Tuesday 13 December 2016

हम स्वस्थ्य कैसे रहें ?
हमारे  स्वास्थ्य का सवाल वैसे तो सामाजिक ,आर्थिक एवं राजनैतिक क्षेत्रों से जुड़ा हुआ है  । इन क्षेत्रों में मूल भूत बदलाव किये बिना बेहतर स्वास्थ्य की परिकल्पना करना बेमानी हो जाता  है । हमारा आज का विज्ञान हमें वास्तविक कारणों की जानकारी कम दे रहा है और व्यक्तिगत कारणों व निदानों की भरमार कर रहा है ।  कारण है कि विज्ञान पर कंट्रोल किन ताकतों का है । 
कुछ  तरीके हैं जिनके द्वारा हम अपने स्वास्थ्य की देखभाल कर सकते हैं । इन तरीकों पर ध्यान देकर हम अपने स्वास्थ्य  बेहतर बना सकते हैं ।  1 पौष्टिक आहार का सेवन 
2  व्यायाम और हमारी सेहत 
3  वजन कंट्रोल 
4  मानसिक और शारीरिक  तनाव को काबू करके 
5  दारू  के सेवन से दूरी बनाकर 
6  तम्बाकू  के सेवन से दूर रहकर 
7  सुरक्षा के नियमों का पालन करके 
8  प्रिवेंटिव मेडिसिन का ज्ञान लेकर 
9  प्रदूषण से मुकाबला करके 

Wednesday 7 December 2016

Dangerous signs


यदि निम्नलिखित में से कोई  भी संकेत आपको किसी व्यक्ति में दिखाई दे तो अतिशीघ्र चिकित्सक से सम्पर्क करें ----
1 चेतनता का एकदम ह्वास ( Sudden loss of consciousness)
2 हिलाने डुलाने पर कोई प्रतिकिर्या न होना ( No response to gentle chapping )
3 सामान्य श्वसन का आभाव ।  पीड़ित व्यक्ति को काफी समय ( Several seconds) जाँच करने पर आप उसे सामान्य दर से साँस लेता हुआ नहीं पाते हैं । (Not normal breathing )
4 खांसी या किसी भी प्रकार की हरकत / गति का न होना ( No movement or coughing )
5 आप कोई  नब्ज या ह्रदय धड़कन नहीं महसूस करते हैं ( You could not feel any pulse or heartbeat ) 



Saturday 19 November 2016

Medicine for masses

Medicine for Masses

J S Majumdar
MEDICINE for Masses was part of the Indian freedom struggle whereby the country’s scientists stood up against foreign drug companies during the British Raj in India.
Acharya Prafulla Chandra Roy, chemistry professor at Presidency College in Kolkata was the pioneer in this effort. He established Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. in 1901 and inspired others.
Dr. Upendranath Brahmachari, a leading scientist and professor of tropical diseases in the present NRS Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, discovered Urea Stibamine in 1922 for the treatment of Kala-azar. His discovery saved millions of lives in India. In 1924, he established Brahmachari Research Institute for the research and manufacture of medicines.
Dr. Hemen Ghosh in Standard Pharmaceuticals Limited in West Bengal in 1938 discovered manufacturing process of bulk penicillin first time in Asia from orange peels.
Ashok Kumar Sen, a scholar in organic chemistry, established East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited in 1936 and produced everyday useable drugs from basic chemicals. Narendra Nath Dutta established Bengal Immunity Company Ltd in 1934 and did pioneering work in the mass production of Sera and vaccines and drugs against malaria which was widespread in the entire eastern India.
Dr. Khwaja Abdul Hamied who, along with Zakir Husain, was the founder professor of Jamia Millia Islamia, was an honorary professor and a member of the executive council of Aligarh Muslim University; a member of the Senate of Bombay University and a fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry. He onceptualised the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and was a member of its governing body from its inception till his very last day. He was an ardent disciple of Mahatma Gandhi. He founded Chemical, Industrial and Pharmaceutical Laboratories (CIPLA) in Bombay in 1935.
B R Amin was another pioneer in drug production in India. He established Alembic Ltd in 1907 at Vadodara. Ambalal Sarabhai was a leading industrialist of Ahmedabad and was an ardent supporter of Mahatma Gandhi. Sabarmati Ashram was established with his help. He founded Sarabhai Chemicals in 1943 at Vadodara with mass production of calcium lactate from molasses and other fine chemicals and pharmaceutical products. India’s renowned space scientist Vikram Sarabahai was associated with Sarabhai Chemicals in later days.

