OM SAI RAAM
It was a great day.. a bit hectic but satisfactory to the core for me.. Daddy took me to Meerut Labour Court, Civil Court and The Industrial Tribunal. Being a student of Law it was very ethereal and memorable. The procedure..the discussions the whole environment was superb.. I loved to be their.. attended the court proceedings as well.. ! Met Daddy’s friends and juniors.. I always heard of his respect all over judiciary in this region but today I saw it… Some Communist leaders met him.. Those small chambers.. black coats all around… It might not be as lavish as the executive or the administrative wing of government.. but this wing..the Judiciary.. is still all impressive … the cream of society is here.. intelligent.. intellectuals.. great people around..
Tomorrow I am starting with my training at another place.. hoping that I do well..
See ya,
Akshat
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
1st RAJA RAM AGRAWAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL TAX MOOT COURT COMPETITION—2009
OM SAI RAAM
1st RAJA RAM AGRAWAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL TAX MOOT COURT COMPETITION—2009
Jointly organised by
ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS
&
FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD
1st RAJA RAM AGRAWAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL TAX MOOT COURT COMPETITION—2009
Jointly organised by
ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS
&
FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD
We are very happy to inform you that All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) North Zone and B.A. LL.B (Hons.): Five Year Integrated Course, Faculty of Law, University of Allahabad have jointly decided to organize the 1st Raja Ram Agrawal Memorial National Tax Moot Court Competition. The said competition shall be organized from 21st to 23rd August 2009 at Faculty of Law, University of Allahabad.
Kindly Visit http://www.ballbhonsau.org/ and :-
· DOWNLOAD PER-INVITATION
· DOWNLOAD REGISTRATION FORM
· DOWNLOAD MOOT PROBLEM
FOR ANY QUERY PLEASE CONTACT US AT
mcs@ballbhonsau.org
mcsau@hotmail.com
Mrs. Sonal Shankar (Convener, Moot Court Society)
Email : sshankar@ballbhonsau.org
Pragati Singh (President, Moot Court Society)
Email : pragatisingh@ballbhonsau.org
Should Euthanasia be Legalised in India?
OM SAI RAAM
The word euthanasia is derived from the Greek word “euthanatos” meaning “well death” and originally referred to intentional mercy killing. In the modern context euthanasia is limited to the killing of patients by doctors at the request of the patient in order to free him of excruciating pain or from terminal illness. When medical advances made prolonging of the lives of dying or comatose patients possible, the term euthanasia was also applied to omission to prevent death.
Euthanasia may be classified as active and passive or alternatively as voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary. Active euthanasia involves painlessly putting individuals to death for merciful reasons, as when a doctor administers a lethal dose of medication to a patient. Passive euthanasia involves not doing something to prevent death, as when doctors refrain from using devices necessary to keep alive a terminally ill patient or a patient in a persistent vegetative state. In voluntary euthanasia, a person asks for death (by either active or passive euthanasia). Non-voluntary euthanasia refers to ending the life of a person who is not mentally competent, such as a comatose patient, to make an informed request for death. In addition there is another category of involuntary euthanasia. This is said to occur when a patient is killed against his express will.
It is important that euthanasia is not confused with assisted suicide. The latter involves a patient’s voluntarily bringing about his or her own death with the assistance of another person, typically a physician. In this case, the act is a suicide (intentional self-inflicted death), because the patient actually causes his or her own death. Thus, while in assisted suicide the doctor makes available to the patient the means by which he can kill himself, in euthanasia the doctor himself (by act or omission) kills the patient. The issue of assisted suicide is closely related to that of euthanasia because it also involves questions of similar nature. Furthermore, some countries have preferred to legalise assisted suicide though they remain averse to permitting euthanasia.
The current legal position on euthanasia and assisted suicide in India
In India, euthanasia is undoubtedly illegal. Since in cases of euthanasia or mercy killing there is an intention on the part of the doctor to kill the patient, such cases would clearly fall under clause first of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, as in such cases there is the valid consent of the deceased Exception 5 to the said Section would be attracted and the doctor or mercy killer would be punishable under Section 304 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. But it is only cases of voluntary euthanasia (where the patient consents to death) that would attract Exception 5 to Section 300. Cases of non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia would be struck by proviso one to Section 92 of the IPC and thus be rendered illegal. Euthanasia and suicide are different, distinguishing euthanasia from suicide, Lodha J. in Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India1, observed:
“Suicide by its very nature is an act of self-killing or self-destruction, an act of terminating one’s own act and without the aid or assistance of any other human agency. Euthanasia or mercy killing on the other hand means and implies the intervention of other human agency to end the life. Mercy killing thus is not suicide and an attempt at mercy killing is not covered by the provisions of Section 309. The two concepts are both factually and legally distinct. Euthanasia or mercy killing is nothing but homicide whatever the circumstances in which it is effected.”2 (emphasis added)
The law in India is also very clear on the aspect of assisted suicide. Abetment of suicide is an offence expressly punishable under Sections 305 and 306 of the IPC.
Moreover, after the decision of a five judge bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab3 it is well settled that the “right to life” guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the “right to die”. The Court held that Article 21 is a provision guaranteeing “protection of life and personal liberty” and by no stretch of the imagination can extinction of life be read into it.
The position in other countries
In general countries attempt to draw a line between passive euthanasia (generally associated with allowing a person to die) and active euthanasia (generally associated with killing a person). While laws commonly permit passive euthanasia, active euthanasia is generally prohibited.
Netherlands
Under the Penal Code of Netherlands, killing a person at his request is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of 12 years or by a fine and assisting a person to commit suicide is also punishable by imprisonment upto 3 years or fine.
In spite of the clear wordings of the Code, the Courts of Netherlands have come to interpret the law as providing a defence to charges of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. The defence allowed is that of necessity. The Dutch defence of necessity is of two types. The first is “psychological compulsion” while the second is “emergency”. The latter applies when the accused chooses to break the law in order to promote a higher good. Both these types came to be allowed by the Supreme Court of Netherlands.4
The criteria laid down by the Courts to determine whether the defence of necessity applies in a given case of euthanasia, have been summarised by Mrs Borst-Eilers as follows:
The request for euthanasia must come only from the patient and must be entirely free and voluntary.
The patient’s request must be well considered, durable and persistent.
The patient must be experiencing intolerable (not necessarily physical) suffering, with no prospect of improvement.
Euthanasia must be the last resort. Other alternatives to alleviate the patient’s situation must be considered and found wanting.
Euthanasia must be performed by a physician.
The physician must consult with an independent physician colleague who has experience in this field.5
Thus, though active euthanasia is technically unlawful in the Netherlands, it is considered justified (not legally punishable) if the physician follows the above guidelines.
In the wake of these judicial guidelines a Bill had been introduced in Netherlands’s Parliament# seeking to legalise euthanasia. Recently in April 2001, Netherlands charted out a new chapter in the history of legalising euthanasia when the Upper House of the country passed the Bill by a vote of 46-286. The new law sets forth rules that will make a long-tolerated Dutch practice legal. It allows a doctor to end the life of a patient suffering “unbearable” pain from an incurable condition, if the patient so requests. The law requires a long-standing doctor-patient relationship, patient’s awareness of other available medical options and that the patient must have obtained a second professional opinion. The law also allows people to leave written requests for euthanasia in the nature of “advance directives”7.
Australia
In 1996, the Northern Territory of Australia became the first jurisdiction to explicitly legalise voluntary active euthanasia when it passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, 1996. Though the validity of the Act was upheld by the Supreme Court of Northern Territory in Wake v. Northern Territory of Australia8 a subsequent federal constitutional challenge to the legislation had succeeded. The Federal Parliament of Australia had subsequently passed the Euthanasia Laws Act, 1997 repealing the Northern Territory legislation.9
England
In England, following a series of decisions of the House of Lords it is now settled that a person has the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment as part of his rights of autonomy and self-determination.10 The House of Lords has also permitted non-voluntary euthanasia in case of patients in a persistent vegetative state.11 Moreover, in a recent decision, a British High Court has granted a woman paralysed from the neck, the right to die by having her life support system switched off12.
United States of America
Laws in the United States maintain the distinction between passive and active euthanasia. While active euthanasia is prohibited, the courts have ruled that physicians should not be legally punished if they withhold or withdraw a life-sustaining treatment at the request of a patient or the patient’s authorised representative. These decisions are based on increasing acceptance of the doctrine that patients possess a right to refuse treatment as part of their right to self-determination.
Every U.S. State has adopted laws that authorise legally competent individuals to make advanced directives, often referred to as living wills. Such documents allowed individuals to control some features of the time and manner of their deaths. In particular, these directives, issued when a person is fit and fully capable of making a rational decision, empower and instruct doctors to withhold life-support systems if the individuals become terminally ill. Furthermore, the federal Patient Self-Determination Act, which became effective in 1991, required federally certified health-care facilities to notify competent adult patients of their right to accept or refuse medical treatment. The facilities must also inform such patients of their rights under the applicable State law to formulate an advanced directive.
As of mid-1999, only one U.S. State, Oregon, had enacted a law allowing physicians to actively assist patients who wish to end their lives. However, Oregon’s law concerns assisted suicide rather than active euthanasia. It authorised physicians to prescribe lethal amounts of medication that patients then administer themselves.
However, movements seeking to legalise assisted suicide and euthanasia in America have been dealt a death blow by the US Supreme Court decisions in Washington v. Glucksberg13 and Vacco v. Quill14. Through these cases, State laws in New York and Washington which had banned physician assisted suicide have been held to be in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution, defeating arguments contending that the “right” to assistance in committing suicide was protected by the “Due Process” and “Equal Protection Clauses”.
