If our lawmakers became sensitive to agony and sufferings of others, THAT would be surprising! Indians still dwell more on silly concepts where the issue is about death, come to think of it, it is the biggest hypocritic attitude, people do not think twice before committing foeticide and infanticide of girls, but when it comes to granting death to terminally ill patients who live in excruciating agony, we embrace stupid ideas of being human etc. etc. I don't know if you have read about this particular case that happened in Mumbai, there was a nurse called Aruna Shanbaug in a famous hospital, she was raped by a wardboy and then he strangled her with a chain. This left her with horrible injuries that left her in a vegetative state. This happened 39 years ago. The staff of that hospital still take care of Aruna very dedicatedly and lovingly, but can we imagine being left in that condition for nearly 40 years?? :blink: :blink: A social activist Pinky Virani has taken up this issue and has been walking the halls of courts to get an order that Aruna's life be ended peacefully! If this were not passed, how much longer will the staff care for her?

If our lawmakers became sensitive to agony and sufferings of others, THAT would be surprising! Indians still dwell more on silly concepts where the issue is about death, come to think of it, it is the biggest hypocritic attitude, people do not think twice before committing foeticide and infanticide of girls, but when it comes to granting death to terminally ill patients who live in excruciating agony, we embrace stupid ideas of being human etc. etc. I don't know if you have read about this particular case that happened in Mumbai, there was a nurse called Aruna Shanbaug in a famous hospital, she was raped by a wardboy and then he strangled her with a chain. This left her with horrible injuries that left her in a vegetative state. This happened 39 years ago. The staff of that hospital still take care of Aruna very dedicatedly and lovingly, but can we imagine being left in that condition for nearly 40 years?? :blink: :blink: A social activist Pinky Virani has taken up this issue and has been walking the halls of courts to get an order that Aruna's life be ended peacefully! If this were not passed, how much longer will the staff care for her?

I would just sum up saying that our lawmakers are insensitive to the extent of attracting the provisions of the Criminal procedure code of this land!!!!

Are you talking about permission of deaths to terminally ill patients, this case has been there with honorable court of justice, and they have negated it as they said no one can die before it happens. Parliament cannot do anything above it as it is the order of SC.

Are you talking about permission of deaths to terminally ill patients, this case has been there with honorable court of justice, and they have negated it as they said no one can die before it happens. Parliament cannot do anything above it as it is the order of SC.

I have not mentioned any verdict of any court nor did I intend to talk about euthanasia which falls under a different domain altogether. I was pointing to the bill proposing some urgent changes in defining the uses of narcotic substances to allow hospitals to have easy access to morphine which doctors feel can go a long way in relieving unbearable pain of terminally ill cancer patients of India. About court powers to restrict parliamentary power to legislate, no court can ever put on any such restrictions. The only consideration here is if any enactment is within the constitutional parameters and that could be taken up by the Apex court.

Are you talking about permission of deaths to terminally ill patients, this case has been there with honorable court of justice, and they have negated it as they said no one can die before it happens. Parliament cannot do anything above it as it is the order of SC.

I have not mentioned any verdict of any court nor did I intend to talk about euthanasia which falls under a different domain altogether. I was pointing to the bill proposing some urgent changes in defining the uses of narcotic substances to allow hospitals to have easy access to morphine which doctors feel can go a long way in relieving unbearable pain of terminally ill cancer patients of India. About court powers to restrict parliamentary power to legislate, no court can ever put on any such restrictions. The only consideration here is if any enactment is within the constitutional parameters and that could be taken up by the Apex court.

ok I got the points what you have mentioned here, perhaps there are other side effects to this narcotic banned substance and that is why it is not allowed perhaps, it is just a opinion.

Are you talking about permission of deaths to terminally ill patients, this case has been there with honorable court of justice, and they have negated it as they said no one can die before it happens. Parliament cannot do anything above it as it is the order of SC.

