"Why Did You Save Me?" - 2
"Why Did You Save Me?" - 2
Dr.Shantu J.Vaidya
Modern
plastic surgery can take credit for repairing and reconstructing many a birth
deformity almost to perfection. But man has limitations and where severe
deformities are involved, there is a limit to what even the best surgeon can
achieve.
Pravin
and Prakash were brothers. They were well-to-do, married and staying
harmoniously together as a joint family. Pravin, the elder brother, had a
daughter, Priya, born with bilateral cleft lip and a cleft palate. The lips and
the palate were in two parts separated by a noticeable gap. The deformity
distorted the face considerably.
When
I came into the picture, Priya was 25 years old. She had had about a dozen
operations performed for correction of her deformity from infancy onwards both
in India and in specialised centres abroad. The results had been far from
satisfactory. Priya was ugly and her speech could hardly be understood. Her
schooling was incomplete. She was excluded by most family members and she
hardly had any friends. She was unable to get any work or employment.
Prakash,
the younger brother, was married to Bhavna. Living within the joint family,
Bhavna had seen the miserable existence of Priya. Four years after marrying Prakash,
she gave birth to a son with a one-sided cleft lip and palate deformities. She
was shocked and distressed.
Though
the exact cause of this deformity is unknown, 20 percent have been traced to
genes passed on from one generation to another.
I
came into the picture through the family doctor, for correction of the
deformity of Bhavna's child. The result was satisfactory to the parents and the
son was socially well-adjusted. A slight scar did show on the lips but speech
with a nasal twang remained.
Six
years after the birth of her first child, Bhavna had her second child. This was
a daughter. She also had the same deformity, but on both sides. I was called to
the Maternity Home on the 4th day after the child's birth. Bhavna was in tears.
Her husband, Prakash, stood by. What had they done for God to visit this
punishment on them, they both wanted to know. My theoretical explanations of
embryology was of little solace to them. The family doctor in their presence
posed the problem: Bhavna was refusing to go home without having the child's
deformity corrected through an operation. She knew the social stigma and
ostracisation she would have to face once she left the Maternity Hospital.
I
explained at length that the child weighed hardly five pounds and in the mortality
risk of a surgical operation at this early stage would be more than 80 percent.
To lessen the risk I would have to reduce the operation time and surgery would
have to be hurried. Also, the result would be better if we operated on the
child six months later.
But
the couple had already made up its mind and was adamant. Both husband and wife
said they were prepared to take the risk and were ready to face the
consequences. The family doctor's intervention, too, failed. A very sensible,
educated and concerned couple had come to the solemn conclusion that it was
worth taking a chance and losing a child than having to live with a deformed
daughter. It seemed to me that the husband and wife were almost suggesting that
the death of a child on the operation table, legally, was acceptable to them. I
declined to be party to the process and left after mumbling my sympathies.
Four
days later, I again received a call from the family doctor. Again I went to see
the couple in the Maternity Home. Once again the husband and wife made the same
request. Bhavna was in turn hysterical, solemn and determined. She was
emotionally very disturbed, and not without reason. She did not want her child
to grow up and be discriminated against and be an object of pity if not
derision. She said it would be far easier to have another child than to undergo
the agony of having given birth to two deformed children.
For
over an hour, I tried to dissuade them. Then I left. There was nothing that I
could do. Two days later, the family doctor phoned me to say that Bhavna's
daughter was admitted in hospital under the care of a paediatrician. This
experienced child specialist had confirmed the high risk of surgery but was
persuaded by Bhavna to do his best to look after the child post-operatively.
I was
in a dilemma. Was I justified in undertaking a surgery with 80 percent risk,
when the risk would be considerably lower-say, about 10 percent-if the
operation was postponed by some six months? Who had the right to take a
decision? How was one to balance the agony of a mother in circumstances beyond
her control as against the risk of death Did parents have the right to take
grave risks on behalf of a child? How would the law view surgery even if it was
legally permissible? Should an armchair moralist have the right to sit on
judgement on someone undergoing great mental turmoil? Or should we all
passively resign ourselves to God's will?
Will
the reader be the judge?