Canada
Patients in Canada have rights similar to those in the United States to refuse life-sustaining treatments and formulate advanced directives. However, they do not have the right to demand assisted suicide or active euthanasia. A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that a complete ban on assisted suicide was necessary and that the interests of the state in protecting its vulnerable citizens superseded the individual rights of a citizen who sought assisted suicide.15
Arguments for legalising euthanasia
Regarding euthanasia, at the present juncture, the debate largely revolves around active euthanasia and not passive euthanasia.
Supporters of euthanasia argue that society is obligated to acknowledge the rights of patients and to respect the decisions of those who elect euthanasia. It is argued that euthanasia respects the individual’s right to self-determination or his right of privacy. Interference with that right can only be justified if it is to protect essential social values, which is not the case where patients suffering unbearably at the end of their lives request euthanasia when no alternatives exist. Not allowing euthanasia would come down to forcing people to suffer against their will, which would be cruel and a negation of their human rights and dignity.
Every person has a right to live with at least a minimum dignity and when the state of his existence falls below even that minimum level then he must be allowed to end such tortuous existence. In such cases relief from suffering (rather than preserving life) should be the primary objective of health-care providers.
Supporters of active euthanasia contend that since society has acknowledged a patient’s right to passive euthanasia (for example, by legally recognising refusal of life-sustaining treatment), active euthanasia should similarly be permitted. When arguing on behalf of legalising active euthanasia, proponents emphasise circumstances in which a condition has become overwhelmingly burdensome for the patient, pain management for the patient is inadequate, and only death seems capable of bringing relief. Moreover, in light of the increasing pressure on hospital and medical facilities, it is argued that the same facilities should be used for the benefit of other patients who have a better chance of recovery and to whom the said facilities would be of greater value. Thus, the argument runs, when one has to choose between a patient beyond recovery and one who may be saved, the latter should be preferred as the former will die in any case.
It is not the case of the supporters of euthanasia that this right is not capable of exploitation. Rather they point out that almost any individual freedom involves some risk of abuse and argue that such risks can be kept to a minimum by using proper legal safeguards. Furthermore, merely because the risk of abuse of a right exists is no reason to deny a person the right itself.
Arguments against legalising euthanasia
The controversy over active euthanasia remains intense, in part because of opposition from religious groups and many members of the legal and medical professions. Opponents of euthanasia treat it as a euphemism for murder and maintain that euthanasia is not the right to die but the right to kill.
They emphasise that health-care providers have professional obligations that prohibit killing and maintain that euthanasia is inconsistent with the roles of nursing, caregiving, and healing. Instead with the rapidly advancing medical science it is very much possible that those ill today may be cured tomorrow. Hence, the society has no right to kill them today and thereby deny them the chance of future recovery.
Further, it is not always that the patient wants to die. The relatives of the patient are also allowed to decide whether to let the patient live. In addition, even where the consent is that of the patient it may be one obtained by force. Use of physical force here is highly unlikely. But emotional and psychological pressures could become overpowering for depressed or dependent people. If the choice of euthanasia is considered as good as a decision to receive care, many people will feel guilty for not choosing death. Moreover, financial considerations, added to the concern about “being a burden,” could serve as a powerful force that would lead a person to “choose” euthanasia or assisted suicide.
Moreover, it is argued that when a healthy person is not allowed to commit suicide then why should a diseased person be allowed to do so. It is pointed out that suicide in a person who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness is no different than suicide for someone who is not considered terminally ill. Depression, family conflict, feelings of abandonment, hopelessness, etc. lead to suicide — regardless of one’s physical condition. Studies have shown that if pain and depression are adequately treated in a dying person — as they would be in a suicidal non-dying person — the desire to commit suicide evaporates. Suicide among the terminally ill, like suicide among the population in general, is a tragic event that cuts short the life of the victim and leaves survivors devastated.
In addition, it is also frequently pointed out that the legislation relating to euthanasia is full of vague and ambiguous terms which allow# the provisions to be easily misused. For example, the term “terminally ill” is not subject to a fixed definition. Even within the medical fraternity (let alone the legal community) there is dispute about who is a terminally ill patient and thus the category could cover a very wide range of patients.
Another favourite argument is that of the “slippery slope”. The slippery slope argument, in short, is that permitting voluntary euthanasia would over the years lead to a slide down the slippery slope and eventually we would end up permitting even non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. The opponents of euthanasia point out the following two examples to display the working of the slippery slope:
In England, the House of Lords in Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland11 permitted non-voluntary euthanasia in case of patients in a persistent vegetative state. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Ireland in Re A Ward of Court16 expanded the persistent vegetative state to include cases where the patient possessed limited cognitive faculties.
In Netherlands, the Supreme Court in a 1984 ruling had held that euthanasia could be lawful only in cases of physical illness. However, a decade down the line, the Supreme Court in Chabot’s case held that it could even extend to cases of mental illness.17
Opponents also argue that permitting physicians to engage in active euthanasia creates intolerable risks of abuse and misuse of the power over life and death. They acknowledge that particular instances of active euthanasia may sometimes be morally justified. However, they maintain that sanctioning the practice of killing would, on balance, cause more harm than benefit.
Settling the debate
A close perusal of the arguments against euthanasia that have been summarised above tends to indicate that all the talk about sanctity of life notwithstanding, the opposition to euthanasia breeds from the fear of misuse of the right if it is permitted. It is feared that placing the discretion in the hands of the doctor would be placing too much power in his hands and he may misuse such power. This fear stems largely from the fact that the discretionary power is placed in the hands of non-judicial personnel (a doctor in this case). This is so because we do not shirk from placing the same kind of power in the hands of a judge (for example, when we give the judge the power to decide whether to award a death sentence or a sentence of imprisonment for life). But what is surprising is that the fear is of the very person (the doctor) in who’s hands we would otherwise not be afraid of placing our lives. A doctor with a scalpel in his hands is acceptable but not a doctor with a fatal injection. What is even more surprising is that ordinarily the law does not readily accept negligence on the part of a doctor. The courts tread with great caution when examining the decision of a doctor and yet his decision in the cases of euthanasia is not considered reliable.
It is felt that a terminally ill patient who suffers from unbearable pain should be allowed to die. Indeed, spending valuable time, money, and facilities on a person who has neither the desire nor the hope of recovery is nothing but a waste of the same. At this juncture it would not be out of place to mention that the “liberty to die”, if not right strictu sensu, may be read as part of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. True that the Supreme Court has held that such an interpretation of Article 21 is incorrect18, but it is submitted that one may try to read the “freedom to die” as flowing from the rights of privacy, autonomy and self-determination, which is what has been done by the Courts of United State and England (refer to the Section dealing with position of euthanasia in other countries). Since the said rights in turn have been held to be included within the ambit of Article 21, the “freedom to die” too would logically be covered by Article 21. This argument is put forward as a possible solution since such questions were not put before the Apex Court in Gian Kaur case3.
Here it is sought only to argue for the legalisation of voluntary (both active and passive) euthanasia. This is because though there may be some cases of non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia where one may sympathise with the patient and in which one may agree that letting the patient die was the best possible option, yet it is believed that it would be very difficult to separate such cases from the other cases of non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. Thus, it is believed that the potential of misuse of provisions allowing non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia is far greater than that of the misuse of provisions seeking to permit voluntary euthanasia.
It is submitted that in the present scheme of criminal law it is not possible to construe the provisions so as to include voluntary euthanasia without including non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Parliament should therefore, by a special legislation legalise voluntary euthanasia while expressly prohibiting non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Legalising euthanasia would not have any effect on the provisions relating to suicide and abetment thereof as euthanasia and suicide are two completely different acts.
Coming back to the argument of the opponents of euthanasia that any legislation legalising voluntary euthanasia would lead to a misuse of the provisions, there could be a scheme by which such misuse could be minimised. It may be true that in Netherlands the provisions justifying voluntary active euthanasia may have been grossly misused19 but such misuse was possible because the procedure for investigating the validity of the death begins only after the death has taken place.
So a fairly practical scheme under which the investigation procedure would begin before the death is suggested and it is only after the investigation is complete that the doctor would be allowed to let the patient die.
A quasi-judicial officer be appointed by the appropriate authority under the proposed statute to supervise all cases of euthanasia within a feasible territory. Such officer must be reasonably well versed with the nuances of medical science. Any doctor who feels that his patient’s request to die should be fulfilled would report such a case to the said supervising officer. The supervisor would then interview the patient to satisfy himself whether the request is free, voluntary and persistent. The supervisor would also then refer the case to a minimum of two other experienced doctors to get their opinion on the case. If both the doctors so referred feel that the patient is beyond recovery, that there is no alternate treatment available and that death would be a more suitable option for him then the supervisor would inform the patient’s relatives about the patient’s request and the doctor’s opinion. Finally, the supervisor would issue a certificate allowing the doctor to let the patient die. Such certificate would also have to bear the signatures of the two doctors to whom the case was referred and of the legal guardian of the patient who would, after a talk with the patient, certify that the consent of the patient was not obtained by force.
It is only once that such a certificate is obtained that the doctor would be allowed to let the patient die.
Though the procedure outlined above may seem cumbersome, it is believed that such safeguards are necessary to minimise the chances of misuse of the right of euthanasia.
