregnant outside of marriage, victims of sexual violence, or with no wherewithal to access safe abortion services.

Instead of violating women’s right to make choices about their bodies, the state would do better to provide better and safer medical services.

The writer is a gynaecologist with the Rural Women’s Social Education Centre in Kanchipuram district, Tamil Nadu, and the chairperson of CommonHealth, a national level coalition for maternal and neonatal health and safe abortion.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.