The Hindu Business Line : Fatal foetal matters

LAWMAKERS are deft in the art of definitions. For instance, "unborn child" is defined as "a child in utero." If that is too simple, the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

This, you'd find in a recent legislation that has been engaging media attention in the US, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. It is also called "Laci and Conner's Law" after the death in 2002 of Laci Peterson and her foetus. The body was found with plastic tape around its neck and Laci had planned to name her would-have-been child Conner.

Last week, the US Senate voted in favour of treating as separate federal crimes injuring or killing a woman and her foetus, thus recognising two victims.

While it is laudable to be sensitive to the unborn child's rights, the pro-abortion lobby is upset that a foetus is conferred with rights equal to those of the mother, right from the point of conception. Thus, by defining when life begins, will the law choke a woman's right to choice — whether to carry or abort — especially in first few weeks of pregnancy?

Continuing with fatal foetal matters, a case that engaged the Manhattan District Court a few days ago was about the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. During the hearing, Judge Richard C. Casey asked a plaintiff, Dr Timothy Johnson, "Does the foetus feel pain?"

According to a report in Washington Post, filed by The Associated Press, the doctor replied he did not know; also he was not aware of any relevant scientific research.

The judge had reason to ask because only the previous day, a different doctor had testified that a foetus "sometimes does not immediately die after its limbs are pulled off." That makes a wincing reading.

Judge then asked Johnson "whether he ever thought about foetal pain while performing abortions involving dismemberment." A `simple question,' felt the judge, to know if it ever crossed the doctor's mind. Johnson replied in the negative. Judge did not give up. "Never crossed your mind?" the judge queried, pat came the reply "No."

Another question was whether physicians warn women that a foetus is dismembered during an abortion.

Judge: "So you tell her the arms and legs are pulled off?"

Johnson: "We tell her the baby, the foetus, is dismembered as part of the procedure, yes."

More graphically, the judge wanted to know if doctors told their patients who were to undergo abortion procedure that there could be "sucking the brain out of the skull."

Doctor: "I don't think we would use those terms... I think we would probably use a term like decompression of the skull or reducing the contents of the skull."

Judge: "Make it nice and palatable so that they wouldn't understand what it's all about?"

But Johnson defended that doctors were being `sensitive,' "We try to do it in a way that's not offensive or gruesome or overly graphic for patients."

Given a choice, however, lawmakers wouldn't prefer to be less graphic. Which could explain why, at times, provisions of statute may sound more unpleasant than the offence itself.

ExParte@thehindu.co.in

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | Children & Parenting | Ex Parte

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Fatal foetal matters

Munnabhai MBBS finds place in UK medical journal

On the F-1 track

Tips from paaji

Why businessmen are leaving Bihar