The MTP Act in India is quite clear about who can have an abortion (MTP) and who cannot. There are a number of conditions listed in it. If the woman has any of those, she can have an abortion. If she does not have any indication from the list and an MTP is performed, it becomes a criminal abortion, for which both the doctor and the patient are at risk of punishment as per the Act. But usually the doctor goes to jail and the patient goes free, unless some mishap like death has drawn the attention of the authorities to that abortion.
The act is liberal. If the couple has been using contraception and the pregnancy has resulted from a failure of that contraception, an MTP is permitted. If a couple says it has used contraception, one has to believe it. No proof is required. So virtually anyone can have an MTP.
Once we had a series of meetings, which was aimed at improving the functioning of the PCPNDT Act and MTP Act together. A few specialists and a few NGOs were called. I was invited as the local specialist. The representatives of the NGOs were quite vocal and they had very strong opinions. One of them said,
"We have good cooperation from XXXX hospital. Whenever a woman goes there to have an MTP, the doctors in that hospital do it. But some other hospitals are not so cooperative. They trouble those women about the indications."
"What do you mean?" one specialist asked.
"See, it is the right of a woman to have an MTP. If she wants it, it must be done" the activist NGO representative said.
"Even without a valid indication?" the specialist asked.
"It is the right of the woman. She cannot be denied that right."
"But the MTP Act is quite clear about the indications for an MTP" the specialist said. "One cannot just have an MTP because one does not want the baby."
"That is what I meant by saying that some doctors are cooperative while others are not" the activist said. Turning to me she asked, "what do you do in your hospital?"
"We do MTP when they require it" I said. I knew there was no point in arguing with her. That would just make me her enemy in her mind.
"Good" she said. So I had said what I wanted to say and she heard what she wanted to hear. Good use of ambiguous language, huh?
The act is liberal. If the couple has been using contraception and the pregnancy has resulted from a failure of that contraception, an MTP is permitted. If a couple says it has used contraception, one has to believe it. No proof is required. So virtually anyone can have an MTP.
Once we had a series of meetings, which was aimed at improving the functioning of the PCPNDT Act and MTP Act together. A few specialists and a few NGOs were called. I was invited as the local specialist. The representatives of the NGOs were quite vocal and they had very strong opinions. One of them said,
"We have good cooperation from XXXX hospital. Whenever a woman goes there to have an MTP, the doctors in that hospital do it. But some other hospitals are not so cooperative. They trouble those women about the indications."
"What do you mean?" one specialist asked.
"See, it is the right of a woman to have an MTP. If she wants it, it must be done" the activist NGO representative said.
"Even without a valid indication?" the specialist asked.
"It is the right of the woman. She cannot be denied that right."
"But the MTP Act is quite clear about the indications for an MTP" the specialist said. "One cannot just have an MTP because one does not want the baby."
"That is what I meant by saying that some doctors are cooperative while others are not" the activist said. Turning to me she asked, "what do you do in your hospital?"
"We do MTP when they require it" I said. I knew there was no point in arguing with her. That would just make me her enemy in her mind.
"Good" she said. So I had said what I wanted to say and she heard what she wanted to hear. Good use of ambiguous language, huh?