The only problematic issue that could arise is regarding the requirement that no other alternative to reduce the pain should be available. Problems could arise when required to decide what is an alternative. Thus would a Rs 5 lakh treatment be an alternative for a person who earns Rs 5000 a year? Similarly, would a treatment available only in Delhi be an alternative for a person living in Port Blair and who cannot afford the passage to Delhi, even if he can afford the treatment? Also, would a doctor be held liable if he is ignorant of any new advancement in medical science? These are problematic issues and would require further extensive discussion. But one should not forget that in a country like India where there is tremendous pressure on the available medical facilities, euthanasia is all the more necessary for the maximum utilisation of the limited facilities.
In the end, we also would do well to remember the following words of Mahatma Gandhi:
“Death is our friend, the truest of friends. He delivers us from agony. I do not want to die of a creeping paralysis of my faculties — a defeated man.”
The word euthanasia is derived from the Greek word “euthanatos” meaning “well death” and originally referred to intentional mercy killing. In the modern context euthanasia is limited to the killing of patients by doctors at the request of the patient in order to free him of excruciating pain or from terminal illness. When medical advances made prolonging of the lives of dying or comatose patients possible, the term euthanasia was also applied to omission to prevent death.
Euthanasia may be classified as active and passive or alternatively as voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary. Active euthanasia involves painlessly putting individuals to death for merciful reasons, as when a doctor administers a lethal dose of medication to a patient. Passive euthanasia involves not doing something to prevent death, as when doctors refrain from using devices necessary to keep alive a terminally ill patient or a patient in a persistent vegetative state. In voluntary euthanasia, a person asks for death (by either active or passive euthanasia). Non-voluntary euthanasia refers to ending the life of a person who is not mentally competent, such as a comatose patient, to make an informed request for death. In addition there is another category of involuntary euthanasia. This is said to occur when a patient is killed against his express will.
It is important that euthanasia is not confused with assisted suicide. The latter involves a patient’s voluntarily bringing about his or her own death with the assistance of another person, typically a physician. In this case, the act is a suicide (intentional self-inflicted death), because the patient actually causes his or her own death. Thus, while in assisted suicide the doctor makes available to the patient the means by which he can kill himself, in euthanasia the doctor himself (by act or omission) kills the patient. The issue of assisted suicide is closely related to that of euthanasia because it also involves questions of similar nature. Furthermore, some countries have preferred to legalise assisted suicide though they remain averse to permitting euthanasia.
The current legal position on euthanasia and assisted suicide in India
In India, euthanasia is undoubtedly illegal. Since in cases of euthanasia or mercy killing there is an intention on the part of the doctor to kill the patient, such cases would clearly fall under clause first of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, as in such cases there is the valid consent of the deceased Exception 5 to the said Section would be attracted and the doctor or mercy killer would be punishable under Section 304 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. But it is only cases of voluntary euthanasia (where the patient consents to death) that would attract Exception 5 to Section 300. Cases of non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia would be struck by proviso one to Section 92 of the IPC and thus be rendered illegal. Euthanasia and suicide are different, distinguishing euthanasia from suicide, Lodha J. in Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India1, observed:
“Suicide by its very nature is an act of self-killing or self-destruction, an act of terminating one’s own act and without the aid or assistance of any other human agency. Euthanasia or mercy killing on the other hand means and implies the intervention of other human agency to end the life. Mercy killing thus is not suicide and an attempt at mercy killing is not covered by the provisions of Section 309. The two concepts are both factually and legally distinct. Euthanasia or mercy killing is nothing but homicide whatever the circumstances in which it is effected.”2 (emphasis added)
The law in India is also very clear on the aspect of assisted suicide. Abetment of suicide is an offence expressly punishable under Sections 305 and 306 of the IPC.
Moreover, after the decision of a five judge bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab3 it is well settled that the “right to life” guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the “right to die”. The Court held that Article 21 is a provision guaranteeing “protection of life and personal liberty” and by no stretch of the imagination can extinction of life be read into it.
The position in other countries
In general countries attempt to draw a line between passive euthanasia (generally associated with allowing a person to die) and active euthanasia (generally associated with killing a person). While laws commonly permit passive euthanasia, active euthanasia is generally prohibited.
Netherlands
Under the Penal Code of Netherlands, killing a person at his request is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of 12 years or by a fine and assisting a person to commit suicide is also punishable by imprisonment upto 3 years or fine.
In spite of the clear wordings of the Code, the Courts of Netherlands have come to interpret the law as providing a defence to charges of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. The defence allowed is that of necessity. The Dutch defence of necessity is of two types. The first is “psychological compulsion” while the second is “emergency”. The latter applies when the accused chooses to break the law in order to promote a higher good. Both these types came to be allowed by the Supreme Court of Netherlands.4
The criteria laid down by the Courts to determine whether the defence of necessity applies in a given case of euthanasia, have been summarised by Mrs Borst-Eilers as follows:
The request for euthanasia must come only from the patient and must be entirely free and voluntary.
The patient’s request must be well considered, durable and persistent.
The patient must be experiencing intolerable (not necessarily physical) suffering, with no prospect of improvement.
Euthanasia must be the last resort. Other alternatives to alleviate the patient’s situation must be considered and found wanting.
Euthanasia must be performed by a physician.
The physician must consult with an independent physician colleague who has experience in this field.5
Thus, though active euthanasia is technically unlawful in the Netherlands, it is considered justified (not legally punishable) if the physician follows the above guidelines.
In the wake of these judicial guidelines a Bill had been introduced in Netherlands’s Parliament# seeking to legalise euthanasia. Recently in April 2001, Netherlands charted out a new chapter in the history of legalising euthanasia when the Upper House of the country passed the Bill by a vote of 46-286. The new law sets forth rules that will make a long-tolerated Dutch practice legal. It allows a doctor to end the life of a patient suffering “unbearable” pain from an incurable condition, if the patient so requests. The law requires a long-standing doctor-patient relationship, patient’s awareness of other available medical options and that the patient must have obtained a second professional opinion. The law also allows people to leave written requests for euthanasia in the nature of “advance directives”7.
Australia
In 1996, the Northern Territory of Australia became the first jurisdiction to explicitly legalise voluntary active euthanasia when it passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, 1996. Though the validity of the Act was upheld by the Supreme Court of Northern Territory in Wake v. Northern Territory of Australia8 a subsequent federal constitutional challenge to the legislation had succeeded. The Federal Parliament of Australia had subsequently passed the Euthanasia Laws Act, 1997 repealing the Northern Territory legislation.9
England
In England, following a series of decisions of the House of Lords it is now settled that a person has the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment as part of his rights of autonomy and self-determination.10 The House of Lords has also permitted non-voluntary euthanasia in case of patients in a persistent vegetative state.11 Moreover, in a recent decision, a British High Court has granted a woman paralysed from the neck, the right to die by having her life support system switched off12.
United States of America
Laws in the United States maintain the distinction between passive and active euthanasia. While active euthanasia is prohibited, the courts have ruled that physicians should not be legally punished if they withhold or withdraw a life-sustaining treatment at the request of a patient or the patient’s authorised representative. These decisions are based on increasing acceptance of the doctrine that patients possess a right to refuse treatment as part of their right to self-determination.
Every U.S. State has adopted laws that authorise legally competent individuals to make advanced directives, often referred to as living wills. Such documents allowed individuals to control some features of the time and manner of their deaths. In particular, these directives, issued when a person is fit and fully capable of making a rational decision, empower and instruct doctors to withhold life-support systems if the individuals become terminally ill. Furthermore, the federal Patient Self-Determination Act, which became effective in 1991, required federally certified health-care facilities to notify competent adult patients of their right to accept or refuse medical treatment. The facilities must also inform such patients of their rights under the applicable State law to formulate an advanced directive.
As of mid-1999, only one U.S. State, Oregon, had enacted a law allowing physicians to actively assist patients who wish to end their lives. However, Oregon’s law concerns assisted suicide rather than active euthanasia. It authorised physicians to prescribe lethal amounts of medication that patients then administer themselves.
However, movements seeking to legalise assisted suicide and euthanasia in America have been dealt a death blow by the US Supreme Court decisions in Washington v. Glucksberg13 and Vacco v. Quill14. Through these cases, State laws in New York and Washington which had banned physician assisted suicide have been held to be in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution, defeating arguments contending that the “right” to assistance in committing suicide was protected by the “Due Process” and “Equal Protection Clauses”.
Canada
Patients in Canada have rights similar to those in the United States to refuse life-sustaining treatments and formulate advanced directives. However, they do not have the right to demand assisted suicide or active euthanasia. A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that a complete ban on assisted suicide was necessary and that the interests of the state in protecting its vulnerable citizens superseded the individual rights of a citizen who sought assisted suicide.15
Arguments for legalising euthanasia
Regarding euthanasia, at the present juncture, the debate largely revolves around active euthanasia and not passive euthanasia.
Supporters of euthanasia argue that society is obligated to acknowledge the rights of patients and to respect the decisions of those who elect euthanasia. It is argued that euthanasia respects the individual’s right to self-determination or his right of privacy. Interference with that right can only be justified if it is to protect essential social values, which is not the case where patients suffering unbearably at the end of their lives request euthanasia when no alternatives exist. Not allowing euthanasia would come down to forcing people to suffer against their will, which would be cruel and a negation of their human rights and dignity.
Every person has a right to live with at least a minimum dignity and when the state of his existence falls below even that minimum level then he must be allowed to end such tortuous existence. In such cases relief from suffering (rather than preserving life) should be the primary objective of health-care providers.