Post-Independence Period
For the capitalist development in India after Independence, establishment of financial, industrial, labour and self-reliance structures started taking place. In the field of pharmaceuticals (i) public sector was established, (ii) new patent law was enacted, and (iii) drug policy was formulated based on the Hathi Committee’s (Parliamentary committee) recommendations and Drugs Prices Control Order (DPCO) was issued; at the core of which was the theme, as noted by Hathi Committee, medicines for the common man at affordable prices.
Firstly, with the discovery of higher antibiotics and other modern medicines, multinational drug companies had been importing ingredients, converting to formulations and selling in Indian market at high prices beyond the reach of the common man. In such a situation, first public sector plant, Hindusthan Antibiotics Ltd, at Pimpri near Pune was established for mass scale production of antibiotics, but it suffered as US drug MNC Emerck supplied obsolete technology. Only after establishment of IDPL in 1960 and its mass production of antibiotics at low cost with Soviet technology forced drug MNCs to establish their modern drug manufacturing plants in India and substantially cut down prices of antibiotics and other drugs. Public sector drug companies were also established in several states and sick private sector companies like Bengal Chemical, Bengal Immunity and Smith Stanistreet, all were nationalised during the Left Front government in West Bengal.
Secondly, after 10 years of debate inside and outside Parliament, India enacted a new Patents Act, 1970 in which ‘product’ patent of drugs was not allowed. Absence of patent in drugs helped rapid growth of Indian sector companies and subsequently taking over huge off-patent medicine (internationally known as ‘generic’) market in different countries, including countries with advanced economies, with quality products at low prices. India effectively resisted the pressure of powerful drug MNC, particularly of US origin, on the patent issue despite the US Congress adopting Super 301 and Special 301 Acts imposing penalties for drugs’ ‘patent violations’; and the pressure in the GATT (the precursor of WTO) negotiation.
Thirdly, based on the Hathi Committee’s recommendations, Drug Prices Control Order, 1979 was issued which had two significant features – (a) fixing cost-based control of drug prices and (b) all drugs were brought under price control. All drugs were divided in three categories with lists of drugs - Category I with the list of essential drugs; Category II with the list of very important drugs; and Category III with the list of rest of the drugs. For category I drugs Maximum Retail Price (MRP) was fixed at 40% Mark Up over ex-factory costs + excise duty; for Category II drugs the Mark Up was 55%; and for Category III the Mark Up was 100%. However, under pressure from drug lobby and based on the Kelkar Committee’s recommendation, DPCO, 1987 was issued entirely removing Category III from price control; removing number of drugs from the list of essential drugs in Category I and Category II drugs list; and increasing Mark Up to 75% for category I and to 100% to Category II drugs.

Neo-liberal Stage
In the neo-liberal stage since 1990s, demolition drive began on all these structures of ‘Medicines for Masses’ which were created based on the landmark Hathi Committee Report, 1975.

Destroying PSUs
Even during pre-neoliberal stage, the central government undermined the role of drug producing public sector units (PSUs) from production of bulk and formulation drugs and vaccines in favour of the Indian and foreign private sector drug companies. As a result, today Indian drug industry has become hugely dependent on import of cheaper bulk drugs despite the large number of PSUs, with their huge infrastructures, remaining idle and on the verge of formal closure. There is big threat to the availability of medicines for the Indian masses.

FDI in Pharmaceuticals
The Manmohan Singh government allowed 100 per cent FDI through automatic route in Greenfield projects (new ventures) and, under approval by FIPB (Foreign Investment Promotion Board), in Brownfield projects. Those foreign drug companies, who left India during pre-neo-liberal/early neo-liberal stage, started coming back through FDI’s Brownfield route. To facilitate the process of Indian companies’ takeover by drug MNCs, the Modi government has, now, taken one more step allowing up to 74 per cent of FDI in Brownfield in pharmaceuticals through automatic route.

Resistance against Patent Regime
India surrendered to US pressure and signed the WTO agreement at Marrakesh in 1994 accepting ‘product’ patent of drugs. However, it was necessary to amend the Patents Act in accordance to the international trade agreement. Here resistance against patents of drugs in India is still continuing. It is to the credit of the Left parties in Parliament that an amendment was inserted in Section 3(d) in the Patents Act in 2005 which reads as, The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance…is not inventions within the meaning of the Act.” Drug MNC Novartis lost its anti-cancer drug ‘Gleevec’ case in the Supreme Court on this ground.
In addition, through judicious use of ‘compulsory licensing’ of TRIPS agreement commensurate to the Patents Act in India, relief can be provided to the people with cheaper generic drugs.Compulsory licensing is a provision under the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement where the government allows a company to manufacture and sell patented drugs in public interest without the consent of the innovator company. Bayer challenged this clause in case of their anti-cancer drug ‘Nexavar’ in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled against the company's claim and said that it had not shown any fresh research and development expense figures to warrant court interference. Indian companies are producing both these anti-cancer drugs and selling in India and in different countries of the world at a much cheaper price.
However, during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the USA in September, 2014, three working groups were formed between the USA and India on three pre-dominant issues -- defence, atomic agreement and patents in pharmaceuticals. Working through these working groups, the USA has succeeded in defence agreement and in circumventing ‘supplier’s responsibility’ clause in case of atomic disaster. The working group on drug patents is working hard for removal of Section 3(d) in the Patents Act and restriction on compulsory licensing.

