A CASE THAT JUSTIFIES USE OF DEATH PENALTY.

The Supreme Court's confirmation of the death sentence for four of the six accused in the Delhi gangrape case on 05th May, 2017 (Friday) has been justly hailed. The hair-raising crime that had taken place on 16th December, 2012 had jolted the nation and led to the law on rape being changed. The young paramedical student who was brutally assaulted had later succumbed to her very serious injuries. One of the six accused committed suicide in jail and another was a teenager who had served out his three-year jail term, the maximum a juvenile can be given under the law prevailing at the time the crime occurred. Under the changes made in the law due to pressure exerted by the Nirbhaya case, in comparable crimes the gravity of the incident will take precedence over juvenility in future.

In the Delhi case, the trial was for rape-cum-murder, that makes it technically different from the Bilkis Bano case of 2002 in which, just a day prior, the Bombay High Court had awarded life sentences to the accused, rejecting the prosecution's demand for the death sentence in the case of three of them, though some members of Ms. Bano's family were killed in that gruesome incident. The trial in the Gujarat communal violence matter pertained to gangrape alone, not that this in any way reduces the sordid and depraved nature of the incident.

Many - including powerful proponents of the notion of gender justice - who express solidarity with the Delhi victim, and others who are made victims of sexual violence in a male-dominated society, are opposed to the death sentence upheld by the Supreme Court. Fundamentally, it appears, they are in principle against the death sentence for any crime, including murder. To say that the death penalty's existence proved to be no deterrence is just a layer to the main argument. True, the death penalty hasn't been very effective as deterrence. Also, since the Delhi horror, incidents of rape have not reduced in spite of the law being widened (some of that is due to expanded reporting). Can these be arguments for not awarding the death sentence in a deserving case as long as this penalty is the maximum punishment in the statute book? The way jurisprudence has evolved, in the hierarchy of crimes, certain crimes attract the maximum sentence, and it cannot be otherwise.

Defence counsel in the Delhi case has said he would seek a review of the death sentence since "only He who gives life can take away life". This is a precept in some religions. But what should be the basis of arriving at an appropriate sentence in a case like the Delhi one? Arguments against the death penalty can logically also be extended against a life sentence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOCTORS WITHOUT FRONTIERS.

Online retail is a lot more complicated to deliver than online healthcare. If Mr. Ghosh, who makes the best rasagulla in Kolkata, wants to send his fresh product to Bengaluru, he will confront a nightmare in terms of the cold chain logistics of transportation. Instead, if Mr. Ghosh wants to consult a doctor in Bengaluru for acute chest pain from Kolkata, the doctor can converse with him on a video call and ask for some tests. With a map app, the doctor can then direct him to the nearest diagnostic lab. When the tests are done, before Mr. Ghosh puts on his clothes the doctor can see the test reports online, reassure him that his heart is fine and prescribe a pain killer. Online retail needs to move products from Point A to Point B through complex logistics. Online healthcare just needs images and data to reach from Point A to Point B, which can be done from anywhere in the world virtually free. All it needs is an expert doctor with an internet connection and a payment gateway.
When you hear that someone is unwell, 99% of the time a sick person doesn't need an operation. Technically, 99% of illnesses can be treated online. The treatment decision depends on history which video conferencing will provide, and interpretation of lab and organ image reports which can easily be done virtually. Today hand held devices can check blood pressure, pulse, saturation, ECG and sugar at home. Diseases like diabetes, hypertension, obstructive lung diseases, chronic heart failure, skin diseases, routine cold, cough and fever can easily be managed online. Online diabetes management under a consultant diabetologist supported by counsellors who keep a tab on patient's blood sugar remotely should have better outcomes.
Patients with psychiatric problems, in fact, prefer online consultation as it enables them to hide their identity. The family paediatrician needs to see the child if required once in few months. The rest of the time, such things as seasonal cold and cough can easily be managed online, which is convenient for both child and mother. The big advantage of online healthcare is that it is at one's fingertip, convenient for both patient and doctor since the patient can be in his bedroom and doctor may be stuck in a traffic jam. Patients from rural India can consult city experts at the click of a button. Because of the convenience, frequent consultation will improve outcomes in chronic illness like diabetes, heart failure and respiratory failure.
Technically, patients from any part of the world can consult doctors anywhere without spending any money and time on travelling. Doctors will be able to see a lot more patients without wasting time on commuting. Patients can be discharged from hospital early since doctors can monitor them from home. Online healthcare cannot blossom without advanced Electronic Medical Records (EMR) which will prevent doctors from making mistakes and give them real time feedback on how the patient is responding to treatment. When doctors and nurses in an American ICU are sleepy at midnight doctors and nurses from India, where it is midday, can monitor the patients virtually - thus enhancing safety and reducing costs. 
Indian doctors will love it because today they can only treat patients who they can touch. Geographical barrier is a major limitation for doctors who want to expand their practice. Online healthcare will allow them to treat patients in any part of the world. However, if Indian doctors decide not to adopt technology, it is a matter of time before doctors from Bangladesh or Pakistan will fill the vacuum. Some changes are, therefore, urgently necessary. The Medical Council of India should adopt regulations permitting doctors to offer virtual consultation and legalise virtual prescriptions. According to Indian law a doctor's advice to patients even on telephone  - a common practice today - is illegal unless it is a medical emergency. 
Second, the government should define the standards for EMR development - respecting data privacy but not following the expensive HIPPA compliance so that start-ups can create mind-blowing doctor-friendly EMR on a dynamic cloud platform, unlike the billion dollar US EMR which doctors hate. To develop doctor-friendly EMR, a technologist should work with doctors with free access to patients' lives - this can't happen. This is a billion dollar opportunity awaiting Indian technologists.
Through a digital sharing economy, India can become the first country in the world to dissociate healthcare and other essentials of life from affluence. India will prove to the world that the wealth of a nation has nothing to do with the quality of healthcare its citizens enjoy by offering high-tech care to the common man on a digital platform. However, this will only happen if IT solution providers don't get carried  away with billion dollar valuations and offer services for a tiny amount of money for each transaction. Of course they will make enough money to justify their effort. But if they don't follow  the rules of the game cheap clones will follow and government will intervene, as is happening now with Uber and Airbnb.
My simple message to young tech entrepreneurs is to learn to differentiate need for greed. Success is never a zero sum game. When customers, providers and the government win, you win. In the game of real life, "winner takes it all" never happens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

