Noting the seriousness of the matter, the Delhi High Court said on Tuesday that Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma will certainly appear, on behalf of the Centre, in a plea to undergo Stem Cell Therapy treatment for children suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
At the outset, the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that nobody has filed the counter affidavit in the case.
The counsel for AIIMS, however, submitted it has filed Tuesday morning the counter affidavit, and he may be given “some time to place it on record”.
ASG for the Centre apprised the court that, “The National Medical Council (NMC) thinks that the Union should not represent the matter despite your Lordships order”.
A division bench of CJ Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula noted that the court had earlier directed the NMC as well as the Centre to file a detailed and exhaustive affidavit but it has not been done.
“The counsel for NMC prays for three weeks’ time to file a counter affidavit, he is permitted to do so. The counsel for Union of India also seeks four weeks to file reply,” the court ordered.
Noting the ASG’s submission that the NMC has written instructions that the Union should not represent the matter, CJ Sharma said, “The matter is very important and therefore the learned ASG shall certainly appear in this matter on behalf of the Union of India”.
“It’s a policy matter you (NMC) can’t say like that,” Justice Narula said.
The matter is listed for further consideration on November 8.
On August 31, the court had allowed the two children suffering from autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to undergo stem cell therapy for treatment.
A family had moved the high court earlier this year with a petition after their children’s treatment was stopped by their doctors on account of a recommendation by the Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB) of National Medical Commission (NMC) dated December 6, which said that the use of stem cell therapy shall amount to “professional misconduct”.
The court had said there was “no law banning the use of stem cell therapy” for ASD and even the NMC was yet to take a final decision on the recommendation.
“No fruitful purpose would be served by stopping the treatment that is going on at present and therefore the petitioners are permitted to continue the treatment,” the bench had said.
It had also clarified that this was an interim order and that they did not want the treatment to be stopped right now. Further, the court clarified that the treatment would be at the risk of the petitioners.
During the last hearing, two expert doctors from AIIMS were also present, and they had assisted the court. The doctors had apprised the bench that stem cell therapy is allowed as a mode of treatment only for blood cancer and its use for treating ASD was currently at an experimental stage.
The doctors had submitted that more research was required on the use of the therapy for ASD before it was prescribed as a treatment. “As of now, even the therapy protocol was not clear”, they said.
One of the petitioners who herself is a doctor had apprised the court that stem cell treatment for her daughter should not be stopped as she has shown “great improvements” after taking it.
The petitioners had argued that the recommendation was proving an impediment in the treatment of the first petitioner’s grandson and second petitioner’s daughter, who suffer from Global Developmental Delay, a developmental disorder that affects their social and cognitive growth.
Comments
0 comment