Dilution and Elimination of Drug Price Control
The DPCO, 1995 further diluted the control on drug prices restricting the drug price control only to essential drugs in Category I, bringing down the number of drugs in the list of essential drugs from 140 to 76; raising Mark Up and removing all other drugs from price control. In a 2005 order, the union finance ministry fixed excise duty collection on all drugs, including essential drugs, not on hitherto followed ex-factory cost but on the retail price of the drug, the MRP (with some slab limitation). With this change from cost-based excise duty to MRP-based excise duty collection, the prices of all drug jumped upward.
In a 2003 PIL case, the Supreme Court issued direction to the central government to bring essential drugs under price control. The government-appointed expert committee identified 348 drugs and the government issued DPCO, 2013 replacing earlier orders. DPCO, 2013 made a complete departure from the past. Instead of cost-based price control on drugs, DPCO 2013 invoked market-control on drugs prices. The formula is to calculate average maximum retail price of a medicine of same strength and dosage in the enlisted 348 drugs of such companies which have 1 per cent or more market share, add 16 per cent for the retailers and then put it as the ceiling price of the essential drugs. Further, the DPCO, 2013 allows up to 10 per cent annual increase on other drugs outside the essential drug list.
   
Preparing Ground for Patent Regime of Drugs
In the capitalist system in the commodity market brand promotion and brand completion are universal. However, in case of drugs in the capitalist system, it is the monopoly patented drugs which took over the market. Rests of the drugs are calledgeneric drugs. In India, however, in the absence of patent on drugs since Independence, drug companies embarked on brand promotion and brand competition. The drugs in chemical names are called as generics under Indian drug laws. This structure must be demolished to usher in the patented drug regime in India. On one side, DPCO, 2013 allows market-based price control, on the other side, campaign is launched that only converting to generics will bring down drug prices automatically.  
       
Ground for Struggle
All these have prepared ground for struggle to ensure availability of all drugs, particularly live-saving drugs to masses; for public sector taking over the main responsibility of bulk drugs and vaccine production; to revert back from market-based price control to cost-based price control of all drugs; and zero GST on all essential drugs. (END)
(From a paper presented at a seminar held at Cuttack as pre-conference activities of the 15th Conference of the CITU)

Friday 4 November 2016

JSA HEARING

Dear all,
    Let me explain what does it mean concretely when Abhay says that JSA regional organisers  would need to play a huge role in coordinating, communicating and organising  regional hearing. For the Western regional hearing, two SATHI staff members worked full time for two months to follow up with activists to send details of the cases as per the format of NHRC, to help in the analysis of these cases and to prepare the documents to be sent to NHRC; more than dozen SATHI staff were working full time for more than 2 weeks for the preparatory work for the logistics; Arun Gadre and myself were involved in analysis of whatever cases that had been received from private and public sector respectively and out of these, selection of the twenty cases and the write ups about these cases for sending these to NHRC. Abhay was involved almost full time for many months to liaison with NHRC and with JSA-NCC. It can be said major part of Abhay's inputs were not directly related to Western hearing as such and large part of such inputs will not be required in further regional hearings. But the rest of the inputs will generally be required in other regional hearings.
     Secondly, NHRC does not have mandate to summon private doctors or to take any action against them; it can summon only public officials. So cases must be made against Medical Council officials to show dereliction of duty/unjust decisions etc. There is no point in saying in general terms that taking private sector is non-negotiable for JSA. We can negotiate to have a slot for private sector only if we can prepare cases against the regulators. All the work done for the Western Hearing related to private sector cases was a waste. That Syriac Joseph even refused to listen to private sector cases was quite irritating. But such 'hearing' would not have led to any specific strictures against specific MMC officials because we had not posed the problem in such a manner; in a manner in NHRC needed it for taking any actions against the MMC officials/passing specific strictures or giving them any specific directions. The presentation on the second day about failure of MMC by presenting some statistics and arguments was useful for getting some recommendations from NHRC. But the documentation of cases was of no use.     

Anant Phadke      

On 3 November 2016 at 17:15, Abhay Shukla <abhayshukla1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,

Thanks to Vandana for adding some key points, and good to see responses from Ameer, Renu, Ekbal and Sudha - these points need to be kept in mind while deciding about the further process.

However before responding to NHRC, it will be good to get the responses from other states / regions also, esp. the JSA regional organisers, who would need to play a huge role in coordinating, communicating and organising for each further regional hearing. Since the Eastern region is now being slated as venue for the next hearing, it is important that JSA organisers from this region give their views at earliest.

I would suggest that Sulakshana, Gauranga, Shakeel, Gurjeet, Fuad, Amulya, Esha, Sanjiv, Isfaqur, Satnam and any other concerned JSA organisers from various regions may respond with their views in next couple of days (by 5th Nov.), about proceeding with the further series of public hearings, based on report of the recent discussion with NHRC. We are to send a response to NHRC on 7th Nov., and we need to take into account the views of JSA regional organisers while committing to further regional public hearings.