Supporters of active euthanasia contend that since society has acknowledged a patient’s right to passive euthanasia (for example, by legally recognising refusal of life-sustaining treatment), active euthanasia should similarly be permitted. When arguing on behalf of legalising active euthanasia, proponents emphasise circumstances in which a condition has become overwhelmingly burdensome for the patient, pain management for the patient is inadequate, and only death seems capable of bringing relief. Moreover, in light of the increasing pressure on hospital and medical facilities, it is argued that the same facilities should be used for the benefit of other patients who have a better chance of recovery and to whom the said facilities would be of greater value. Thus, the argument runs, when one has to choose between a patient beyond recovery and one who may be saved, the latter should be preferred as the former will die in any case.
It is not the case of the supporters of euthanasia that this right is not capable of exploitation. Rather they point out that almost any individual freedom involves some risk of abuse and argue that such risks can be kept to a minimum by using proper legal safeguards. Furthermore, merely because the risk of abuse of a right exists is no reason to deny a person the right itself.
Arguments against legalising euthanasia
The controversy over active euthanasia remains intense, in part because of opposition from religious groups and many members of the legal and medical professions. Opponents of euthanasia treat it as a euphemism for murder and maintain that euthanasia is not the right to die but the right to kill.
They emphasise that health-care providers have professional obligations that prohibit killing and maintain that euthanasia is inconsistent with the roles of nursing, caregiving, and healing. Instead with the rapidly advancing medical science it is very much possible that those ill today may be cured tomorrow. Hence, the society has no right to kill them today and thereby deny them the chance of future recovery.
Further, it is not always that the patient wants to die. The relatives of the patient are also allowed to decide whether to let the patient live. In addition, even where the consent is that of the patient it may be one obtained by force. Use of physical force here is highly unlikely. But emotional and psychological pressures could become overpowering for depressed or dependent people. If the choice of euthanasia is considered as good as a decision to receive care, many people will feel guilty for not choosing death. Moreover, financial considerations, added to the concern about “being a burden,” could serve as a powerful force that would lead a person to “choose” euthanasia or assisted suicide.
Moreover, it is argued that when a healthy person is not allowed to commit suicide then why should a diseased person be allowed to do so. It is pointed out that suicide in a person who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness is no different than suicide for someone who is not considered terminally ill. Depression, family conflict, feelings of abandonment, hopelessness, etc. lead to suicide — regardless of one’s physical condition. Studies have shown that if pain and depression are adequately treated in a dying person — as they would be in a suicidal non-dying person — the desire to commit suicide evaporates. Suicide among the terminally ill, like suicide among the population in general, is a tragic event that cuts short the life of the victim and leaves survivors devastated.
In addition, it is also frequently pointed out that the legislation relating to euthanasia is full of vague and ambiguous terms which allow# the provisions to be easily misused. For example, the term “terminally ill” is not subject to a fixed definition. Even within the medical fraternity (let alone the legal community) there is dispute about who is a terminally ill patient and thus the category could cover a very wide range of patients.
Another favourite argument is that of the “slippery slope”. The slippery slope argument, in short, is that permitting voluntary euthanasia would over the years lead to a slide down the slippery slope and eventually we would end up permitting even non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. The opponents of euthanasia point out the following two examples to display the working of the slippery slope:
In England, the House of Lords in Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland11 permitted non-voluntary euthanasia in case of patients in a persistent vegetative state. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Ireland in Re A Ward of Court16 expanded the persistent vegetative state to include cases where the patient possessed limited cognitive faculties.
In Netherlands, the Supreme Court in a 1984 ruling had held that euthanasia could be lawful only in cases of physical illness. However, a decade down the line, the Supreme Court in Chabot’s case held that it could even extend to cases of mental illness.17
Opponents also argue that permitting physicians to engage in active euthanasia creates intolerable risks of abuse and misuse of the power over life and death. They acknowledge that particular instances of active euthanasia may sometimes be morally justified. However, they maintain that sanctioning the practice of killing would, on balance, cause more harm than benefit.
Settling the debate
A close perusal of the arguments against euthanasia that have been summarised above tends to indicate that all the talk about sanctity of life notwithstanding, the opposition to euthanasia breeds from the fear of misuse of the right if it is permitted. It is feared that placing the discretion in the hands of the doctor would be placing too much power in his hands and he may misuse such power. This fear stems largely from the fact that the discretionary power is placed in the hands of non-judicial personnel (a doctor in this case). This is so because we do not shirk from placing the same kind of power in the hands of a judge (for example, when we give the judge the power to decide whether to award a death sentence or a sentence of imprisonment for life). But what is surprising is that the fear is of the very person (the doctor) in who’s hands we would otherwise not be afraid of placing our lives. A doctor with a scalpel in his hands is acceptable but not a doctor with a fatal injection. What is even more surprising is that ordinarily the law does not readily accept negligence on the part of a doctor. The courts tread with great caution when examining the decision of a doctor and yet his decision in the cases of euthanasia is not considered reliable.
It is felt that a terminally ill patient who suffers from unbearable pain should be allowed to die. Indeed, spending valuable time, money, and facilities on a person who has neither the desire nor the hope of recovery is nothing but a waste of the same. At this juncture it would not be out of place to mention that the “liberty to die”, if not right strictu sensu, may be read as part of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. True that the Supreme Court has held that such an interpretation of Article 21 is incorrect18, but it is submitted that one may try to read the “freedom to die” as flowing from the rights of privacy, autonomy and self-determination, which is what has been done by the Courts of United State and England (refer to the Section dealing with position of euthanasia in other countries). Since the said rights in turn have been held to be included within the ambit of Article 21, the “freedom to die” too would logically be covered by Article 21. This argument is put forward as a possible solution since such questions were not put before the Apex Court in Gian Kaur case3.
Here it is sought only to argue for the legalisation of voluntary (both active and passive) euthanasia. This is because though there may be some cases of non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia where one may sympathise with the patient and in which one may agree that letting the patient die was the best possible option, yet it is believed that it would be very difficult to separate such cases from the other cases of non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. Thus, it is believed that the potential of misuse of provisions allowing non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia is far greater than that of the misuse of provisions seeking to permit voluntary euthanasia.
It is submitted that in the present scheme of criminal law it is not possible to construe the provisions so as to include voluntary euthanasia without including non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Parliament should therefore, by a special legislation legalise voluntary euthanasia while expressly prohibiting non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Legalising euthanasia would not have any effect on the provisions relating to suicide and abetment thereof as euthanasia and suicide are two completely different acts.
Coming back to the argument of the opponents of euthanasia that any legislation legalising voluntary euthanasia would lead to a misuse of the provisions, there could be a scheme by which such misuse could be minimised. It may be true that in Netherlands the provisions justifying voluntary active euthanasia may have been grossly misused19 but such misuse was possible because the procedure for investigating the validity of the death begins only after the death has taken place.
So a fairly practical scheme under which the investigation procedure would begin before the death is suggested and it is only after the investigation is complete that the doctor would be allowed to let the patient die.
A quasi-judicial officer be appointed by the appropriate authority under the proposed statute to supervise all cases of euthanasia within a feasible territory. Such officer must be reasonably well versed with the nuances of medical science. Any doctor who feels that his patient’s request to die should be fulfilled would report such a case to the said supervising officer. The supervisor would then interview the patient to satisfy himself whether the request is free, voluntary and persistent. The supervisor would also then refer the case to a minimum of two other experienced doctors to get their opinion on the case. If both the doctors so referred feel that the patient is beyond recovery, that there is no alternate treatment available and that death would be a more suitable option for him then the supervisor would inform the patient’s relatives about the patient’s request and the doctor’s opinion. Finally, the supervisor would issue a certificate allowing the doctor to let the patient die. Such certificate would also have to bear the signatures of the two doctors to whom the case was referred and of the legal guardian of the patient who would, after a talk with the patient, certify that the consent of the patient was not obtained by force.
It is only once that such a certificate is obtained that the doctor would be allowed to let the patient die.
Though the procedure outlined above may seem cumbersome, it is believed that such safeguards are necessary to minimise the chances of misuse of the right of euthanasia.
The only problematic issue that could arise is regarding the requirement that no other alternative to reduce the pain should be available. Problems could arise when required to decide what is an alternative. Thus would a Rs 5 lakh treatment be an alternative for a person who earns Rs 5000 a year? Similarly, would a treatment available only in Delhi be an alternative for a person living in Port Blair and who cannot afford the passage to Delhi, even if he can afford the treatment? Also, would a doctor be held liable if he is ignorant of any new advancement in medical science? These are problematic issues and would require further extensive discussion. But one should not forget that in a country like India where there is tremendous pressure on the available medical facilities, euthanasia is all the more necessary for the maximum utilisation of the limited facilities.
In the end, we also would do well to remember the following words of Mahatma Gandhi:
“Death is our friend, the truest of friends. He delivers us from agony. I do not want to die of a creeping paralysis of my faculties — a defeated man.”
Monday, May 11, 2009
Moot Event
OM SAI RAAM
Finally.. yeah finally exams are over and am back.. what a week we have had.. late night studies and day long planning for how to go about the subject.. plans which always.... failed.. i guess thats students life.. jurisprudence exam was the worst.. i am keeping my fingers crossed.. i hope i dont activate my account of BACK PAPERS.. anyways.. junior batches still have to give some exams..best of luck to them!
And yes.. yes,, my BLOG made it to my college website.. ! it got listed there..
The Moot Court Society of B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) course managed to get all the permissions work done and now the good news is that we are on with our very first National Moot Court Competition being organised in our faculty.. it is a huge event.. and the work has started already.. It will be held on 22nd August in Our faculty of law.. It will be a "Taxation Moot"..
The students are excited...some are not.. never mind exceptions are always there and we should thank them for breaking the monotony :)..
