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.

Eacatly Chinmoy...because I have seen the kind of agony people terminally ill from cancer suffer only recently, in fact just a montha go, a gentleman from the flat opposite died of cancer. For the last few months he suffered excruciating pain that was so much debilitating that he could not even sit up for more than 10 minutes before succumbing to pain, nor could he sleep all these days! It was really heartbreaking to watch hi, suffer in such a manner.

Coming to the topic, I agree no drug is without side-effects, even the most common paracetamol that we keep popping on our own cause damage in the long run. What we need is a set of rules that are more clear and well-defined and a generation of doctors who are more sensitive, compassionate to the needs of their patients so that when times comes, they can administer painkillers to their patients thinking only about the comfort of their patients without having to fear about laws and regulations.

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.

Eacatly Chinmoy...because I have seen the kind of agony people terminally ill from cancer suffer only recently, in fact just a montha go, a gentleman from the flat opposite died of cancer. For the last few months he suffered excruciating pain that was so much debilitating that he could not even sit up for more than 10 minutes before succumbing to pain, nor could he sleep all these days! It was really heartbreaking to watch hi, suffer in such a manner.

Coming to the topic, I agree no drug is without side-effects, even the most common paracetamol that we keep popping on our own cause damage in the long run. What we need is a set of rules that are more clear and well-defined and a generation of doctors who are more sensitive, compassionate to the needs of their patients so that when times comes, they can administer painkillers to their patients thinking only about the comfort of their patients without having to fear about laws and regulations.

You expect the present generation of doctors to grow on ideals like sensitivity, compassion and all that! I keep my fingers crossed. There would be always a few exceptional ones that make them exceptions only. Think of the standards of morality on the part of their earlier generations and the kind of difficulties and impediments they had to contend with. On one respect they were never found to be wanting - they were a lot more humanitarian, compassionate and kind than their present-day counterparts.

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.

Eacatly Chinmoy...because I have seen the kind of agony people terminally ill from cancer suffer only recently, in fact just a montha go, a gentleman from the flat opposite died of cancer. For the last few months he suffered excruciating pain that was so much debilitating that he could not even sit up for more than 10 minutes before succumbing to pain, nor could he sleep all these days! It was really heartbreaking to watch hi, suffer in such a manner.

Coming to the topic, I agree no drug is without side-effects, even the most common paracetamol that we keep popping on our own cause damage in the long run. What we need is a set of rules that are more clear and well-defined and a generation of doctors who are more sensitive, compassionate to the needs of their patients so that when times comes, they can administer painkillers to their patients thinking only about the comfort of their patients without having to fear about laws and regulations.

You expect the present generation of doctors to grow on ideals like sensitivity, compassion and all that! I keep my fingers crossed. There would be always a few exceptional ones that make them exceptions only. Think of the standards of morality on the part of their earlier generations and the kind of difficulties and impediments they had to contend with. On one respect they were never found to be wanting - they were a lot more humanitarian, compassionate and kind than their present-day counterparts.

I know that is a very wishful thinking on my part but I am hoping that at least the future generations of doctors grow as compassionate and humanitarian as earlier generations were. But seeing advancements in technology and medicine where robots are being built to conduct surgeries, I think future doctors would be computers who would talk to you and [prescribe medicines etc. But we can always hope for the best, can't we?

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.

Eacatly Chinmoy...because I have seen the kind of agony people terminally ill from cancer suffer only recently, in fact just a montha go, a gentleman from the flat opposite died of cancer. For the last few months he suffered excruciating pain that was so much debilitating that he could not even sit up for more than 10 minutes before succumbing to pain, nor could he sleep all these days! It was really heartbreaking to watch hi, suffer in such a manner.

Coming to the topic, I agree no drug is without side-effects, even the most common paracetamol that we keep popping on our own cause damage in the long run. What we need is a set of rules that are more clear and well-defined and a generation of doctors who are more sensitive, compassionate to the needs of their patients so that when times comes, they can administer painkillers to their patients thinking only about the comfort of their patients without having to fear about laws and regulations.

You expect the present generation of doctors to grow on ideals like sensitivity, compassion and all that! I keep my fingers crossed. There would be always a few exceptional ones that make them exceptions only. Think of the standards of morality on the part of their earlier generations and the kind of difficulties and impediments they had to contend with. On one respect they were never found to be wanting - they were a lot more humanitarian, compassionate and kind than their present-day counterparts.

I know that is a very wishful thinking on my part but I am hoping that at least the future generations of doctors grow as compassionate and humanitarian as earlier generations were. But seeing advancements in technology and medicine where robots are being built to conduct surgeries, I think future doctors would be computers who would talk to you and [prescribe medicines etc. But we can always hope for the best, can't we?