With regards,
Abhay



On 27 October 2016 at 18:15, Sudha N <nsudha13@gmail.com> wrote:
Congratulations Abhay and Vandana for navigating through a very difficult meeting!
1. As others have expressed, I think the inclusion of private medical sector cases should be non-negotiable. Some of the cases we received in the Southern Region can be analysed for this and I can help in the effort provided it is to be completed before Nov 7th.
2. Since SATHI cannot provide the kind of support it did for the WRH, each region must be prepared for the effort required, which is significant. Maybe this should be negotiated with the NHRC - 3 coordinators could be supported per region in the month before the hearing to make sure all cases are documented as per NHRC requirements and to coordinate the system-level cases. Or separate funds would have to be raised for the same.
3. Regarding the southern region, we will have more internal discussions. While there are a number of initiatives, campaigns, studies etc. in the region, getting those involved to participate in such hearings or partner with JSA is a challenge.
Regards,
Sudha




On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Dr.B.Ekbal <ekbalb@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Abhay and Vandana for doing a highly professional but value based negotiation with NHRC. We can go forwards with organising the Eastern hearing. And engagement with the private sector should be a non negotiable condition for the hearing. We can continue to have PHRN be  the financial administrative coordination with the NHRC
Ekbal

On 27 October 2016 at 16:10, 'renu khanna' via JSA NCC <jsa-ncc@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Thank you, Abhay and Vandana for the detailed documentation of the Oct 26th meeting.  I can imagine how contentious it must have been. So congratulations for holding your cool and stating your points firmly.

I think that it is up to the Eastern Region and Southern Region to respond to your queries about the dates and the budget. I think that we cannot get away from the Private Sector issue.

Pl.s ee below for specific responses to each question. 


a.       Given this response by NHRC, do we as JSA definitely want to go ahead with the remaining series of public hearings? IT IS GOING TO BE EXTREMELY CHALLENGING. IF THE REGIONS ARE COHESIVE AND COMMITTED AND PREPARED, THEN WE SHOULD GO AHEAD. REGIONS/STATE JSAS HAVE TO EXPRESS THEIR INTEREST/COMMITMENT.
b.      In case we do want to go ahead, are there any other issues that also need to be emphasised to NHRC during the further negotiations? I THINK TAHT WE SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR ISSUES TO KEEP CROPPING UP AND NEEDING TO BE RESOLVED. IF WE CAN RESOLVE THE EXISTING ISSUES WITH NHRC, WE SHOULD BE HAPPY.
c.       What are the changes we want to suggest in the budget and TOR?  How would the national coordination with NHRC related to programmatic preparations and conduction of the hearings be organised by JSA? THIS NEEDS A SKYPE DISCUSSION OR SOMETHING - VANDANA SAYS THAT PHRS IS RELUCTANT... SO WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS? I THINK THE SUGGESTION THAT AMIT AND SAROJINI BE IN TEH STEERING COMMITTEE IS GOOD. DO WE NEED TO EMPLOY A SHORT TERM PERSON WHO CAN BE STATIONED IN PHRS AND COORDINATE WITH THE REGIONS? 
d.      We are proceeding with the understanding that PHRN would continue the financial-administrative coordination with NHRC and within JSA, this was done by PHRN ably for the Western region hearing, and endorsement of PHRN continuing this role may be positively reiterated by JSA.
e.      Do we regard inclusion of private medical sector cases in some form as a kind of non-negotiable for going ahead with further hearings? YES VERY IMPORTANT. BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO LEARN TO FRAME OUR CASES/ANALYSIS IN TERMS OF WHERE THE PUBLIC OFFICE - AND WHICH PUBLIC OFFICE - FAILED IN THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.
f.        Are we comfortable with going for the Eastern region hearing as the next, maybe in late Feb or March 2017? What would be the further likely sequence of regions? EASTERN REGION HAS TO SAY.
g.       Would we like to combine any regions in case their likely level of preparedness seems less that the requirements of NHRC? EAST AND NORTH EAST? NORTH AND CENTRAL?


 
Renu Khanna
SAHAJ
1 Shri Hari Apartment. Near Express Hotel, Alkapuri, Vadodara 390007 - Gujarat,  India


From: Abhay Shukla <abhayshukla1@gmail.com>
To: jsa-ncc <jsa-ncc@googlegroups.com>; Vandana <chaukhat@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 12:18 AM
Subject: Discussion in NHRC steering committee on public hearings and need for JSA decisions now

Dear all,

Today (26th Oct.) we had a meeting of the NHRC-JSA steering committee for series of Public hearings on Right to Health care, after a gap of nearly a year. This meeting had been called by NHRC to discuss the further regional hearings, since NHRC has now decided to go ahead with the remaining hearings after the Western Region Hearing (WRH).

Vandana and myself represented JSA, while Mohanty (Secy General), Kochher, Savita Bhakhry and other officials represented NHRC. There was also a representative of the Union Health Ministry, who did not make any significant contribution to the discussion.  

As expected, it was a stormy and difficult meeting, with the threat of breaking down at one stage, since we raised a range of critical issues emerging from the process until now esp. the WRH. We emphasised the need for NHRC to treat JSA as a partner, not a sub-contractor, and pointed out the range of administrative – financial issues as well as spectrum of programme related problems faced by JSA prior to, during and after the WRH. The lack of effective follow up related to several WRH cases where compensations have been ordered but not actually given yet, as well as various deferred cases where no decision has yet been made (such as the Mortuary workers case), was emphasised. Without going into all the details, I will try to put down the main functional points, I am not giving here the detailed discussion on follow up of WRH cases (which was mostly related to specific Maharashtra cases where compensation has been ordered, or cases have been deferred without decision until now) since these details are not relevant for everyone. 

