January - March 2010 Vol 7 Issue 1
|
Effective public-private partnership in healthcare : Apollo as a cautionary tale
Very few in the medical fraternity, if any, would have been surprised by the Delhi High Court panel finding that Apollo Indraprastha Hospital, New Delhi was not honouring its mandate to provide 33% of its beds free of charge to the poor and indigent. In 1986, the Delhi Administration invited proposals to establish a multidisciplinary, super speciality hospital on “a no profit no loss” basis. Two years later, the government leased prime property to the Apollo Hospital Group (AHG) on a token payment of one rupee a year, to set up the Indraprastha Hospital. The hospital is a joint venture with the Delhi government. (...more)
|
Should the Bt Brinjal controversy concern healthcare professionals and bioethicists?
The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee’s approval of Bt brinjal, the first genetically modified crop for human consumption in India, has sparked off protests across the country. This article questions the so-called benefits of GM crops and highlights some major concerns. These include: inadequately addressed health and environmental risks, inadequate safety guidelines, a lack of transparency in sharing test data, the implications to seed sovereignty of farmers and the lack of informed choice for consumers. Some concerns about field testing by Mahyco, the developer of Bt-brinjal, and the process of evaluation by GEAC remain unresolved. With inadequate information about the crop’s long-term safety, a precautionary approach is advocated before national policy allows commercial release of the seeds. A fair process is also needed in the public consultations being proposed by the minister of state for environment and forests (...more)
|
A legal precedent : reproductive rights of mentally retarded persons in India
The reader is familiar with details of this landmark case: in the first instance, the Chandigarh Administration petitioned the Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) to terminate the pregnancy of a 19-or 20-year-old, unmarried, mildly/moderately mentally retarded, orphaned, pregnant woman residing in a state-run institution for the mentally challenged in Chandigarh. The HC in its orders dated June 9 and July 17, 2009, permitted termination. Subsequently, the young woman petitioned the Supreme Court (SC) through her advocate, to be allowed to continue with her pregnancy against the order of the HC. Due to the urgency of the situation requiring a decision before the statutory 20-week limit of legal abortion, the SC passed an order immediately. The order was in favour of the petitioner to continue with the pregnancy (1-3).(...more)
|
|
