Ill-advised move

Does the fact of being mentally challenged rid you of all your rights as a human being? Are the problems of the caregiver or caretaker of more significance than the inviolability of the self?

If it is wrong for poor people to be induced into selling their kidneys for a pittance then why is it right for mentally challenged women to have their uteruses removed on the grounds that it could be a source of inconvenience?

The issue at hand is an ongoing court case about 17 mentally challenged teenage girls who were made to undergo hysterectomies — removal of the uterus — in a government home in 1994.

The caregivers at the time had said that neither the girls nor the home was capable of dealing with the problems of menstruation and the decision was taken for reasons of hygiene.

The case raised a storm. Yet, now the government of Maharashtra wants all mentally challenged women with an IQ of 50 and below to undergo hysterectomies.

The move is being contested by activists who claim that people with an IQ of at least 20 can be trained. India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which guarantees that the fertility rights of people with disabilities will be treated on an equal basis with others. The government move clearly contravenes that provision.

There is no doubt that severely challenged people, with no hope of improvement, can be a great strain on their parents or caregivers.

Menstruation, urination and defecation add to that strain. However, the surgical removal of an organ should be the last resort. Doctors have stated that while a hysterectomy can be done in exceptional cases, there are less extreme methods of controlling menstruation that should be attempted first.

Some activists and caregivers also feel that children who can be toilet-trained can also be trained to deal with menstruation. In such cases, a hysterectomy would be unnecessary. Many would doctors advise against drastic invasive surgery unless absolutely necessary.

At the root of this debate is the idea of the rights of the individual and society’s attitude towards those who are less able than the normal standard.

In India, unfortunately, we have not yet been able to foster the practice of universal respect. We temper respect according to the standing of the person and a mentally challenged female would obviously come very low on that scale.

The government’s move has to be studied very carefully and the decision to go ahead with such surgical procedures must be done on an individual basis.

The idea of a blanket ban on uteruses for all mentally challenged females is discriminatory, sexist and a violation of several human rights.