Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40738609›Full record

ReviewBMJ paediatrics open2025

Periviable birth: Legal landscape in Indian jurisprudence.

Shivashankar Diggikar, Karthik Nagesh, Nanditta Batra

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ paediatrics open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Shivashankar DiggikarDepartment of Paediatrics, Oyster Mother and Child Hospital, Bengaluru, India shiv.diggikar@oysterhospital.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6259-3118
Karthik NageshDepartment of Neonatology, Manipal Hospitals, Bengaluru, India.
Nanditta BatraNational Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Periviability represents a complex threshold where there is a triangulation of medical capabilities, ethical judgement and the right of the infant to live. In India, with its disproportionate burden of preterm births, the management of infants born at the margins of viability (typically <28 weeks of gestation) remains fraught with legal and ethical challenges. We critically explore the legal contours surrounding the care of periviable neonates from an Indian medico-legal perspective in this article. Despite lacking a uniform national consensus on viability thresholds, Indian jurisprudence confers personhood to neonates at birth, irrespective of gestational age, thereby guaranteeing constitutional protection under Article 21. However, in the absence of explicit guidelines and robust systemic infrastructure, physicians and families must navigate resuscitation decisions amid legal uncertainty, cost constraints and moral complexity. Judicial precedents have mandated life-saving interventions for viable neonates born alive post medical termination attempts, reinforcing the right to care. We discuss the limitations of legal doctrines such as parental autonomy, leave against medical advice and advance directives when applied to neonates who cannot consent for obvious reasons. We also highlight challenges arising from evolving tort liability, procedural lapses and resource inequity in neonatal care.

Indexed as

Fetal ViabilityHumansIndiaInfant, Extremely PrematureInfant, NewbornJurisprudencePregnancychild healthinfantneonatology

Identifiers

PMID40738609
PMCPMC12314933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.