India continues to press UK to extradite fugitives facing Indian law: Foreign Secy Misri - The Economic Times Video
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
15 minutes ago
- The Hindu
The medical boundaries for AYUSH practitioners
The recent controversy on X between a hepatologist and an Indian chess Grand Master, on whether practitioners of traditional medicine can claim to be doctors, has sparked much commentary on the role and the status of practitioners of traditional Indian medicine systems such as Ayurveda and Unani, in India. Committees, governments, perspectives The burning issue here is not merely whether practitioners of Ayurveda can refer to themselves as doctors, but rather the scope of medical activities permitted under Indian law. This is an issue which has consequences for public health. A starting point for this discussion is to understand the framing of the debate over the last 80 years, beginning 1946, when the Health Survey and Development Committee, better known as Bhore Committee, batted in favour of modern scientific medicine based on evidence. The committee had pointed out that other countries were in the process of phasing out their traditional medicine systems and recommended that states take a call on the extent to which traditional medicine played a role in their public health systems. The Bhore committee's lack of enthusiasm for the traditional medicinal system did not go unnoticed by practitioners of traditional Indian medicine who mounted a vocal protest. They managed to convince the Government of India to set up the Committee on Indigenous Systems of Medicine, which submitted its report in 1948. This committee unabashedly wrapped up its conclusions in communal language, framing the issue in terms of Hindu nationalism by linking Ayurveda to the Vedas and its decline to 'foreign domination'. While the Nehru government took no action to formally recognise these practitioners of traditional medicine, the Indira Gandhi government in 1970 enacted a legislation called The Indian Medicine Central Council Act recognising and regulating the practitioners of Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani. This law was replaced in 2020 with a new law called The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act. The syllabus for aspiring practitioners of Ayurveda is an absolute mish-mash of concepts that span everything from doshas, prakriti, atmas (which includes learning the difference between paramatma and jivatma) with a sprinkling of modern medical concepts such as cell physiology and anatomy. These are irreconcilable concepts — the theory of tridosha attributes all ills to an imbalance of doshas, while modern medicine locates the concepts of some diseases such as infections in 'germ theory', among others. There is no middle ground between both systems of medicine which is why concepts such as integrative medicine make no sense. Point of friction Nevertheless, the legal recognition of this new class of practitioners led to questions on the exact boundaries between the practice of traditional and modern medicine. The major point of friction has been the prescription of modern medicines by the practitioners of traditional medicine. Ayurvedic practitioners, in particular, while claiming the superiority of their art over modern medicine, have consistently demanded the right to prescribe modern medicines developed by evidence-based modern science. Pertinently, this dispute revolved around the interpretation of Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 which defined the class of 'registered medical practitioners' who can prescribe modern medicine. This definition is complicated since it is not limited to doctors with a MBBS degree. It delegates a certain amount of power to State governments to pass orders declaring medical practitioners on their State medical registers as persons 'practising the modern scientific system of medicine for the purposes of ….' the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. Many State governments have used this power under Rule 2(ee) to allow registered practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani to prescribe modern medicine such as antibiotics. The constitutionality of these orders was challenged before the courts and the first round of litigation concluded in 1998 with the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors. The Court concluded that 'the right to prescribe drugs of a system of medicine would be synonymous with the right to practise that system of medicine. In that sense, the right to prescribe allopathic drug cannot be wholly divorced from the claim to practice allopathic medicine'. Simply put, Ayurvedic practitioners had no right to prescribe modern medicine. That judgment never stopped the lobbying by Ayurvedic and Unani practitioners with State governments for the promulgation of orders under Rule 2(ee) allowing them to prescribe modern medicine. Several State governments have continued passing these orders in defiance of the Court's judgment. This inevitably leads to litigation before the High Courts, usually by the Indian Medical Association, which often wins these cases. Unsuspecting patients too have often sued practitioners of Ayurveda before consumer courts on the grounds that they were deceived into believing that they were being treated by a doctor with a MBBS degree who can prescribe modern medicine. While much of the litigation has revolved around the right to dispense modern medicine, there is also the issue regarding the medical procedures that can be conducted legally by practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani. For example, can a registered Ayurvedic practitioner 'intubate' a patient? This is an important question to ask since it is an open secret that many hospitals purporting to practise modern medicine are hiring Ayurvedic practitioners with Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) degree at lower pay in place of graduates with a MBBS degree. Further, a notification by the Indian government in 2020 has allowed Ayurvedic practitioners (post graduates) to perform 58 minor surgeries, including the removal of the gall bladder, appendix and benign tumours. The constitutionality of this notification is pending before the courts. If the notification is