Some key points that I could put down are as follows, based on which the JSA national coalition needs to take some decision, about whether we want to go ahead with this process and how:
a.       NHRC has clearly decided to move ahead with the further public hearings. They were expecting the Southern region hearing to be the next, and were proceeding to discuss the dates etc., when we intervened and strongly argued that without resolving various concerns of JSA, we could not discuss the further process. Vandana quite skilfully but clearly communicated the need for clarity on these issues as a precondition for further collaboration. This ‘disruption’ by us nearly led to the meeting being adjourned by Mohanty, but after some back-and-forth, the meeting proceeded.
b.      It was agreed that the entire Terms of Reference (TOR) for the collaboration, including the budget for the hearings, needs to be revisited. It was emphasised by us that the budget for regional hearings would go up, since the venue costs had been under-estimated and some other costs had not been taken into account which emerged during the WRH. Also that costs of smaller preparatory meetings in various states prior to the hearings need to be built into the budget. Now NHRC has asked for a revised TOR and budget to be submitted by JSA. We tentatively said that this could be given by JSA by 7th November.
c.       NHRC continued with their insistence that JSA should appoint a ‘National coordinator’, preferably based in Delhi, who would alone deal with NHRC for the hearings. We argued that JSA as a network does not function in this fashion, hence this is not an appropriate demand. We emphasised that for each regional hearing, JSA would have a regional coordinator, who would primarily deal with NHRC regarding the preparation and conduction of that regional hearing. At the same time, it may be possible for JSA to ask for additional funds and appoint a full time / part time person based in Delhi, who could specifically deal with coordination with NHRC for the public hearings. As mentioned in the February JSA-NCC meeting, SATHI would not be in position to give intensive day-today inputs for coordination with NHRC for each of the subsequent hearings. Hence we need to discuss about this issue within JSA. 
d.      Regarding the manner of hearing individual cases related to public health system, we reiterated our concern that systemic aspects should be emphasised, and it should not just be an exercise in targeting certain individual public health system providers. However, NHRC officials stated that given their mode of functioning, dealing with individual cases is what comes in their mandate, and by ordering compensation in some cases, they feel that pressure is put on state health systems to improve. They also stated that Day-2 was devoted to more systemic issues, and this process and related recommendations would continue. Also they are continuing with the idea of having a National hearing at the end of all the regional hearings, where systemic issues emerging from various regions would be focussed. So we need to decide if we would like to proceed, given the manner in which public health system related cases were dealt with in the WRH.
e.      We mentioned that some cases have been collected in Southern and Eastern region in 2015 in preparation for the then planned hearings, but now they would be falling beyond the one-year time limit of NHRC. We said that these cases should be allowed for presentation in the hearings now. However, according to their rules, those cases that have actually been submitted to NHRC (from Southern region) can be taken since these entered their system within one year of the alleged denial. However other cases which have not been submitted to NHRC would not be taken if the instance of denial is more than a year old.
f.        Regarding number of cases to be taken up in a particular day by each bench, it was agreed by NHRC that too many cases had been slated in the WRH, in further hearings they would have only 20 cases per bench on one day, which would amount to 60 cases for the hearing based on 3 NHRC Members being present, each member heading a bench. In case overall larger number of cases is received, then based on inputs from JSA regarding the criteria, NHRC would shortlist cases to ensure that during the hearing, there are not over 20 cases per bench.
g.       Concerning cases related to the Private medical sector, there was again quite some discussion. NHRC accepted that although this component had been planned in all the prior discussions and TOR, such cases were not allowed to be presented in the WRH. We argued as earlier that there was often failure of public regulatory authorities leading to denials in the private medical sector, hence such cases must be taken up by NHRC. Mohanty sort of agreed that some arrangement might be possible to hear private sector related cases, but the final decision would have to be taken by the members of the Commission. They have asked JSA to submit a detailed outline of the kind of private sector cases that could be heard, with justification of public regulatory failure, so that this may be discussed in the Commission.
h.      NHRC again emphasised that all cases must be submitted with full details, signed statement by the complainant etc. We said that already a JSA format has been prepared, on which all WRH cases and some cases in other regions had been documented, this can be somewhat modified / enlarged to include the mandatory information required by NHRC, and this was agreed. The need for the complainant himself / herself to be present during the hearing was repeated by NHRC.
i.         Based on our recent communication with activists from Southern and Eastern regions (the two regions that have been next in line) regarding their willingness for preparation, we stated that if we are going ahead, the next region would be Eastern region. We also emphasised that at least three months of preparatory time would be required by any region to go for a hearing, after the TOR has been signed and funds have been released by NHRC. Based on this, the tentative possibility of the Eastern region hearing being held some time in maybe second half of Feb. or March 2017 was discussed.
j.        Further, the possible scenario was discussed, where perhaps in some particular region adequate preparations in terms of mobilising the required number of cases does not seem feasible to JSA. Here the possibility of combining two contiguous regions to have a single hearing, for example Northern region and Central region (UP + MP) having a single common hearing, was discussed. In this regard again, within JSA we need some discussion and an assessment whether adequate number of cases with the rigour and detail required by NHRC in time bound manner, would be possible to mobilise in all regions.
 Now based on this situation, within JSA we need to decide on some issues including the following: 
a.       Given this response by NHRC, do we as JSA definitely want to go ahead with the remaining series of public hearings?
b.      In case we do want to go ahead, are there any other issues that also need to be emphasised to NHRC during the further negotiations?
c.       What are the changes we want to suggest in the budget and TOR?How would the national coordination with NHRC related to programmatic preparations and conduction of the hearings be organised by JSA?
d.      We are proceeding with the understanding that PHRN would continue the financial-administrative coordination with NHRC and within JSA, this was done by PHRN ably for the Western region hearing, and endorsement of PHRN continuing this role may be positively reiterated by JSA.
e.      Do we regard inclusion of private medical sector cases in some form as a kind of non-negotiable for going ahead with further hearings?
f.        Are we comfortable with going for the Eastern region hearing as the next, maybe in late Feb or March 2017? What would be the further likely sequence of regions?
g.       Would we like to combine any regions in case their likely level of preparedness seems less that the requirements of NHRC? 
There may be other issues too that need to be addressed which can be added by others. I would also request Vandana to add any important issues from the discussion, which I may have missed out. Let us circulate our responses by end of this week (30th Oct) if possible, so that we can then move towards some consensus after Diwali, and send a comprehensive response to NHRC by 7th November if possible. 
Looking forward to timely responses and suggestions,
 