The preparations.. maintenance work and all is being drafted and will probably commence soon.. Different student committees are being set up for particular work..
more details will be known soon .. i am in support of this event and wil do all possible to make it work and not only work but make it a successful event,..so that in future.. we dont approach organisers..THEY APPROACH US .. see ya!
Finally.. yeah finally exams are over and am back.. what a week we have had.. late night studies and day long planning for how to go about the subject.. plans which always.... failed.. i guess thats students life.. jurisprudence exam was the worst.. i am keeping my fingers crossed.. i hope i dont activate my account of BACK PAPERS.. anyways.. junior batches still have to give some exams..best of luck to them!
And yes.. yes,, my BLOG made it to my college website.. ! it got listed there..
The Moot Court Society of B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) course managed to get all the permissions work done and now the good news is that we are on with our very first National Moot Court Competition being organised in our faculty.. it is a huge event.. and the work has started already.. It will be held on 22nd August in Our faculty of law.. It will be a "Taxation Moot"..
The students are excited...some are not.. never mind exceptions are always there and we should thank them for breaking the monotony :)..
The preparations.. maintenance work and all is being drafted and will probably commence soon.. Different student committees are being set up for particular work..
more details will be known soon .. i am in support of this event and wil do all possible to make it work and not only work but make it a successful event,..so that in future.. we dont approach organisers..THEY APPROACH US .. see ya!
Saturday, March 21, 2009
OM SAI RAAM,
We are in for a tough and hectic...cumbersome.. schedule now... thanks to the unwieldy faculty system... assignment sheets and test papers for the internals was not available.. hence for all this ..of which students are not part of.. the workload has accumulated to the last month of the semester ,April'09 .. they have nothing to lose.. its us who loose.. anyways.. however strongly i say this.. it will not do any better for us.. its been like this for long .. i am what IIT'ians flamboyantly term as being "frust" (abbv. Frustration) ..
Today i wish to write few things about two of my GOD SENT ANGEL FRIENDS .. Parul And Rajnish (**PARI**)... They have been like the best of friends for me... most supportive of me when the world was standing for a face off with me.. they are a blessing,.. They support me in every damn thing.. rajjo is one guy who has been as honest and as good a frnd one can have.. (C.J>,my best friend is the best althoug...)... Parul,ohhh.. areeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee what to say about this gal.. a very emotional.. at times very irrational.. but gem of a person with a golden heart.. I dont know how precious they are. . thanks guys.. i love u and i need u.. CJ.. u r my life.. !
We are in for a tough and hectic...cumbersome.. schedule now... thanks to the unwieldy faculty system... assignment sheets and test papers for the internals was not available.. hence for all this ..of which students are not part of.. the workload has accumulated to the last month of the semester ,April'09 .. they have nothing to lose.. its us who loose.. anyways.. however strongly i say this.. it will not do any better for us.. its been like this for long .. i am what IIT'ians flamboyantly term as being "frust" (abbv. Frustration) ..
Today i wish to write few things about two of my GOD SENT ANGEL FRIENDS .. Parul And Rajnish (**PARI**)... They have been like the best of friends for me... most supportive of me when the world was standing for a face off with me.. they are a blessing,.. They support me in every damn thing.. rajjo is one guy who has been as honest and as good a frnd one can have.. (C.J>,my best friend is the best althoug...)... Parul,ohhh.. areeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee what to say about this gal.. a very emotional.. at times very irrational.. but gem of a person with a golden heart.. I dont know how precious they are. . thanks guys.. i love u and i need u.. CJ.. u r my life.. !
Friday, March 20, 2009
RESULTS!
OM SAI RAAM,
Results are out.. finally after three months of wait and anxiety .. i secured good enough marks .. i got around 68% marks.. I donno what this means to me.. i mean will this marksheet do me any good in the long run? i dont think it will.. expect certifying that i did law and i am a lawyer :).. anyways..for the present, its a great feeling to have got a FIRST DIVISION marksheet in your hand ... time passes swiftly .. Up's Downs... trusts,,betrayals,,fights,arguments,politics,relations beginning and ending.. have seen it all during these five semesters i have passed here.. lost few friends.. infact the cosy'ness for sure.. lost my precius darrow too.. huh! No regrets.. Whereever they are whatever they do.. may Sai Baba bless them all.. specially darrow who holds a very special (SILENT) place deep in my heart..
i am not a very impressive or expressive writer .. but i just cant help it.. i am working on it.. this blog helps me write and practice.. i have become besotted with my blog..
Sanyukta tops again making it 5 out of 5 so far .. she has topped all the 5 semesters in a row.. isnt it amazing? Invincible.. may SAI BABA bless her always.. pragati and Namrata have really proven themselves and their potential time and again.. i hope they dont mind me putting up their name here on MY BLOG .. anyways they got the second and third position respetively.. Good going guys..
i shall go now...
good night!
Results are out.. finally after three months of wait and anxiety .. i secured good enough marks .. i got around 68% marks.. I donno what this means to me.. i mean will this marksheet do me any good in the long run? i dont think it will.. expect certifying that i did law and i am a lawyer :).. anyways..for the present, its a great feeling to have got a FIRST DIVISION marksheet in your hand ... time passes swiftly .. Up's Downs... trusts,,betrayals,,fights,arguments,politics,relations beginning and ending.. have seen it all during these five semesters i have passed here.. lost few friends.. infact the cosy'ness for sure.. lost my precius darrow too.. huh! No regrets.. Whereever they are whatever they do.. may Sai Baba bless them all.. specially darrow who holds a very special (SILENT) place deep in my heart..
i am not a very impressive or expressive writer .. but i just cant help it.. i am working on it.. this blog helps me write and practice.. i have become besotted with my blog..
Sanyukta tops again making it 5 out of 5 so far .. she has topped all the 5 semesters in a row.. isnt it amazing? Invincible.. may SAI BABA bless her always.. pragati and Namrata have really proven themselves and their potential time and again.. i hope they dont mind me putting up their name here on MY BLOG .. anyways they got the second and third position respetively.. Good going guys..
i shall go now...
good night!
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
OM SAI RAAM,
My net connection was all concked out.. i could not write.. i felt rather incomplete.. this is getting addictive i suppose but the truth is that I AM LOVING IT! There are few people to whom i speak my heart out... honestly.. My life, its transition, my mind .. nobody knows about it.. its me and only me who knows.. Only one person is there to whom i can speak all i have in my heart.. in my mind and all the various other things but then time and means outplay me.. defeat me and i stay alone .. I feel, sometimes, that what have i earned so far in my life of 7000 odd days? .. nothing.. could not be a good student to make my parents proud or to do anything justify the sur name i got from my parents .."Sinha"... a family which had a Freedom fighter, President Of the Communist party .. Indian government's representative at the ILO.... Late Sri Ghanshyam Sharan Sinha, my grand father... a family which had A dedicated housewife who nurtured her 4 sons and 1 daughter alone when her husband was behind the bars during the Emergency days .. or when he was on his world tours for the party meetings... she is Smt. Savitri Ghanshyam Sinha, my grandmother.. \
What could i do? Nothing is the reply that echoes in my mind.. A life wasted till now..
Donno really whether what way my life is moving.. .. is it really moving or just crawling i presume...!
Baba(my grand father) has been an inspiration.. epitome of gentleness and honesty.. ! My Uncle's and Dadi tell me how he refused to join Late Mrs.Indira Gandhi after the 76' emergency just because he had dedicated hs life to the Trade Unions and its welfare. He was offered to Join the congress and a lucrative ministry was also offered .. but he refused.. Will i ever be able to do justice to his legacy? will i ever be able to give in even an iota of the dedication he had ?.. I doubt!
i recently read a book that was dedicated to my grandfather and it as fascinating... !
Sri Atal Bihari Vajpayee , Sri George fernandes,Sri Krishnamurthy(Ex-CEC),Sri V.P.Singh,Comrade Ram Asre,etc etc have been close friends and associates to my grandfather.. who left us on 4-4-94..
this post is dedicated to him.. to salute him and to get inspired..
Akshat!
My net connection was all concked out.. i could not write.. i felt rather incomplete.. this is getting addictive i suppose but the truth is that I AM LOVING IT! There are few people to whom i speak my heart out... honestly.. My life, its transition, my mind .. nobody knows about it.. its me and only me who knows.. Only one person is there to whom i can speak all i have in my heart.. in my mind and all the various other things but then time and means outplay me.. defeat me and i stay alone .. I feel, sometimes, that what have i earned so far in my life of 7000 odd days? .. nothing.. could not be a good student to make my parents proud or to do anything justify the sur name i got from my parents .."Sinha"... a family which had a Freedom fighter, President Of the Communist party .. Indian government's representative at the ILO.... Late Sri Ghanshyam Sharan Sinha, my grand father... a family which had A dedicated housewife who nurtured her 4 sons and 1 daughter alone when her husband was behind the bars during the Emergency days .. or when he was on his world tours for the party meetings... she is Smt. Savitri Ghanshyam Sinha, my grandmother.. \
What could i do? Nothing is the reply that echoes in my mind.. A life wasted till now..
Donno really whether what way my life is moving.. .. is it really moving or just crawling i presume...!
Baba(my grand father) has been an inspiration.. epitome of gentleness and honesty.. ! My Uncle's and Dadi tell me how he refused to join Late Mrs.Indira Gandhi after the 76' emergency just because he had dedicated hs life to the Trade Unions and its welfare. He was offered to Join the congress and a lucrative ministry was also offered .. but he refused.. Will i ever be able to do justice to his legacy? will i ever be able to give in even an iota of the dedication he had ?.. I doubt!
i recently read a book that was dedicated to my grandfather and it as fascinating... !
