There are a lot of articles currently both criticizing and explaining New Delhi's mild public support for the pro-democracy uprising in Burma. Most blame the extra safe stand taken by India to be a culmination of business and energy interests in Burma, not losing any advantage to China, and anti-terrorism partnership with the military government in Burma.
I am ready to accept that it is not easy for the powers that be to make this decision. There are probably significant pros and cons in taking such action when it comes to long-term foreign policy, regional hold on power, financial and strategic interests etc. etc. India is weighing its options very very carefully and does not want to slip on this tight rope walk...
However, as a citizen, I want my government to do something constructive if it is in a position to do this. At the very minimum lets not give weak-knee'd statements such as "we wish for a great ending all around" and "we never interfere in others internal problems." Do we have means to take both overt and covert measures to support the pro-democracy protests and non violence towards the protesters? Because if we do, I want my democratically elected government to use them.
Can we engage in smart diplomacy to get the junta to not fire indiscriminately at protesters? Do we have any leverage in demanding that they do this or that...if yes, let's use it...let's use it.
This is a request, my request to my government, if there is something we can do to stop the oppression...let's do it. Let's not stand by and see blatant human rights abuses occur as we trade business deals. If we want to become a dominant regional power, we also need to have the guts to take positions that may discomfort ruling governments. We cannot become a regional power to reckon with if we are only too happy to shun the responsibility that can come with it...
Does that mean imposing our views, no matter what, on a people...? Nope, we don't abuse it, but let's use it at least...
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Informed Consent
As a citizen I am always disturbed on hearing about violations of an individual's right to know what X, Y, or Z is doing to them and their bodies, because it is easy to put yourself in the victim's shoes and experience yourself squirm at the thought. However as a researcher I am even more incensed as I know that there are and need to be very strict guidelines that you must abide by when you deal with human beings in any sort of intervention.
A story in the Daily News and Analysis website on private hospitals in India testing patients for HIV without their knowledge or permission prompted this post...(I am trying to get a working URL for the article). The sheer ignorance and stupidity about testing every patient for HIV for the safety of hospital workers is a topic for another post.
It all goes down to the concept of ethics. You do not perform any sort of intervention on people, even if you think it is for the best, unless they give you their informed consent. Remember informed consent is not one word but two: a) People need to tell you, in a completely unambiguous manner, that it is okay to do what you want to do to/with them and (b) it has to be informed i.e. people have to know and understand what it is that you propose to do with them and why.
This is absolutely crucial in medical interventions...it does not matter if you think you are the expert, that people will anyways not understand, and hey you are doing it as God for their own good, you do not poke and draw fluid without first telling them what you are drawing it for. If that means you sit and explain what you need to do, you sit and explain.
Now this brings up interesting socio-cultural questions...is it common sense that informed consent is a necessity...or is it a regulated legislative guideline that you obey? In most cases, quite unfortunately, it needs to be the latter. There have to be strict legislative guidelines about what you can and cannot do.
Obtaining informed consent has to be an established legal necessity without exceptions. There should be no room allowed for ridiculous explanations about why it wasn't considered necessary to obtain consent.
Hmm, its time to look into India's legislation on informed consent...
A story in the Daily News and Analysis website on private hospitals in India testing patients for HIV without their knowledge or permission prompted this post...(I am trying to get a working URL for the article). The sheer ignorance and stupidity about testing every patient for HIV for the safety of hospital workers is a topic for another post.
It all goes down to the concept of ethics. You do not perform any sort of intervention on people, even if you think it is for the best, unless they give you their informed consent. Remember informed consent is not one word but two: a) People need to tell you, in a completely unambiguous manner, that it is okay to do what you want to do to/with them and (b) it has to be informed i.e. people have to know and understand what it is that you propose to do with them and why.
This is absolutely crucial in medical interventions...it does not matter if you think you are the expert, that people will anyways not understand, and hey you are doing it as God for their own good, you do not poke and draw fluid without first telling them what you are drawing it for. If that means you sit and explain what you need to do, you sit and explain.
Now this brings up interesting socio-cultural questions...is it common sense that informed consent is a necessity...or is it a regulated legislative guideline that you obey? In most cases, quite unfortunately, it needs to be the latter. There have to be strict legislative guidelines about what you can and cannot do.
Obtaining informed consent has to be an established legal necessity without exceptions. There should be no room allowed for ridiculous explanations about why it wasn't considered necessary to obtain consent.
Hmm, its time to look into India's legislation on informed consent...
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
ADAPT stages protest outside the AMA in Chicago
ADAPT (American Disabled For Attendant Programs Today), the prominent disability rights activist group in the United States, has been strongly protesting the construction of the Lincoln Developmental Center (read: institution) in Chicago since late last week.
The main issue under contention here is unnecessary institutionalization, that people with disabilities are forced to choose, when their Medicaid dollars are tied to institutional services as opposed to paying for independent living options in the community chosen by people themselves. Despite the passage of the "Money Follows the Person" legislation, Illinois consistently ranks extremely poorly when it comes to community and independent living for people with disabilities. And now Gov. Blagojevich wanted to reopen an institution for people with developmental disabilities in Chicago.
Needless to say big money exists in running institutions and the team of institution supporters revealingly includes the American Medical Association (AMA), some of whose members have financial interests in pushing their patients towards institutions, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), whose members get employed by these big institutions.
ADAPT's agenda included getting these organizations to endorse the Community Choice Act which is aimed at removing the bias towards state sponsored nursing homes and institutionalization in state Medicaid programs and offers people real choice as to where they want to live.
Not only were ADAPT activities met with opposition by both, there were massive arrests of protesters on both occasions (55 for barricading the AMA on Monday) and after negotiations with AFSCME failed on Wednesday.
ADAPT advocates through civil disobedience and protests and they make their point. Sometimes that is the only way to make your point, to air your issues in public, and to open the eyes of the average non-disabled person. I was reading some of the comments posted on a blog entry about the AMA demonstration on the Chicago Reader. It is very informative to see how people react to such events.
Read ADAPT's daily coverage of their week in Chicago.
The main issue under contention here is unnecessary institutionalization, that people with disabilities are forced to choose, when their Medicaid dollars are tied to institutional services as opposed to paying for independent living options in the community chosen by people themselves. Despite the passage of the "Money Follows the Person" legislation, Illinois consistently ranks extremely poorly when it comes to community and independent living for people with disabilities. And now Gov. Blagojevich wanted to reopen an institution for people with developmental disabilities in Chicago.
Needless to say big money exists in running institutions and the team of institution supporters revealingly includes the American Medical Association (AMA), some of whose members have financial interests in pushing their patients towards institutions, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), whose members get employed by these big institutions.
ADAPT's agenda included getting these organizations to endorse the Community Choice Act which is aimed at removing the bias towards state sponsored nursing homes and institutionalization in state Medicaid programs and offers people real choice as to where they want to live.
Not only were ADAPT activities met with opposition by both, there were massive arrests of protesters on both occasions (55 for barricading the AMA on Monday) and after negotiations with AFSCME failed on Wednesday.
ADAPT advocates through civil disobedience and protests and they make their point. Sometimes that is the only way to make your point, to air your issues in public, and to open the eyes of the average non-disabled person. I was reading some of the comments posted on a blog entry about the AMA demonstration on the Chicago Reader. It is very informative to see how people react to such events.
Read ADAPT's daily coverage of their week in Chicago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)