With regards,
Abhay 
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JSA NCC" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsa-ncc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JSA NCC" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsa-ncc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Dr.B.Ekbal
Kuzhuvalil House, Arpookara East,
Kottayam-686 008, Kerala
Phone: 0481-2598305
Mobile: 94470 60912

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JSA NCC" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsa-ncc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JSA NCC" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsa-ncc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JSA NCC" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsa-ncc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
With Regards,
Sincerely Yours,

Anant

Anant and Sandhya Phadke,
8, Ameya Ashish Society, Kokan Express Hotel Lane,
Kothrud, Pune 411038

Phone - 020 25460038
Anant - 9423531478

Tuesday 1 November 2016

पी जी आई एम एस रोहतक सुरते हाल

पी जी आई एम एस रोहतक सूरते हाल 
1960 में मैडीकल कालेज रोहतक की एम बी बी एस  की 50 सीटों पर दाखिले किये गये और विद्यार्थियों को पटियाला मैडीकल कालेज भेज दिया गया। इसी प्रकार 1961 और 1962 के दाखिले भी उसी प्रकार किये गये और 26 जनवरी 1963 को सभी विद्यार्थियों का स्थानान्तरण रोहतक मैडीकल कालेज में कर दिया गया । 3,4,11 वार्ड में मरीजों की भर्ती शुरु हो चुकी थी और कालेज की बिल्डिंग बन रही थी । 1966 में हरियाणा बना तो पूरे हरियाणा में यह इकलौता मैडीकल कालेज था।
1970 के आंकड़े 
 अत्याहत विभग में कुल 10247 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-213019। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 19984। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 58।कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 960।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 455 । साल भर में 14319 आपरेशन किये गये।
1980 के आंकड़े 
अत्याहत विभग में कुल 21697 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-380056। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 32212। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 88।कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 1852।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 1617 । साल भर में 29913 आपरेशन किये गये।
1990 के आंकड़े
अत्याहत विभग में कुल 48581 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-577861। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 36161। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 100 । कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 2695 ।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 3129 । साल भर में 61288 आपरेशन किये गये।
2000 के आंकड़े
अत्याहत विभाग में कुल 84304 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-903723। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 57456। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 157 । कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 3913 ।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 5593 । साल भर में 89101 आपरेशन किये गये।
2010 के आंकड़े
अत्याहत विभाग में कुल 225158 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-1536201। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 96048। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 263 । कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 6752 ।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 9381 । साल भर में 158405 आपरेशन किये गये।
2015 के आंकड़ै 
अत्याहत विभाग में कुल 324621 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-1997882। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 107383। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 294 । कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 8402 ।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 9683 । साल भर में 195355 आपरेशन किये गये।
पी जी आई एम एस में कुछ विभागों में कायैरत डाक्टरों पर एक नजर
1 एनेस्थिीजया मतलब बेहोशी विभाग
सीनियर  रैंजीडैंट   स्वीकृत 56 भरी 07 खाली 49
फैकल्टी मतलब टीचर स्वीकृत 54 भरी 16 खाली 38
2 जनरल सर्जरी
सीनियर  रैंजीडैंट   स्वीकृत 30 भरी 08 खाली 22
फैकल्टी मतलब टीचर स्वीकृत 19 भरी 13 खाली 06
3 स्त्री रोग विभाग
सीनियर  रैंजीडैंट   स्वीकृत 19 भरी 12 खाली 07
फैकल्टी मतलब टीचर स्वीकृत 27 भरी 14 खाली 13
4 बर्न एण्ड प्लास्टिक सर्जरी
सीनियर  रैंजीडैंट   स्वीकृत 04 भरी 1 खाली 03
फैकल्टी मतलब टीचर स्वीकृत 07 भरी 02 खाली 05
कुल मिलाकर फैकल्टी की स्वीकृत पोस्ट 365 के लगभग हैं जिनमें से 148 के लगभग खाली पड़ी हैं।
रेडियोडायग्नोसिस विभाग 
सीनियर  रैंजीडैंट   स्वीकृत 13 भरी 05 खाली 08
फैकल्टी मतलब टीचर स्वीकृत 11 भरी 04 खाली 07
इसी प्रकार सीनियर प्रोफैसरों की 74 के लगभग स्वीकृत पोस्टें हैं जिनमें से 13 के लगभग खाली हैं।
इसी प्रकार नर्सिज की हालत है
नर्सिंग कौंसिल के हिसाब से जितनी पोस्ट चाहिये वे हैं 3010 के लगभग मगर स्वीकृत हैं 915 के लगभग और इनमें से कितनी खाली हैं इसका पता नहीं मगर अन्दाजा लगाया जा सकता है।