Here are some precautions you should take while chatting online:

1. Use Facebook privacy settings: The Facebook privacy settings allow you to control who gets to see what. You can segregate your friends into acquaintances, friends and family and ensure that everyone doesn't have full access to your profile and only a few (close friends and family) have.
2. Don't talk to strangers: Remember what your parents told you when you were a child. Don't talk to strangers. Accept friend requests from known people. If you want to add strangers, ensure you follow rule # 1.
3. Watch your status messages: Don't use your Facebook status application to tell the world about your itinerary for the day. You never know who is stalking you in the virtual world.
4. Keep changing your password often: Avoid using obvious things like your date of birth, name, boyfriend's name and so on. Your password is like the key of your home, don't share it with anyone. Keep it only to yourself and change it often.
5. Impersonation is rampant Beware!: The anonymity provided by the virtual world and fear of being stalked often prompts people to impersonate. A considerable number of Facebook profiles are fakes and people often withhold correct information about themselves or provide wrong ones.
6. Do not share personal information: Do not share any personal information on the profile such as email address, mobile phone number, home or school address. When you start chatting with someone you met online, stick to general topics and refrain from talking too much about yourself.
7. Do not share pictures: Do not share your pictures in chat rooms as they can be misused. Identity theft is a grave issue and can have dangerous repercussions.
8. Avoid using social media from public Wi-Fi: Avoid using social media accounts containing personal information from public Wi-Fi.
9. Do not open any email from unknown person: Do not open any links in any email message or facebook messages received from unknown persons.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

THREE GIVEN DEATH PENALTY IN NAYANA PUJARI RAPE, MURDER CASE.

Three persons were given death penalty on 09th May, 2017 (Tuesday), by a special Court for killing 28 year old software engineer Nayana Pujari after abducting and gang raping her eight years ago near Pune. Special Judge L.L. Yenkar awarded death sentence to the trio - Yogesh Raut, Mahesh Thakur and Vishwas Kadam - a day after convicting them in the eight year old sensational gang rape-cum-murder case. While convicting the three on 08th May, 2017 (Monday), the Court had let off the fourth accused who had turned approver in the case. 

Nayana Pujari, who worked at an IT firm in Kharadi was kidnapped on 07th October, 2009 evening from Kharadi bypass, while waiting for a transport to return home.

Her body was recovered two days later from Zarewadi forest area in Khed tehsil of Pune district.

Yogesh, Mahesh and Vishwas, who were given death penalty on 09th May, 2017 (Tuesday) had been convicted of seven counts of various offences including those of kidnapping, gang rape, murder, robbery, misappropriation of property after hatching a criminal conspiracy in furtherance of their common intention.

[Based on a news item published in Deccan Chronicle dated 10th May, 2017 (Wednesday)].

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WOMAN MOVES SUPREME COURT TO ABORT 'ABNORMAL' FOETUS' AT TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS.

Law permits abortion only up to 20 weeks: The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the response of the Centre and Maharashtra government within 24 hours over a rape survivor's distress plea to abort her 24-week pregnancy, citing serious abnormalities in the foetus. Identifying herself as 'Miss X' because of the social stigma attached to rape and unwed motherhood, the petitioner said she came from a poor background and the pregnancy was caused by her fiance who raped her on the promise of marriage and then married another woman. She has filed rape charges against the man. 

