Skip to main content

Draft Public Health Bill restrictive, unclear: experts (Hindu.)

On March 20, 2017, a meeting was hosted by the WaterAid India to discuss draft Public Health Bill 2017. The discussion was fostered in the presence of Mira Shiva (Initiative for Health and Equity in Society), Indira Chakravarty (Public Health Resource Network), Arun Srivastava (National Health Systems Resource Centre), Indranil Mukhopadhyay (Public Health Foundation of India) and the officials of WaterAid. Members present in the meeting scanned through the draft Bill and raised concerns related to the intent behind this sudden introduction of the Bill by the Ministry and also the implications, if it gets passed in its current form.

During the meeting, the WaterAid, along with other experts, stressed on the need of more in-depth discussion and consultation with much wider group, including key health groups and other stakeholders.

They were unanimous in their opinion that government should not pass this Bill in its current form and should call for a larger consultation to address its pros and cons. It is important to consider state governments’ public health bills, and also to have learnings from earlier epidemics for prevention and management.

The Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare has drafted a Public Health (Prevention, Control and Management of epidemics, bioterrorism and disasters) Bill, 2017. It is available in public domain to comment till March 25, 2017. The National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) and the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) jointly prepared the Bill keeping in mind the need to empower local government bodies during emergency situations. It incorporates provisions to give more teeth to the government machinery so that they are able to tackle any emergency swiftly. With the implementation of this new act, the ‘century-old blunt act’, The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 will be repealed.

During the meeting, the experts concluded that the bill, in its current form, is riddled with issues. It is very restrictive and lacks clarity. For example, it is quite unclear about the prevention, control and management aspects. The title of the bill is quite misleading as this does not address public health comprehensively. Mira Shiva added, “The bill’s main focus is on epidemics, bioterrorism and disasters—all of which are very different from each other and need different preventive measures. Also, there seems to be a covert focus on bioterrorism over others”.

Though the bill gives emphasis on curbing bioterrorism, but the larger picture is merely visionary. On ground, there is a scarcity and crisis of public health institutes, universities and hospitals which are efficient enough and well-equipped to tackle the concerns of bioterrorism. “We rather need a comprehensive Public Health Act with more clarity and precision. The powers and duties should be clearly revealed at community, local, state and central levels for its better implementation,” said Indra Chakravarty, a public health expert.

Besides other facts, massive research and development and training of public health cadres like field epidemiologists, disease control specialists and public health administrators is needed before formulating such a bill.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NGT terminates chairmen of pollution control boards in 10 states (downtoearth,)

Cracking the whip on 10 State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) for ad-hoc appointments, the National Green Tribunal has ordered the termination of Chairpersons of these regulatory authorities. The concerned states are Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Rajasthan, Telangana, Haryana, Maharashtra and Manipur. The order was given last week by the principal bench of the NGT, chaired by Justice Swatanter Kumar. The recent order of June 8, 2017, comes as a follow-up to an NGT judgment given in August 2016. In that judgment, the NGT had issued directions on appointments of Chairmen and Member Secretaries of the SPCBs, emphasising on crucial roles they have in pollution control and abatement. It then specified required qualifications as well as tenure of the authorities. States were required to act on the orders within three months and frame Rules for appointment [See Box: Highlights of the NGT judgment of 2016 on criteria for SPCB chairperson appointment]. Having

High dose of Vitamin C and B3 can kill colon cancer cells: study (downtoearth)

In a first, a team of researchers has found that high doses of Vitamin C and niacin or Vitamin B3 can kill cancer stem cells. A study published in Cell Biology International showed the opposing effects of low and high dose of vitamin C and vitamin B3 on colon cancer stem cells. Led by Bipasha Bose and Sudheer Shenoy, the team found that while low doses (5-25 micromolar) of Vitamin C and B3 proliferate colon cancer stem cells, high doses (100 to 1,000 micromolar) killed cancer stem cells. Such high doses of vitamins can only be achieved through intravenous injections in colon cancer patients. The third leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, colon cancer can be prevented by an intake of dietary fibre and lifestyle changes. While the next step of the researchers is to delineate the mechanisms involved in such opposing effects, they also hope to establish a therapeutic dose of Vitamin C and B3 for colon cancer stem cell therapy. “If the therapeutic dose gets validated under in vivo

SC asks Centre to strike a balance on Rohingya issue (.hindu)

Supreme Court orally indicates that the government should not deport Rohingya “now” as the Centre prevails over it to not record any such views in its formal order, citing “international ramifications”. The Supreme Court on Friday came close to ordering the government not to deport the Rohingya. It finally settled on merely observing that a balance should be struck between humanitarian concern for the community and the country's national security and economic interests. The court was hearing a bunch of petitions, one filed by persons within the Rohingya community, against a proposed move to deport over 40,000 Rohingya refugees. A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, began by orally indicating that the government should not deport Rohingya “now”, but the government prevailed on the court to not pass any formal order, citing “international ramifications”. With this, the status quo continues even though the court gave the community liberty to approach i