पी जी आई एम एस रोहतक सुरते हाल

पी जी आई एम एस रोहतक सूरते हाल 
1960 में मैडीकल कालेज रोहतक की एम बी बी एस  की 50 सीटों पर दाखिले किये गये और विद्यार्थियों को पटियाला मैडीकल कालेज भेज दिया गया। इसी प्रकार 1961 और 1962 के दाखिले भी उसी प्रकार किये गये और 26 जनवरी 1963 को सभी विद्यार्थियों का स्थानान्तरण रोहतक मैडीकल कालेज में कर दिया गया । 3,4,11 वार्ड में मरीजों की भर्ती शुरु हो चुकी थी और कालेज की बिल्डिंग बन रही थी । 1966 में हरियाणा बना तो पूरे हरियाणा में यह इकलौता मैडीकल कालेज था।
1970 के आंकड़े 
 अत्याहत विभग में कुल 10247 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-213019। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 19984। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 58।कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 960।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 455 । साल भर में 14319 आपरेशन किये गये।
1980 के आंकड़े 
अत्याहत विभग में कुल 21697 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-380056। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 32212। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 88।कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 1852।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 1617 । साल भर में 29913 आपरेशन किये गये।
1990 के आंकड़े
अत्याहत विभग में कुल 48581 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-577861। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 36161। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 100 । कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 2695 ।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 3129 । साल भर में 61288 आपरेशन किये गये।
2000 के आंकड़े
अत्याहत विभाग में कुल 84304 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-903723। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 57456। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 157 । कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 3913 ।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 5593 । साल भर में 89101 आपरेशन किये गये।
2010 के आंकड़े
अत्याहत विभाग में कुल 225158 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-1536201। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 96048। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 263 । कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 6752 ।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 9381 । साल भर में 158405 आपरेशन किये गये।
2015 के आंकड़ै 
अत्याहत विभाग में कुल 324621 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-1997882। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 107383। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 294 । कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 8402 ।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 9683 । साल भर में 195355 आपरेशन किये गये।
पी जी आई एम एस में कुछ विभागों में कायैरत डाक्टरों पर एक नजर
1 एनेस्थिीजया मतलब बेहोशी विभाग
सीनियर  रैंजीडैंट   स्वीकृत 56 भरी 07 खाली 49
फैकल्टी मतलब टीचर स्वीकृत 54 भरी 16 खाली 38
2 जनरल सर्जरी
सीनियर  रैंजीडैंट   स्वीकृत 30 भरी 08 खाली 22
फैकल्टी मतलब टीचर स्वीकृत 19 भरी 13 खाली 06
3 स्त्री रोग विभाग
सीनियर  रैंजीडैंट   स्वीकृत 19 भरी 12 खाली 07
फैकल्टी मतलब टीचर स्वीकृत 27 भरी 14 खाली 13
4 बर्न एण्ड प्लास्टिक सर्जरी
सीनियर  रैंजीडैंट   स्वीकृत 04 भरी 1 खाली 03
फैकल्टी मतलब टीचर स्वीकृत 07 भरी 02 खाली 05
कुल मिलाकर फैकल्टी की स्वीकृत पोस्ट 365 के लगभग हैं जिनमें से 148 के लगभग खाली पड़ी हैं।
रेडियोडायग्नोसिस विभाग 
सीनियर  रैंजीडैंट   स्वीकृत 13 भरी 05 खाली 08
फैकल्टी मतलब टीचर स्वीकृत 11 भरी 04 खाली 07
इसी प्रकार सीनियर प्रोफैसरों की 74 के लगभग स्वीकृत पोस्टें हैं जिनमें से 13 के लगभग खाली हैं।
इसी प्रकार नर्सिज की हालत है
नर्सिंग कौंसिल के हिसाब से जितनी पोस्ट चाहिये वे हैं 3010 के लगभग मगर स्वीकृत हैं 915 के लगभग और इनमें से कितनी खाली हैं इसका पता नहीं मगर अन्दाजा लगाया जा सकता है।

