Savita Halappanavar’s death is what nightmarish, “stuck in a foreign country” horror stories are made of. The general public reaction in India has been of shocked outrage and understandably so. The case of a 31-year-old professional, living a presumably happy and comfortable life abroad, only to have it cut short. This brutally hit too close to home.

Savita needn’t have died and certainly not in such pain. That she did because of an anti-abortion law rooted in religion, a concept which is alien to India, adds to the injury. The now infamous “this is a Catholic country” phrase, allegedly used by her doctors to explain to her husband why they couldn’t terminate her pregnancy has been the pivot on which most television discussions have raised cudgels.

Yet, if Savita is to be given justice, we need to be asking the right questions. It is extremely easy to fall into the trap of framing it solely as a pro-choice versus pro-life debate (like on Left, Right and Centre, NDTV 24X7), but the real issue is this – primarily, was her death a case of gross medical negligence or was it an example of how an anti-woman law has led to an unforgivable human rights violation? This is not to imply that it can’t be both, but if it is the former, one should hope that legal recourse for her family would be easier. Though abortions on demand are banned in Ireland, Irish Medical Council guidelines allow it if the mother’s life is at risk. Pertinent to the issue is the following paragraph:

“In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.”

This wasn’t quoted or alluded to specifically in the discussions. Though the Irish panellist, a representative of the Youth Defence on Newshour (Times Now) did try to bring this in, it was quickly brushed aside every time it was brought up. Savita’s case clearly fell into this category. So why wasn’t her pregnancy terminated? The one channel that had a medical opinion on the panel and tried to establish this as a case of negligence, but without a definitive conclusion was CNN-IBN – which lapsed into a “don’t impose your religion on me” debate.

As Padma Rao Sundarji rightly pointed out on NDTV, there is a tussle between the law on abortion and the medical council’s guidelines on it. It would then have been prudent to have an Irish legal expert on the panels who could explain which one should have prevailed.

By emotionally reacting to this story and turning it into an India versus Ireland issue (or a Catholic church versus women’s rights issue, depending on which channel you were watching), news channels have missed out on its key nuances. Here’s a question that should ideally have been asked: What is the rate of necessary medical abortions in Ireland and what precisely disqualified Savita for one? If the Irish panellist on Newshour was to be believed, they do occur with some degree of frequency. Where is the data on that?

The second “big picture” debate that came up was the role of the Indian government in speaking up for its citizens abroad. After having its fingers burnt in the Norway incident, it’s only right that that the government wait till the official enquiries (there are two going on) be concluded before offering a formal opinion and certainly ahead of lodging a formal diplomatic complaint. The action of summoning the Irish envoy and registering concern for the unwarranted death of an Indian citizen has been a diplomatically responsible one. To expect the government to influence Irish law, as was discussed on India @ 9 (NDTV), is naive to say the least (credit where credit is due though, this particular discussion was one of the most balanced ones and asked, albeit fleetingly, of whether this was first a case of medical malpractice).

That said, post-mortem platitudes don’t mean much to the family of the victim. It was when Savita was hospitalised, that intervention could have helped save her life. Did her husband ask the government or the Irish mission in India for help? If yes, what was their response? More importantly, how does a citizen abroad seek help in a crisis in the first place? Had the embassy intervened, could she have been airlifted to England to have an abortion? I looked up the website of the Indian embassy in Ireland and it didn’t list any details on whom to contact in the event of such an exigency. This could have been an opportunity for our media to look at the grassroots support that the government provides its citizens in foreign countries, but it doesn’t seem to have been taken up by any newspaper or channel yet.

I’m not for a minute suggesting that the larger impact that Savita Halappanavar’s death has on the issue of female reproductive rights is insignificant. The fact that it has galvanised international debate on the issue is of some solace if only because any law anywhere that grants control to the state over a woman’s body is reprehensible. Moreover, it is incomprehensible as to how medical practitioners can stand by while a woman in acute pain begs for the abortion of a foetus that has no hope of surviving in the first place. Yet, our collective anger and indignation should not blind us to ask questions the answers to which will not only help get her justice, but will also ensure that no one else has to ever become a “Savita” again.