I have not mentioned any verdict of any court nor did I intend to talk about euthanasia which falls under a different domain altogether. I was pointing to the bill proposing some urgent changes in defining the uses of narcotic substances to allow hospitals to have easy access to morphine which doctors feel can go a long way in relieving unbearable pain of terminally ill cancer patients of India. About court powers to restrict parliamentary power to legislate, no court can ever put on any such restrictions. The only consideration here is if any enactment is within the constitutional parameters and that could be taken up by the Apex court.

ok I got the points what you have mentioned here, perhaps there are other side effects to this narcotic banned substance and that is why it is not allowed perhaps, it is just a opinion.

If there are side-effects then who is or are best persons to judge it - doctors or our all-knowing legislators?? And what side-effects are we talking about in relation to persons terminally ill with cancer and writhing in excruciating pain? Mind you, doctors are recommending it and their opinion should outweigh that of ours!!!

Are you talking about permission of deaths to terminally ill patients, this case has been there with honorable court of justice, and they have negated it as they said no one can die before it happens. Parliament cannot do anything above it as it is the order of SC.

I have not mentioned any verdict of any court nor did I intend to talk about euthanasia which falls under a different domain altogether. I was pointing to the bill proposing some urgent changes in defining the uses of narcotic substances to allow hospitals to have easy access to morphine which doctors feel can go a long way in relieving unbearable pain of terminally ill cancer patients of India. About court powers to restrict parliamentary power to legislate, no court can ever put on any such restrictions. The only consideration here is if any enactment is within the constitutional parameters and that could be taken up by the Apex court.

ok I got the points what you have mentioned here, perhaps there are other side effects to this narcotic banned substance and that is why it is not allowed perhaps, it is just a opinion.

If there are side-effects then who is or are best persons to judge it - doctors or our all-knowing legislators?? And what side-effects are we talking about in relation to persons terminally ill with cancer and writhing in excruciating pain? Mind you, doctors are recommending it and their opinion should outweigh that of ours!!!

Is it a silent-killer or a pain reliever, if it is a silent killer then doctor cannot recommend it, if they do then they can be prosecuted acc. to law of land,

Are you talking about permission of deaths to terminally ill patients, this case has been there with honorable court of justice, and they have negated it as they said no one can die before it happens. Parliament cannot do anything above it as it is the order of SC.

I have not mentioned any verdict of any court nor did I intend to talk about euthanasia which falls under a different domain altogether. I was pointing to the bill proposing some urgent changes in defining the uses of narcotic substances to allow hospitals to have easy access to morphine which doctors feel can go a long way in relieving unbearable pain of terminally ill cancer patients of India. About court powers to restrict parliamentary power to legislate, no court can ever put on any such restrictions. The only consideration here is if any enactment is within the constitutional parameters and that could be taken up by the Apex court.

ok I got the points what you have mentioned here, perhaps there are other side effects to this narcotic banned substance and that is why it is not allowed perhaps, it is just a opinion.

If there are side-effects then who is or are best persons to judge it - doctors or our all-knowing legislators?? And what side-effects are we talking about in relation to persons terminally ill with cancer and writhing in excruciating pain? Mind you, doctors are recommending it and their opinion should outweigh that of ours!!!

Is it a silent-killer or a pain reliever, if it is a silent killer then doctor cannot recommend it, if they do then they can be prosecuted acc. to law of land,

Mohan, this class of drugs are not killers but in a healthy person, they cause heavy addiction. But for a person who is terminally ill with cancer, there is absolutely nothing that can relieve them from their excruciating pain apart from morphine. For a person who is dying of cancer, there are simply no worries of addiction or any such issues but only something that can relieve their extreme pain, the least anyone can do for them. And by not passing the bill, these people are being denied of freedom from pain!

Are you talking about permission of deaths to terminally ill patients, this case has been there with honorable court of justice, and they have negated it as they said no one can die before it happens. Parliament cannot do anything above it as it is the order of SC.