Sri Atal Bihari Vajpayee , Sri George fernandes,Sri Krishnamurthy(Ex-CEC),Sri V.P.Singh,Comrade Ram Asre,etc etc have been close friends and associates to my grandfather.. who left us on 4-4-94..
this post is dedicated to him.. to salute him and to get inspired..
Akshat!
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Quiz
OM SAI RAAM,
Today Rahul and Jai organised a wonderful and very well crafted QUIZ COMPETITION. The question were good (I THANK MY STARS THAT I DIDNT PARTICIPATE). It was a great event with great response from the Students of BALLB(hons) course of the University Of Allahabad. There were basically two elimination rounds where the 15 participating teams were asked 3 questions each carrying two marks for the correct answer and -1 for each wrong answer. After the first elimination 10 teams were left and then on the same pattern the 2nd elimination round went ahead..leaving behind only 5 times to compete in the SEMI FINALS.. Semi's had 4 three set of rounds again which were rapid fire..audion/visuals.. and face it or pass it..
finally the team T-5 of Abhijeet Dwivedi and Saumitra Dwivedi and T- 2 of Prashant Mishra and Manish Singh qualified all these tough rounds to reach the finals. T-2 was finally adjudged the winners of the Competition. T-5gave them a good run for their money but lost marginally .. never mind.. they definitely were very good.. but ultimately it was prashant and manish who conquered this event.
Congrats to them! and a special congrats to Jai and Rahul for organising this very good and important competition.. Kudos!
Today Rahul and Jai organised a wonderful and very well crafted QUIZ COMPETITION. The question were good (I THANK MY STARS THAT I DIDNT PARTICIPATE). It was a great event with great response from the Students of BALLB(hons) course of the University Of Allahabad. There were basically two elimination rounds where the 15 participating teams were asked 3 questions each carrying two marks for the correct answer and -1 for each wrong answer. After the first elimination 10 teams were left and then on the same pattern the 2nd elimination round went ahead..leaving behind only 5 times to compete in the SEMI FINALS.. Semi's had 4 three set of rounds again which were rapid fire..audion/visuals.. and face it or pass it..
finally the team T-5 of Abhijeet Dwivedi and Saumitra Dwivedi and T- 2 of Prashant Mishra and Manish Singh qualified all these tough rounds to reach the finals. T-2 was finally adjudged the winners of the Competition. T-5gave them a good run for their money but lost marginally .. never mind.. they definitely were very good.. but ultimately it was prashant and manish who conquered this event.
Congrats to them! and a special congrats to Jai and Rahul for organising this very good and important competition.. Kudos!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
memorable.. mangarh or being a taxi driver?
few days back... some of us went for a trip to a place called Mangarh. Its actually ashram of One Kripalu Ji maharaj.. it was fun as there friends alongwith .. but today all that happiness.. memories.. good times.. friendship... got a slap... a hard slap.. i thought with this trip all the hatchets will be buried.. all the misunderstandings will be set aside and there will be a new beginning.. but nothing happened.... today i was paid by two of MY friends.. [ mind u they are my friends and am not their frnd :) ].. i was paid Rs. 220/- hard cash.. for what? hey people.. for my services yaar./.. i actually took my car for the trip na.. thats why.. taxi chalayi maine .. :) its life i guess.. I know they could have done the same thing in so many other ways.. i gave that money to my dad today..that this is for ur car that u gave me and my friends.. he was hurt.. and is not talking to me.. i tell u.. I AM HURT too.. but its okay.. No complaints.. i was treated the way i deserved.. one of them was my long time,most precious,most respected and most missed friend of mine ( does this matter? no it doesnt but this is my blog and i can write anything i want to.. ) .. and the other one was a person i adore for sure.. anyways.. i wish and i pray that they dont read this ever..i dont wanna make them feel bad yaar ( REMEMBER THEY ARE MY FRIENDS).. this is written by me,for me and to me.. may SAI BABA bless all my friends..long live my friends and best of luck to all.. love and wishes.,
Akshat!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
hi all,
actually my elder brother,Anshul Sinha, is organizing a festival at Mumbai for the orphans,physically challenged and neglected children of the society. The poster of that festival is here on the left..anyways for this event that will run for 2 days -28th Feb and 1st of march '2009 he needs funds. I know its genuine and thats why i am supporting it and i request you all to support me too and donate and contribute as much as you can ..ask your parents.. relatives .. for this.. I seek your support... please and please...
Affly yours,
akshat!
Today we introduced officially the competition that we (The Editorial Commitee) are planning to start on weekly basis. Its called "J.A.W."- Just A Word ... we expect a good participation in this event cause it will help our friends at college to improve on their language and power of expression! the event is starting on the 14th february'09. Hope we succeed ! The support and suggestions is expected and needed!
Monday, February 9, 2009
LEXFEST'09-The NEw CUlt
hey my people!
See we are over with our cultural fest today! it was fun n fun al the way!Anubhav and shefali deserve accolades! I knew there wont be much comments on my blog :) never mind! i love typing in here n so i will do that.. anyways.. will write much later...
Monday, February 2, 2009
Next Prime Minister!
hey all,
i read an article today in a reputed news paper...that Ms. Mayawati has the highest changes of becoming the next Prime Minister of Our country.. next in queue is Dr.Manmohan Singh and the Mr. L.K.Advani.. Mayawati's chances were reported to be around 40-45%, while that of Mr.Manmohan Singh is 20-25 % and that of Shri Advani is around 10-15%..
What do you think? Come have a say! do support your view with some reasons!
eagerly waiting!
Akshat!
Monday, October 20, 2008
Data Theft in Cyber Space – Issues and Laws
Data Theft in Cyber Space – Issues and Laws
The rapid development of Information technology poses new challenges before the law. These challenges are not confined to any single traditional legal category but arise in, for example, Criminal Law, Intellectual Property Law, Contract and Tort. One such challenge is the growing menace of “Data Theft”. It is the term used when any information in the form of data is illegally copied or taken from a business or other individual without his knowledge or consent.
Data as a valuable asset
Data is a valuable asset in this modern era of Information Technology (IT). Data is an important raw-material for Call Centers and I.T. Companies. Data has also become an important tool and weapon for Corporates to capture larger market shares. Due to the importance of Data in this new era, its security has become a major issue with the I.T. industry. The piracy of data is a threat, faced by the I.T. players, who spend millions to compile or buy data from the market. Their profits depend upon the security of the Data.
Issues
The major issue regarding Data Theft is its International character, for example Systems may be accessed in USA, the data manipulated in China and the consequences felt in India. The result of this ability is that different sovereignties, jurisdictions, laws and rules will come into play which again is an issue in itself. Further, collection of evidence in such circumstances become another issue as investigation in three different countries, all of whom may not be in talking terms, is almost impossible and poor technical know-how of our cops adds to the woes. Also, the lack of coordination between different investigating agencies and a not-so-sure extradition process is another head ache. However the biggest of all these issues is the lack of specific laws in the country dealing with this crime, so even if the culprit is caught he can easily get away by picking and choosing any of the of various loopholes in our law.
Does India have sufficient Laws?
The problem of data theft which has emerged as one of the major cyber crimes worldwide has attracted little attention of law makers in India. Unlike U.K which has The Data Protection Act, 1984 there is no specific legislation in India to tackle this problem, though India boasts of its Information Technology Act, 2000 to address the ever growing menace of cyber crimes, including data theft. The truth is that our IT Act, 2000 is not well equipped to tackle such crimes. The various provisions of the IT Act, 2000 which deal with the problem to some extent are briefly discussed below.
Section 43:- This section provides protection against destruction and unauthorized access of the computer system by imposing heavy penalty up to one crore. The unauthorized downloading, extraction and copying of data are also covered under this section. Clause ‘C’ of this section imposes penalty for unauthorized introduction of computer viruses of contaminants. Clause ‘G’ provides penalties for assisting the unauthorized access.
Section 65:- This section provides for computer source code. If anyone knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroys, alters or causes another to do as such shall have to suffer imprisonment of up to 3 years or fine up to 2 lakh rupees. Thus protection has been provided against tampering of computer source documents.
Section 66:- Protection against hacking has been provided under this section. As per this section, hacking is defined as any act with an intention to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person or with the knowledge that wrongful loss or damage will be caused to any person and information residing in a computer resource must be either destroyed, deleted, altered or its value and utility get diminished. This section imposes the penalty of imprisonment of up to three years or fine up to two lakh rupees or both on the hacker.
Section 70:- This section provides protection to the data stored in the protected system. Protected systems are those computers, computer system or computer network to which the appropriate government, by issuing gazette information in the official gazette, declared it as a protected system. Any access or attempt to secure access of that system in contravention of the provision of this section will make the person accessed liable for punishment of imprisonment which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 72:- This section provides protection against breach of confidentiality and privacy of the data. As per this, any person upon whom powers have been conferred under IT Act and allied rules to secure access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information document of other material discloses it to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or both.
Can Data Theft be covered under IPC?
Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines ‘Theft’ as follows:-
Theft – Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Section 22 of I.P.C., 1860 defines “movable property” as follows:-
“The words “movable property” are intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.”
Since Section 378 I.P.C., only refers to “Movable Property” i.e. Corporeal Property, and Data by itself is intangible, it is not covered under the definition of "Theft”. However, if Data is stored in a medium (CD, Floppy etc.) and such medium is stolen, it would be covered under the definition of ‘Theft’, since the medium is a movable property. But, if Data is transmitted electronically, i.e., in intangible form, it would not specifically constitute theft under the IPC.