पी जी आई एम एस रोहतक सुरते हाल

पी जी आई एम एस रोहतक सूरते हाल 
1960 में मैडीकल कालेज रोहतक की एम बी बी एस  की 50 सीटों पर दाखिले किये गये और विद्यार्थियों को पटियाला मैडीकल कालेज भेज दिया गया। इसी प्रकार 1961 और 1962 के दाखिले भी उसी प्रकार किये गये और 26 जनवरी 1963 को सभी विद्यार्थियों का स्थानान्तरण रोहतक मैडीकल कालेज में कर दिया गया । 3,4,11 वार्ड में मरीजों की भर्ती शुरु हो चुकी थी और कालेज की बिल्डिंग बन रही थी । 1966 में हरियाणा बना तो पूरे हरियाणा में यह इकलौता मैडीकल कालेज था।
1970 के आंकड़े 
 अत्याहत विभग में कुल 10247 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-213019। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 19984। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 58।कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 960।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 455 । साल भर में 14319 आपरेशन किये गये।
1980 के आंकड़े 
अत्याहत विभग में कुल 21697 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-380056। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 32212। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 88।कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 1852।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 1617 । साल भर में 29913 आपरेशन किये गये।
1990 के आंकड़े
अत्याहत विभग में कुल 48581 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-577861। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 36161। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 100 । कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 2695 ।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 3129 । साल भर में 61288 आपरेशन किये गये।
2000 के आंकड़े
अत्याहत विभाग में कुल 84304 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-903723। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 57456। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 157 । कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 3913 ।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 5593 । साल भर में 89101 आपरेशन किये गये।
2010 के आंकड़े
अत्याहत विभाग में कुल 225158 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-1536201। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 96048। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 263 । कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 6752 ।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 9381 । साल भर में 158405 आपरेशन किये गये।
2015 के आंकड़ै 
अत्याहत विभाग में कुल 324621 मरीज आये। ओपीडी की कुल संख्या थी-1997882। दाखिल हुए कुल मरीजों की संख्या थी 107383। रोजाना के औसतन दाखिले थे 294 । कुल मौतों की संख्या थी 8402 ।जन्मे बच्चों की कुल संख्या थी 9683 । साल भर में 195355 आपरेशन किये गये।
पी जी आई एम एस में कुछ विभागों में कायैरत डाक्टरों पर एक नजर
1 एनेस्थिीजया मतलब बेहोशी विभाग
सीनियर  रैंजीडैंट   स्वीकृत 56 भरी 07 खाली 49
फैकल्टी मतलब टीचर स्वीकृत 54 भरी 16 खाली 38
2 जनरल सर्जरी
सीनियर  रैंजीडैंट   स्वीकृत 30 भरी 08 खाली 22
फैकल्टी मतलब टीचर स्वीकृत 19 भरी 13 खाली 06
3 स्त्री रोग विभाग
सीनियर  रैंजीडैंट   स्वीकृत 19 भरी 12 खाली 07
फैकल्टी मतलब टीचर स्वीकृत 27 भरी 14 खाली 13
4 बर्न एण्ड प्लास्टिक सर्जरी
सीनियर  रैंजीडैंट   स्वीकृत 04 भरी 1 खाली 03
फैकल्टी मतलब टीचर स्वीकृत 07 भरी 02 खाली 05
कुल मिलाकर फैकल्टी की स्वीकृत पोस्ट 365 के लगभग हैं जिनमें से 148 के लगभग खाली पड़ी हैं।
रेडियोडायग्नोसिस विभाग 
सीनियर  रैंजीडैंट   स्वीकृत 13 भरी 05 खाली 08
फैकल्टी मतलब टीचर स्वीकृत 11 भरी 04 खाली 07
इसी प्रकार सीनियर प्रोफैसरों की 74 के लगभग स्वीकृत पोस्टें हैं जिनमें से 13 के लगभग खाली हैं।
इसी प्रकार नर्सिज की हालत है
नर्सिंग कौंसिल के हिसाब से जितनी पोस्ट चाहिये वे हैं 3010 के लगभग मगर स्वीकृत हैं 915 के लगभग और इनमें से कितनी खाली हैं इसका पता नहीं मगर अन्दाजा लगाया जा सकता है।

Friday 28 October 2016

मूर्छा विभाग की तो है यही पुकार
हमें बेहोशी से तो पहले करो बाहर
पूरे हों हमारे छोटे बड़े ये हथियार
तभी तो कर पाएंगे मरीज उपचार

Wednesday 26 October 2016

NEW HEALTH SCHEME LAUNCHED IN HARYANA

Monday, 30 December 2013 | PNS | Chandigarh | in Chandigarh
1
2
3
4
5
0
A new health scheme will be launched in Haryana in the New Year to provide essential health care services free of cost in its all health institutions from primary to tertiary level at an estimated cost of Rs 261.1 crore.
Called Mukhyamantri Muft Ilaaj Yojana, the scheme would cover surgery, drugs, investigations or diagnostic services, ambulance or referral transport services, indoor services and dental treatment. It would benefit 2 crore persons visiting various Government hospitals in the state and about 1 lakh surgery patients. Haryana Health Minister, Rao Narender Singh said that in case of free surgeries, these would be provided under surgery package programme to all the residents of Haryana coming at the Government health institutions as well as the Government medical colleges of the State. There would be package rates for tertiary level surgeries at Government medical colleges of Haryana, he added.
The Minister said that as health department now intends to widen the scope of the scheme, there would be a provision of all types of surgeries under surgery package programme. Also, packages, on the pattern of surgery package programme, shall be prepared for tertiary level surgeries being done at the Govt medical colleges of Haryana.