In a path breaking judgment, the Supreme Court of India decided that passiveeuthanasia can be practised legally in this country. Aware that it was enteringa political and social minefield, the court trod warily but opened the gate to amore liberal, yet rightly cautious approach. One of our editorials looks at theethical implications of this case.

Ironically, while the right to die in certain circumstances has been accepted inour country, the right to live, and to get the quality of healthcare to be able todo so, is still elusive. 18 young women who went into reputed public hospitalsin Jodhpur hoping to give birth in a safe and secure environment never wentback home. Now, heads are rolling in the usual witch hunt; but are they theright ones? Will this punitive exercise ensure that such deaths don’t occur,again and again? This shameful series of lapses is analysed in another editorial.

Can standards of care in research be universal and immutable all over theglobe? Journals like this one must keep the debate going between thosetrying to render the best care in adverse circumstances and those who believethey are falling short, so that the ethical issues are laid bare. An article looksat this burning issue in international research ethics. Another commentatoranalyses the shift in world health policy from the ‘international’, in whichnational goals played a part, to the ‘global’ in which ‘philanthropic’ corporatesand NGOs may dole out or withdraw funds at will.

Commercial interests continue to build their honey traps and several of ournumber regularly fall into them. One such example, of orthopaedic devicesand how doctors are induced to recommend them, is dealt with here. Anotherarticle tackles the casual and unthinking dependence on technologies whichdo not serve the intended purpose.