“Data”, in its intangible form, can at best be put at par with electricity. The question whether electricity could be stolen, arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case “Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab” (AIR 1965 SC 666). Answering the question, the Supreme Court held that electricity is not a movable property, hence, is not covered under the definition of ‘Theft’ under Section 378 IPC. However, since Section 39 of the Electricity Act extended Section 378 IPC to apply to electricity, so it so became specifically covered within the meaning of “Theft”. It is therefore imperative that a provision like in the Electricity Act be inserted in the IT Act, 2000 to extend the application of section 378 IPC to data theft specifically.
What do we need and why do we need?
It is imperative in today’s world that an emerging IT super power like India has a comprehensive legislation to protect its booming IT and BPO Industries (worst affected industries) against such crimes. Though the IT Act may appear sufficient in this regard but it is not comprehensive enough to tackle the minute technological intricacies involved in such a crime which leaves loopholes in the law and the culprits get away easily. Since this problem is not confined to one nation and has international dimensions, India must look forward to be a signatory to any international convention or treaty in this regard. Also it high time that our national police organizations are trained to deal with such crimes.
The rapid development of Information technology poses new challenges before the law. These challenges are not confined to any single traditional legal category but arise in, for example, Criminal Law, Intellectual Property Law, Contract and Tort. One such challenge is the growing menace of “Data Theft”. It is the term used when any information in the form of data is illegally copied or taken from a business or other individual without his knowledge or consent.
Data as a valuable asset
Data is a valuable asset in this modern era of Information Technology (IT). Data is an important raw-material for Call Centers and I.T. Companies. Data has also become an important tool and weapon for Corporates to capture larger market shares. Due to the importance of Data in this new era, its security has become a major issue with the I.T. industry. The piracy of data is a threat, faced by the I.T. players, who spend millions to compile or buy data from the market. Their profits depend upon the security of the Data.
Issues
The major issue regarding Data Theft is its International character, for example Systems may be accessed in USA, the data manipulated in China and the consequences felt in India. The result of this ability is that different sovereignties, jurisdictions, laws and rules will come into play which again is an issue in itself. Further, collection of evidence in such circumstances become another issue as investigation in three different countries, all of whom may not be in talking terms, is almost impossible and poor technical know-how of our cops adds to the woes. Also, the lack of coordination between different investigating agencies and a not-so-sure extradition process is another head ache. However the biggest of all these issues is the lack of specific laws in the country dealing with this crime, so even if the culprit is caught he can easily get away by picking and choosing any of the of various loopholes in our law.
Does India have sufficient Laws?
The problem of data theft which has emerged as one of the major cyber crimes worldwide has attracted little attention of law makers in India. Unlike U.K which has The Data Protection Act, 1984 there is no specific legislation in India to tackle this problem, though India boasts of its Information Technology Act, 2000 to address the ever growing menace of cyber crimes, including data theft. The truth is that our IT Act, 2000 is not well equipped to tackle such crimes. The various provisions of the IT Act, 2000 which deal with the problem to some extent are briefly discussed below.
Section 43:- This section provides protection against destruction and unauthorized access of the computer system by imposing heavy penalty up to one crore. The unauthorized downloading, extraction and copying of data are also covered under this section. Clause ‘C’ of this section imposes penalty for unauthorized introduction of computer viruses of contaminants. Clause ‘G’ provides penalties for assisting the unauthorized access.
Section 65:- This section provides for computer source code. If anyone knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroys, alters or causes another to do as such shall have to suffer imprisonment of up to 3 years or fine up to 2 lakh rupees. Thus protection has been provided against tampering of computer source documents.
Section 66:- Protection against hacking has been provided under this section. As per this section, hacking is defined as any act with an intention to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person or with the knowledge that wrongful loss or damage will be caused to any person and information residing in a computer resource must be either destroyed, deleted, altered or its value and utility get diminished. This section imposes the penalty of imprisonment of up to three years or fine up to two lakh rupees or both on the hacker.
Section 70:- This section provides protection to the data stored in the protected system. Protected systems are those computers, computer system or computer network to which the appropriate government, by issuing gazette information in the official gazette, declared it as a protected system. Any access or attempt to secure access of that system in contravention of the provision of this section will make the person accessed liable for punishment of imprisonment which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 72:- This section provides protection against breach of confidentiality and privacy of the data. As per this, any person upon whom powers have been conferred under IT Act and allied rules to secure access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information document of other material discloses it to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or both.
Can Data Theft be covered under IPC?
Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines ‘Theft’ as follows:-
Theft – Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Section 22 of I.P.C., 1860 defines “movable property” as follows:-
“The words “movable property” are intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.”
Since Section 378 I.P.C., only refers to “Movable Property” i.e. Corporeal Property, and Data by itself is intangible, it is not covered under the definition of "Theft”. However, if Data is stored in a medium (CD, Floppy etc.) and such medium is stolen, it would be covered under the definition of ‘Theft’, since the medium is a movable property. But, if Data is transmitted electronically, i.e., in intangible form, it would not specifically constitute theft under the IPC.
“Data”, in its intangible form, can at best be put at par with electricity. The question whether electricity could be stolen, arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case “Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab” (AIR 1965 SC 666). Answering the question, the Supreme Court held that electricity is not a movable property, hence, is not covered under the definition of ‘Theft’ under Section 378 IPC. However, since Section 39 of the Electricity Act extended Section 378 IPC to apply to electricity, so it so became specifically covered within the meaning of “Theft”. It is therefore imperative that a provision like in the Electricity Act be inserted in the IT Act, 2000 to extend the application of section 378 IPC to data theft specifically.
What do we need and why do we need?
It is imperative in today’s world that an emerging IT super power like India has a comprehensive legislation to protect its booming IT and BPO Industries (worst affected industries) against such crimes. Though the IT Act may appear sufficient in this regard but it is not comprehensive enough to tackle the minute technological intricacies involved in such a crime which leaves loopholes in the law and the culprits get away easily. Since this problem is not confined to one nation and has international dimensions, India must look forward to be a signatory to any international convention or treaty in this regard. Also it high time that our national police organizations are trained to deal with such crimes.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
Throughout the world, the theme ‘judicial independence’ assumes large importance and is a matter of deep concern in many countries.Legal institutions play a key role in the distribution of power and rights and in the over all development of the country. They also underpin the forms and functions of other institutions that deliver public services and regulate market practices. But inequitable justice system may perpetuate inequality traps. Therefore, building a more equitable justice system is very important.In every country, there had been a struggle for judicial independence and a proper justice system. In the United Kingdom, from where we borrowed our system, had a long history of struggle between the Parliament and the Monarchy as both of them wanted to control the judiciary. In early period, there was no security of tenure and the pressure doctrine was applied. In the 17th century, the Parliament passed a Settlement Act which stipulated that the tenure of the judges would be subject to good behaviour and their removal after an address to both Houses of Parliament. The independence of the judiciary in America is enshrined in Article III of the American Constitution which says that “The Judges, of the Supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behaviour and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”In India, in so many provincial States, there was independent and well-knitted judicial system. Though the judges were appointed by the Crown in many States, the judges were allowed to act independently free from any interference from the Crown. When the people of India adopted the Constitution, all these principles were expressly taken into consideration and the judicial independence is protected by various provisions of the Constitution.The independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by the Constitution of India which enacts that every Judge of the Supreme Court will hold office until he attains the age of 65 years and that every Judge of the High Court until the age of 62 years. The Parliament is authorized to prescribe the privileges, allowance, leave and pension of the Judges of the Supreme Court, subject to the safeguard that these cannot be varied during the course of tenure of the judges to their disadvantages. No Judge shall be removed from his office by the President except upon the presentation to him of an address by each House of Parliament for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Courts is appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as he may deem necessary. The Constitution of India insulates the Supreme Court and the High Courts from political criticism, and thus ensures their independence from political pressures and influence, by laying down that neither in Parliament nor in a State Legislature the conduct of a Supreme Court or the High Court Judge in the discharge of his duties can be discussed. The independence of judiciary is further protected bytreating the superior courts are the ‘court of record’. The members of the subordinate judiciary are also protected by the provisions of the Judicial Protection Act.In S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, 1981 Suppl. 