Which mother would want to kill her own child? But this mother does, even at the risk of her own life! But she has been denied permission by the Bombay High Court.

So, should and will she approach the Supreme Court?

Nikita Mehta, wife of Hatesh Mehta is pregnant with a child that has been detected with a congenital heart problem. This means the child might have to live on a pacemaker after birth and be disabled for life.

The foetus is now 25 months old. In our country, it is illegal to abort a foetus over 20 weeks old. This is mainly to prevent female infanticide and the risks of abortion.

The court also has another reason to for rejecting the plea.

The jury consulted medical experts who declared that the child will not be permanently disabled.

No doubt it is very late, making it a risky proposition. But according to the concerned doctor, certain ailments, like this one, could only be detected between the 20th and 24th week of pregnancy.

The couple realised this and made an appeal immediately, the decision of which was taken almost week later. With every passing day, it became even more difficult for the mother to have a safe abortion. Isn’t the court, by delaying decision, responsible, to some extent for aggravating the couple’s problem?

It has been proved that the child will not remain disabled for life. But the couple claims that they will not be able to afford the expenses of the child’s treatment. Is it not a wise decision to try for another healthy child, rather than keeping the child as well as themselves in pain for life?

In a country like India, there are always two ways of doing something. The couple chose the legal way. They could have gone the other way and got the abortion done.

Now that their plea has been rejected in the High Court, should the couple approach the Supreme Court? Is it not ethical to abort an ailing foetus? Is it not practical to prefer a healthy child? Is it an irresponsible behaviour to accept that you may not be able to bear the medical expenses of your child and change the situation in due time? Should we stick to the laws made years ago? Or should the laws be amended to suit the situations, like it happens in many European countries like Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands?

This is not just a dilemma of the ailing, unborn child’s mother. It’s a question that the country and its legal authorities need to find answers to, before another suffering mother falls prey to such a dilemma.