Pre-conception and pre-natal diagnostic techniques act-draconian or a considerate de jure tamer

Vasudha Khanna; K. Madan Gopal

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20240822

Authors

Vasudha Khanna ED Secretariat Division, National Health Systems Resource Centre, New Delhi, India
K. Madan Gopal Public Health Administration Division, National Health Systems Resource Centre, New Delhi, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20240822

Keywords:

PCPNDT, PC and PNDT, Sex selection, Prenatal, Imaging technology

Abstract

Principles of gender equity are an integral part of constitution. The constitution confers equal rights and opportunities on women; bars discrimination on the basis of sex and denounces practices derogatory to the dignity of women. In spite of this, discrimination against women and girls is almost universal. Forced abortions of female foetuses and prenatal sex determination results in millions of girls not being allowed to be born just because they are girls. Pre-conception and pre-natal diagnostic techniques (PC and PNDT) act were enacted in 1994, amended and effectively implemented in 2003 and strictly amended in 2011, to curb this heinous crime of female foeticide that was taking place due to prenatal diagnostic techniques for determination of the sex of the foetus and thus, to balance the disturbed sex ratio of the country. To achieve the said purposes, the act imposes penalties for the offences committed under this Act, including clerical errors. However, according to the radiologists, the PC and PNDT act has become draconian for all practicing sonologists and radiologists instead of serving the purpose of saving the girl child. This article, explaining the provisions of PC and PNDT act, addresses the concerns of sonologists and radiologists in the light of the judgements passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It further discusses the hindrances occurring in the usage of evolved medical technology due to the provisions of the Act thereby paving way towards a much-needed legitimate decision to settle the ongoing country-wide debate.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Romero R, Kalache KD, Kada N. Timing the delivery of the preterm severely growth restricted fetus: venous Doppler, cardiotocography on the biophysical profile? Ultrasound Obstet Gynacol. 2002;19:118-21.

Giles WB, Trudringer BJ, Baird PJ. Fetal Umbilical flow velocity wave form and placental resistance pathological co-relation. Br J Obstet Gynacol. 1985;92:31-8.

Mendez MA, Gayta MV, Flores R. Doppler ultrasound evaluation in preeclampsia. BMC Res Notes. 2013;19:477.

Gramellini D, Folli MC, Raboni S, Vadora E, Merialdi A. Cerebral-umbilical Doppler ratio as a predictor of adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79(3):416-20.

Bano S, Chaudhary V, Pande S, Mehta VC, Sharma AK. Colour Doppler evaluation of cerebral umbilical pubatility ratio and its usefulness in the diagnosis of intrauterine growth restriction and prediction of adverse perinatal outcome. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2010;20(1):20-5.

Mari G, Hanif F, Kruger M, Cosmi E, Forgas SJ, Treadwell MC. Middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity a new Doppler parameter in the assessment of growth restricted fetus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynacol. 2007;29(3):310-6.

Schenone MH, Mari G. The MCA Doppler and its role in the evaluation of fetal anemia and fetal growth restriction. Clin Perinatal. 2011;38(1):83-102.

Hecher K, Campbell S, Doyle P, Harrington K, Nicoladies K. Asessment of fetal compromise by Doppler ultrasound investigation of the fetal circulation. Circulation. 1995;91:129-38.

Baschat AA, Gembruch U, Weiner CP, Harman CR. Qualitative venous Doppler waveforms analysis improves prediction of critical perinatal outcome in premature growth restricted foetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynacol. 2003;22:240-5.

Brown MA, Lindheimer MD, Swiet M, Assche VA, Moutquin JM. The classification and diagnosis of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: statement from the international society for the study of hypertension in pregnancy (ISSHP). Hypertens Pregnancy. 2001;20:19-24.

Kurmanavicius J, Florio I, Wisser J, Hebisch G, Zimmermann R, Muller R et al. Refence resistance indices of the umbilical, fetal middle cerebral and uterine arteries at 24-42 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997;10:112-20.

Ozeren M, Dinc H, Ekmen U, Senekayli C, Aydemir V. Umbilical and middle cerebral artery Doppler indices in patients with preeclampsia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1999;82:11-6.

Yoon BH, Lee CM, Kim SW. An abnormal umbilical artery waveform: A strong and independent predictor of adverse perinatal outcome in patients with preeclampsia. Am J Obs Gyn. 1994;171:713-21.