87, this Court has held that :-“The concept of independence of the judiciary is a noble concept which inspires the constitutional scheme and constitutes the foundation on which rests the edifice of our democratic polity. If there is one principle which runs through the entire fabric of the Constitution, it is the principle of the rule of law under the Constitution, it is the judiciary which is entrusted with the task of keeping every organ of the State within the limits of the law thereby making the rule of law meaningful and effective.”However, one must appreciate that the immunities provided to ensure judicial independence are intended for the benefit of the litigants in particular and the citizens in general. Misuse of these privileges by some, has also led to a call for common standards of conduct and better accountability from the judiciary. The size and complexities of the judiciary has increased so many times in a modern welfare State. Public information campaigns and enhances the independence and accountability of the courts, by increasing public confidence in and commitment to the system. The society has got a right to demand better governance from the judiciary. Many citizens now want judges to be accountable as they feel that there are no avenues for them to remedy the minor mis-behaviour and mal-treatment of witnesses or litigants at the hands of the judges. They sometimes feel that these minor mis-behaviour and mal-treatment are not corrected by superior courts and that the superior courts would protect their own men and it is useless to make complaints. Therefore, accountability and transparency are the very essence of democracy. Like every other institution dealing with the public, the judicial arm of the government also is accountable. But the accountability of the judiciary is different from the form of accountability that is expected from the executive or any other public institutions. Expectation of independence and impartiality is much higher from the judiciary than any other organ. Deciding the cases before them in expeditious and fair manner and giving reasonedorders is another aspect of such accountability. Judiciary should not feel that adhering to the standards of accountability is inimical to its independence. The strength of any judicial institution must depend on the standards of accountability that it sets. Higher the standard, the more respect it will draw from the citizens as well as the international community.The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct were approved and finalized in November 2002 by the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity in collaboration with the Consultative Council of European Judges of the Council of Europe and the American Bar Association. These principles were presented to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in April 2003 and they were unanimously supported by the member States. In a resolution the Commission noted these Principles and called upon member States, the relevant UN organs, intergovernmental organizations and non-govermental organizations to take them into consideration. In many commonwealth countries judicial accountability has assumed importance and the judiciary in many countries can no longer use judicial independence as a defence for providing accountability. It is also held that one method of ensuring judicial accountability is to ensure speedy and relatively transparent method of dealing with complaints against the judiciary.One must realize that while in countries like India where the judiciary is relied upon by the citizenry to solve many of their difficulties, it is the consistent standards of accountability that give the Indian judiciary this strength. The moment this judicial accountability wavers, political forces and vested interests would not hesitate to use it as a tool to reduce the credibility of the judiciary. Whereas, a strong judicial institution can often lead to a stable political atmosphere as well as better governance by the State.We must also recognize that maintaining the highest standards in terms of judicial work and justice delivery is also inherent to the idea of judicial accountability. This essentially requires that the judiciary at all levels is not only highly skilled but is also kept abreast with the latest development in the law and practice. Thus constant training and upgradation of skills must be part of any judicial officer’s schedule. Such training modules must necessarily include a study of the international legal scenario, including subjects, such as, international human rights, humanitarian, refugee law, intellectual property law and environment law. A judicial officer must also be in constant know of the social and economic reality of his country to ensure that his judgments are practical as well as acceptable to the public. It is only when a judicial officer if equipped with such knowledge that he can match the high standards of expectations that most countries have from the judiciary, as opposed to other arms of the State. As has been evident, a mis-match of expectations and delivery from all organs of the State is sometimes the recipe for large-scale human suffering.At the same time, we need to remind ourselves that perhaps the worst form of injustice in any civilized society is injustice perpetrated through the judicial process. The judiciary in every polity has been provided with several immunities under their respective Constitutions to ensure their smooth and impartial functioning. However, it is well understood that if the judiciary by their performance and conduct does not meet the expectations for which such Constitutional protection has been provided, the judiciary will be reduced to any other organ of the State which we have come to distrust in recent times.It is, therefore, of utmost importance that a Court or a Tribunal should be perceived as independent, as well as impartial in the performance of its duties, and the perception of the public in general is as important a test as that of experts.However, it is also acknowledged that judicial accountability if stretched too far can seriously harm judicial independence and thus it is essential that we strike the right balance between the two. Relying on the strong tradition of sharing of ideas and experiences amongst the judiciary across the commonwealth is perhaps one of the optimum methods of arriving at such a balance.But, at the same time, it is appropriate to quote Prof. H.P. Lee of Monash University :-“Scurrilous abuse of particular members of the judiciary or attacks which question the integrity of judicial institutions undermine public confidence in the courts and acceptance of their decisions. This is not to suggest that court should be immune from criticism. On the contrary, the judgment of the courts should be scrutinized and critically evaluated. But those who hold positions of power and influence in the country have a responsibility to ensure that the line between measured criticism of judgments and denigration of judges is not traversed. Constitutionalism in Australia is not enhanced by hostility directed against the judiciary which plays such a pivotal role in maintaining the rule of law”.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
IN THE NAME OF SAI RAM
BUTTERFLY
A man found a cocoon of a butterfly. One day a small opening appeared. He sat and watched the butterfly for several hours as it struggled to force its body through that little hole. Then it seemed to stop making any progress. It appeared as if it had gotten as far as it could, and it could go no further.
So the man decided to help the butterfly. He took a pair of scissors and snipped off the remaining bit of the cocoon.
The butterfly then emerged easily. But it had a swollen body and small, shriveled wings.
The man continued to watch the butterfly because he expected that, at any moment, the wings would enlarge and expand to be able to support the body, which would contract in time.
Neither happened! In fact, the butterfly spent the rest of its life crawling around with a swollen body and shriveled wings. It never was able to fly.
What the man, in his kindness and haste, did not understand was that the restricting cocoon and the struggle required for the butterfly to get through the tiny opening were God's way of forcing fluid from the body of the butterfly into its wings so that it would be ready for flight once it achieved its freedom from the cocoon.
Sometimes struggles are exactly what we need in our lives. If God allowed us to go through our lives without any obstacles, it would cripple us.
We would not be as strong as what we could have been. We could never fly!
I asked for Strength.........And God gave me Difficulties to make me strong.
I asked for Wisdom.........And God gave me Problems to solve.
I asked for Prosperity.........And God gave me Brain and Brawn to work.
I asked for Courage.........And God gave me Danger to overcome.
I asked for Love.........And God gave me Troubled people to help.
I asked for Favors.........And God gave me Opportunities.
I received nothing I wanted ........I received everything I needed!
Trust in God. Always !
A man found a cocoon of a butterfly. One day a small opening appeared. He sat and watched the butterfly for several hours as it struggled to force its body through that little hole. Then it seemed to stop making any progress. It appeared as if it had gotten as far as it could, and it could go no further.
So the man decided to help the butterfly. He took a pair of scissors and snipped off the remaining bit of the cocoon.
The butterfly then emerged easily. But it had a swollen body and small, shriveled wings.
The man continued to watch the butterfly because he expected that, at any moment, the wings would enlarge and expand to be able to support the body, which would contract in time.
Neither happened! In fact, the butterfly spent the rest of its life crawling around with a swollen body and shriveled wings. It never was able to fly.
What the man, in his kindness and haste, did not understand was that the restricting cocoon and the struggle required for the butterfly to get through the tiny opening were God's way of forcing fluid from the body of the butterfly into its wings so that it would be ready for flight once it achieved its freedom from the cocoon.
Sometimes struggles are exactly what we need in our lives. If God allowed us to go through our lives without any obstacles, it would cripple us.
We would not be as strong as what we could have been. We could never fly!
I asked for Strength.........And God gave me Difficulties to make me strong.
I asked for Wisdom.........And God gave me Problems to solve.
I asked for Prosperity.........And God gave me Brain and Brawn to work.
I asked for Courage.........And God gave me Danger to overcome.
I asked for Love.........And God gave me Troubled people to help.
I asked for Favors.........And God gave me Opportunities.
I received nothing I wanted ........I received everything I needed!
Trust in God. Always !
motivating story . Dont we All?
DON'T WE ALL ?
I was parked in front of the mall wiping off my car. I had just come from the car wash and was waiting for my wife to get out of work. Coming my way from across the parking lot was what society would consider a bum. From the looks of him, he had no car, no home, no clean clothes, and no money. There are times when you feel generous but there are other times that you just don't want to be bothered. This was one of those "don't want to be bothered times." "I hope he doesn't ask me for any money," I thought. He didn't. He came and sat on the curb in front of the bus stop but he didn't look like he could have enough money to even ride the bus. After a few minutes he spoke. "That's a very pretty car," he said. He was ragged but he had an air of dignity around him. His scraggly blond beard keep more than his face warm. I said, "thanks," and continued wiping off my car.
He sat there quietly as I worked. The expected plea for money never came. As the silence between us widened something inside said, "ask him if he needs any help." I was sure that he would say "yes" but I held true to the inner voice. "Do you need any help?" I asked. He answered in three simple but profound words that I shall never forget. We often look for wisdom in great men and women. We expect it from those of higher learning and accomplishments.
I expected nothing but an outstretched grimy hand. He spoke the three words that shook me. "Don't we all?" he said.
I was feeling high and mighty, successful and important, above a bum in the street, until those three words hit me like a twelve gauge shotgun. Don't we all? I needed help. Maybe not for bus fare or a place to sleep, but I needed help. I reached in my wallet and gave him not only enough for bus fare, but enough to get a warm meal and shelter for the day. Those three little words still ring true. No matter how much you have, no matter how much you have accomplished, you need help too. No matter how little you have, no matter how loaded you are with problems, even without money or a place to sleep, you can give help.
Even if it's just a compliment, you can give that. You never know when you may see someone that appears to have it all. They are waiting on you to give them what they don't have. A different perspective on life, a glimpse at something beautiful, a respite from daily chaos, that only you through a torn world can see. Maybe the man was just a homeless stranger wandering the streets. Maybe he was more than that.
Maybe he was sent by a power that is great and wise, to minister to a soul too comfortable in themselves.
Maybe God looked down, called an Angel, dressed him like a bum, then said, "go minister to that man cleaning the car, that man needs help."
Don't we all?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
JAI SAI RAAM
Love Means
-------------------------------------------------
(A girl and guy were speeding over 100 mph on a motorcycle)
Girl: Slow down. I’m scared. Guy: No this is fun. Girl: No its not. Please, it’s too scary! Guy: Then tell me you love me. Girl: Fine, I love you. Slow down! Guy: Now give me a BIG hug. (Girl hugs him) Guy: Can u take my helmet off and put it on? It’s bugging me. In the paper the next day: A motorcycle had crashed into a building because of break failure. Two people were on the motorcycle, but only one survived. The truth was that halfway down the road, the guy realized that his breaks broke,but he didn't want to let the girl know. Instead, he had her say she loved him, felther hug one last time, then had her wear his helmet so she would live even though itmeant he would die.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)