It looks like advancements in medical sciences would and should help the future generation in calling off the bluff of many a dishonest doctor. A future doctor would be treating a patient who has knowledge of the correct procedure via internet ( tele-medicine) and he or she would be made to justify his or her action. Let us hope for this ideal situation. We can no longer trust them as was the norm in earlier times!!

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.

Eacatly Chinmoy...because I have seen the kind of agony people terminally ill from cancer suffer only recently, in fact just a montha go, a gentleman from the flat opposite died of cancer. For the last few months he suffered excruciating pain that was so much debilitating that he could not even sit up for more than 10 minutes before succumbing to pain, nor could he sleep all these days! It was really heartbreaking to watch hi, suffer in such a manner.

Coming to the topic, I agree no drug is without side-effects, even the most common paracetamol that we keep popping on our own cause damage in the long run. What we need is a set of rules that are more clear and well-defined and a generation of doctors who are more sensitive, compassionate to the needs of their patients so that when times comes, they can administer painkillers to their patients thinking only about the comfort of their patients without having to fear about laws and regulations.

You expect the present generation of doctors to grow on ideals like sensitivity, compassion and all that! I keep my fingers crossed. There would be always a few exceptional ones that make them exceptions only. Think of the standards of morality on the part of their earlier generations and the kind of difficulties and impediments they had to contend with. On one respect they were never found to be wanting - they were a lot more humanitarian, compassionate and kind than their present-day counterparts.

I know that is a very wishful thinking on my part but I am hoping that at least the future generations of doctors grow as compassionate and humanitarian as earlier generations were. But seeing advancements in technology and medicine where robots are being built to conduct surgeries, I think future doctors would be computers who would talk to you and [prescribe medicines etc. But we can always hope for the best, can't we?

It looks like advancements in medical sciences would and should help the future generation in calling off the bluff of many a dishonest doctor. A future doctor would be treating a patient who has knowledge of the correct procedure via internet ( tele-medicine) and he or she would be made to justify his or her action. Let us hope for this ideal situation. We can no longer trust them as was the norm in earlier times!!

That would be an ideal situation, but for me it would be like it was in the earlier times, when we formed lasting and affectionate relationship with our family doctor and whenever anyone fell sick in the family, he would treat like he or she was his own kin. Growing up, our family had such a doctor, who was dear to us like our grandfather, an elderly gentleman with genial and assuring smile and just by looking at him, I felt half cured! Such are the kind of doctors we are really missing!

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.

Eacatly Chinmoy...because I have seen the kind of agony people terminally ill from cancer suffer only recently, in fact just a montha go, a gentleman from the flat opposite died of cancer. For the last few months he suffered excruciating pain that was so much debilitating that he could not even sit up for more than 10 minutes before succumbing to pain, nor could he sleep all these days! It was really heartbreaking to watch hi, suffer in such a manner.

Coming to the topic, I agree no drug is without side-effects, even the most common paracetamol that we keep popping on our own cause damage in the long run. What we need is a set of rules that are more clear and well-defined and a generation of doctors who are more sensitive, compassionate to the needs of their patients so that when times comes, they can administer painkillers to their patients thinking only about the comfort of their patients without having to fear about laws and regulations.

You expect the present generation of doctors to grow on ideals like sensitivity, compassion and all that! I keep my fingers crossed. There would be always a few exceptional ones that make them exceptions only. Think of the standards of morality on the part of their earlier generations and the kind of difficulties and impediments they had to contend with. On one respect they were never found to be wanting - they were a lot more humanitarian, compassionate and kind than their present-day counterparts.

I know that is a very wishful thinking on my part but I am hoping that at least the future generations of doctors grow as compassionate and humanitarian as earlier generations were. But seeing advancements in technology and medicine where robots are being built to conduct surgeries, I think future doctors would be computers who would talk to you and [prescribe medicines etc. But we can always hope for the best, can't we?

It looks like advancements in medical sciences would and should help the future generation in calling off the bluff of many a dishonest doctor. A future doctor would be treating a patient who has knowledge of the correct procedure via internet ( tele-medicine) and he or she would be made to justify his or her action. Let us hope for this ideal situation. We can no longer trust them as was the norm in earlier times!!

That would be an ideal situation, but for me it would be like it was in the earlier times, when we formed lasting and affectionate relationship with our family doctor and whenever anyone fell sick in the family, he would treat like he or she was his own kin. Growing up, our family had such a doctor, who was dear to us like our grandfather, an elderly gentleman with genial and assuring smile and just by looking at him, I felt half cured! Such are the kind of doctors we are really missing!

True, very true! In fact, many of us fondly remember the signal services of these self-effacing medicos who touched our lives and left permanent imprints upon our minds. The present day doctors would do well to study this aspect of their illustrious predecessors!!!