Wasn’t the Rajasthan case proven to be false, after the husband confessed that it didn’t happen that way?

Edit: this is what someone had to say on the Indian subreddit.

“The statement that woman was turned away because she was muslim is not true. She was referred, not turned away.

She came to the hospital with 7 months of pregnancy, active bleeding. Her obstetric history says this is her 7th pregnancy with previous 6 pregnancies crossed 28 week mark. She was 32 year old, means that the gap between each pregnancy is very less, not good for mother and baby. Also she’s severely anemic which further increases the risk.

In general, after 5 th pregnancy, risk of death and complication in mother and child increases disproportionately.

The complication she had was antepartum hemorrhage. Standard protocol is delivering the child ASAP. Since she was 7month pregnant, child would be very premature. Chances of survival of the baby would be very less. High chances that baby can die even before birth, and if born alive, the baby needs special care, often available only at higher centers and not at district level hospital. Even after special care, chances of survival are still very less. That is why cases of APH are referred to tertiary center. And that is exactly what happened in this case.

Any hindu/ Christian/ parsi/sikh or jain woman with 7 months of pregnancy and APH would have been treated in the same manner. And any hindu/ Christian/parsi/sikh or jain baby born prematurely at 28 week to a severely anemic mother with APH and 6 previous pregnancy at age of 32, would have slim chances of survival.”

Edit: I had typed this from my mobile, so there wasn’t a source. But, here is one, as referred to in the comments below me.



Source link