She said she continued to suffer excruciating mental agony as the pregnancy resulted from rape and the foetus had serious abnormalities with slim chances of surviving the full term. The abnormality was revealed after the legally permissible 20-week period, she said in her plea, hence hospitals refused to terminate the pregnancy, forcing her to move the Supreme Court. 

The case is somewhat similar to that of a teen rape survivor from Gujarat who moved the Supreme Court in July 2015 to abort after twenty weeks. After a medical evaluation, which also looked into her psychological health, the pregnancy was ended, seeking termination of pregnancy even though the foetus was more than twenty weeks old. In the case, the Supreme Court said a decision could be taken on the basis of a medical evaluation whether the foetus posed a threat to her health and if she was psychologically ready to be a mother.

In the case of 'Miss X', the plea cited abnormalities in the foetus as well as trauma from the alleged rape with the pregnancy being the result of a deception on the part of her former fiance. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 permits a woman to terminate her pregnancy till 20 weeks if two registered practitioners express unanimous opinion that continuation of pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or that the foetus has severe abnormalities.

Challenging the constitutional validity of Section. 3(2)(b) of MTP Act that imposes a 20-week restriction on abortion as a violation of woman's fundamental right, her counsel Colin Gonsalves told the Court that continuance of pregnancy despite knowing that the foetus had severe abnormalities was a violation of her fundamental right to life. A Bench comprising Justices J S Khehar, Kurien Joseph and Arun Mishra issued notice to the Centre and Maharashtra government with a 24-hour deadline. The Bench also assured the woman that it would like to take the opinion of a medical board on the health of the foetus before deciding on her plea for immediate termination of pregnancy.

The petitioner said because of the legal ban on termination of pregnancy after 20 weeks, those who detected severe abnormality of the foetus after 20 weeks generally sought unsafe abortion from untrained medical personnel, putting their lives at risk. "Illegal abortions are the third leading cause of maternal death in India and account for 13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide", she said.

Quoting a news report of September 2008, the petitioner said, "The government MTP Committee report from health secretary Naresh Dayal and former director of Indian Council of Medical Research Dr. N K Ganguly favoured increasing the time limit for legal abortion from 20 weeks to 24 weeks, but no such report was ever made public".

The petitioner also cited a recent proposal from National Commission for Women for amendment of the MTP Act to provide for abortion where 'pregnant woman is minor, pregnancy is result of rape or incest, pregnant woman is physically or mentally challenged, continuance of pregnancy would involve risk to the mother, foetus suffering grave abnormalities '.

She said countries like Albania, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Croatia, Denmark, Israel, Nepal, Netherlands, South Africa, the UK and the US "do not include absolute time limits in their abortion laws. Instead, these countries consider the woman's physical and mental  health and doctors' expert opinion in determining whether a medical termination of pregnancy can be performed post 20-week period".

How other countries deal with it?:

US: Abortion legal at any stage, even without consent of spouse. Law declared by Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe v. Wade.

UK: Abortion legal till 24 weeks under Abortion Act, 1967. Can be even later if doctors detect risk to mother's life or severe abnormalities in foetus.

Canada: No abortion beyond 24 weeks unless experts certify threat to mother's life or severe abnormalities in foetus.

France: Abortion legal till 14 weeks, but can be done at any stage if there is a risk to mother's life.

Germany: Abortion legal till 12 weeks. If mother's life is at risk, then up to 23 weeks.

Japan: Abortion permitted only if mother's life is at risk or pregnancy was caused by rape.

Brazil: Abortion only if mother's life is at risk or foetus severely abnormal.
Victim got no relief from High Court: With the Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi informing that it will be difficult to abort the 26-weeks-old foetus with HIV positive as it will be dangerous to the mother and the foetus, the Supreme Court on 09th May, 2017 (Tuesday) directed the Bihar government to pay Rs. 3 lakh to the victim of sexual assault and rape. The petitioner, a woman, aged about 35 years, sought termination of the pregnancy on the grounds that after being sexually assaulted, she was given rehabilitation in the Women Rehabilitation Centre, namely, 'Shanti Kutir', Mahila Punarwas Kendra, Pataliputra, Patna, Bihar, where her pregnancy was discovered.
It has also been found that she is HIV positive. She expressed desire to terminate the pregnancy on 04th March, 2017. Thereafter, she was examined by the Patna Medical College and Hospital. As nothing fruitful happened in the said college, the petitioner was compelled to move the Patna High Court. Subsequently, the High Court took up the matter for hearing and, after referring to certain decisions of this Court, came to hold that the Medical Board's report has stated that it would be unsafe to the life of the petitioner and further there is also compelling state's responsibility to keep the child alive. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------