upheld, the question that arises is whether these Ayurvedic practitioners can now use anaesthetic agents and antibiotics required to conduct surgeries. The stakes are high for public health in India since the likely strategy of Ayurvedic practitioners will be to argue that these surgeries were known in traditional Indian medicine. In these times of heady Hindutva, it will be difficult to find a judge who will ignore these claims. The political factor The larger political backdrop to this entire debate regarding Ayurvedic practitioners is 'Hindu pride', which has fuelled claims of fantastical achievements by ancient Indian civilisation, be it the pushpaka vimana or the claims of the Kauravas being test tube babies. When a policy issue such as Ayurveda is cynically draped in the language of 'Hindu pride', it is not just the Bharatiya Janata Party but also the Indian National Congress which feels compelled to support an obviously dangerous approach to public health. The last election manifesto of the Indian National Congress, in 2024, promised that the party would 'support' all systems of medicines instead of a promise to support only rational, evidence-based medicine. This blind faith in traditional medicine is going to cost every citizen in the future since the government is actively considering the inclusion of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) treatments under the Ayushman Bharat insurance scheme funded by tax-payers. This is in addition to approximately ₹20,000 crore of tax-payer money spent on research councils functioning under the Ministry of AYUSH with a mandate to research AYUSH. They have very little to show for in terms of scientific breakthroughs. Twitter outrage notwithstanding, the joke at the end of the day is on the tax-payer. Dinesh S. Thakur is the author of 'The Truth Pill: The Myth of Drug Regulation in India'. Prashant Reddy T. is the coauthor of 'The Truth Pill: The Myth of Drug Regulation in India'
The Hindu
15 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Yemen waives Nimisha Priya's death sentence, claims Kanthapuram
The Yemeni authorities have decided to revoke the execution of Nimisha Priya, the Indian nurse awaiting capital punishment for the alleged murder of Yemen national Talal Abdo Mahdi. The confirmation of the decision came on Monday night from the office of India's Grand Mufti and Sunni leader Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliar, whose last-minute intervention through the Sufi scholars of Yemen had secured the postponement of Nimish Priya's execution scheduled for July 16. A team of Yemeni scholars, appointed by Sheikh Habib Omer bin Hafiz, a respected Sufi scholar in Yemen, at the request of Mr. Aboobacker Musliar, worked alongside Northern Yemen's government representatives and international diplomats to mediate an agreement, resulting in the decision to revoke Nimisha Priya's execution. Mr. Aboobacker Musliar's claim has been confirmed by Sarhan Shamsan Al Wiswabi, a Yemeni activist and spokesperson for the Action Council for Talal Mahdi's Justice in Yemen, through a Facebook post on Monday. Mr. Wiswabi said in his post that due to the strong intervention of religious scholars, the death sentence was waived. He said it would now be either release from prison or life imprisonment. Following the commutation of her death sentence, Nimisha Priya's fate now hangs in the balance between two possibilities: serving a life sentence or securing her release upon payment of diya or blood money. However, subsequent matters will be determined following further negotiations with the family of the deceased, Talal Abdo Mahdi.
Deccan Herald
15 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
'Won't watch India-Pakistan match after Pahalgam attack': Owaisi
New Delhi: Does this government have the courage to telephone the families of victims of Pahalgam terror strike and say we have taken revenge through Operation Sindoor, now you watch India-Pakistan cricket match, AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi took on the government on Monday as both countries are scheduled to face each other in Asia in a debate on Operation Sindoor, Owaisi said his conscience does not allow him to watch an India-Pakistan match. He claimed that there was an "euphoria" in the country following the military action but the government has failed to capitalise on who was part of a multi-party delegation sent abroad by the government after Operation Sindoor, said the Pakistan Army, ISI and the Pakistani Deep State want to weaken India. He said India should do everything possible to weaken the adversaries but warned that it cannot be done through running bulldozers and creating hatred in the Sindoor debate: 'Why did we stop... How many Indian jets were downed?' Congress asks to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's remarks that "blood and water" cannot flow together and talks and terror too cannot happen simultaneously, the Hyderabad MP said India have stopped trade and 80 per cent of water flow into Pakistan. "Then will you play a cricket match? My conscience does not allow me to watch that match. Does this government have the courage to call the 25 dead people and say we have taken revenge in Operation Sindoor, now you watch the match with Pakistan," he said. India and Pakistan will face each other in Asia Cup in said it is a matter of great regret that Pahalgam happened. "Who did Pahalgam? We have 7.5 lakh army and central paramilitary force. From where did these four rats enter and kill our Indian citizens? On whom will accountability be fixed?" he the Lieutenant Governor is responsible, he should be sacked and if it was police or Intelligence Bureau, action should be taken against them, he claimed that the government's policy on Kashmir, which included the abrogation of Article 370 and bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories, was a failure, as it could not prevent Pahalgam attack. He also questioned foreign policy saying India could not convince its strategic partner US not to entertain Pakistan."A white man (Donald Trump) in White House announced the this longstanding friendship? We are not being able to tell the US. The External Affairs Minister visited China recently and did he ask the Chinese why did they provide weapons to Pakistan," he said.