I have not mentioned any verdict of any court nor did I intend to talk about euthanasia which falls under a different domain altogether. I was pointing to the bill proposing some urgent changes in defining the uses of narcotic substances to allow hospitals to have easy access to morphine which doctors feel can go a long way in relieving unbearable pain of terminally ill cancer patients of India. About court powers to restrict parliamentary power to legislate, no court can ever put on any such restrictions. The only consideration here is if any enactment is within the constitutional parameters and that could be taken up by the Apex court.

ok I got the points what you have mentioned here, perhaps there are other side effects to this narcotic banned substance and that is why it is not allowed perhaps, it is just a opinion.

If there are side-effects then who is or are best persons to judge it - doctors or our all-knowing legislators?? And what side-effects are we talking about in relation to persons terminally ill with cancer and writhing in excruciating pain? Mind you, doctors are recommending it and their opinion should outweigh that of ours!!!

Is it a silent-killer or a pain reliever, if it is a silent killer then doctor cannot recommend it, if they do then they can be prosecuted acc. to law of land,

Mohan, this class of drugs are not killers but in a healthy person, they cause heavy addiction. But for a person who is terminally ill with cancer, there is absolutely nothing that can relieve them from their excruciating pain apart from morphine. For a person who is dying of cancer, there are simply no worries of addiction or any such issues but only something that can relieve their extreme pain, the least anyone can do for them. And by not passing the bill, these people are being denied of freedom from pain!

Thanks, I think, this bill should be act, as it could give relive from pain, disease such as cancer is extremely painful and I have seen, as one year back, my grand father died of this and the pain he suffered last six months just cannot be tolerated by me while looking after him, for sure, if anything that can heal the pain, must be introduced. I hope government of the day is reading this thread.

Are you talking about permission of deaths to terminally ill patients, this case has been there with honorable court of justice, and they have negated it as they said no one can die before it happens. Parliament cannot do anything above it as it is the order of SC.

I have not mentioned any verdict of any court nor did I intend to talk about euthanasia which falls under a different domain altogether. I was pointing to the bill proposing some urgent changes in defining the uses of narcotic substances to allow hospitals to have easy access to morphine which doctors feel can go a long way in relieving unbearable pain of terminally ill cancer patients of India. About court powers to restrict parliamentary power to legislate, no court can ever put on any such restrictions. The only consideration here is if any enactment is within the constitutional parameters and that could be taken up by the Apex court.

ok I got the points what you have mentioned here, perhaps there are other side effects to this narcotic banned substance and that is why it is not allowed perhaps, it is just a opinion.

If there are side-effects then who is or are best persons to judge it - doctors or our all-knowing legislators?? And what side-effects are we talking about in relation to persons terminally ill with cancer and writhing in excruciating pain? Mind you, doctors are recommending it and their opinion should outweigh that of ours!!!

Is it a silent-killer or a pain reliever, if it is a silent killer then doctor cannot recommend it, if they do then they can be prosecuted acc. to law of land,

Mohan, this class of drugs are not killers but in a healthy person, they cause heavy addiction. But for a person who is terminally ill with cancer, there is absolutely nothing that can relieve them from their excruciating pain apart from morphine. For a person who is dying of cancer, there are simply no worries of addiction or any such issues but only something that can relieve their extreme pain, the least anyone can do for them. And by not passing the bill, these people are being denied of freedom from pain!

All thanks, Kalyani, for adding vital inputs which are self-explanatory! I think the very notion that drugs are free from side-effects is fallacious. There are could be probably very exceptional few of which I am not sure. Even simple antacid if taken over a long period of time without medical advice could be very fatal. So killing potential of any drug could not be just wished away and here lies the need and urgency to consult a competent doctor. Now coming to the question of ministration of morphine to terminally ill patients by doctor, a doctor comes across various kinds of patients and his or her primary duty is to save lives. The section of patients we are taking about forms a rare group and their needs are unique and you have said it all to free me from the drudgery of repetition.