Last week we had terrible attack on Mumbai, immediately all news channels went on air shouting about what was happening. In their quest for TRPS they even disregarded basic decency and also compromised the operational secrecy of the armed forces.
We got to see commondos being airdropped .
I personnally think we should all get together and try to get the TV channels to see light .simplest way would be to switch off that channel and get our friends and other people to do the same.
When people dont see what they are showing then may be will get some decency.......
WE GET WHAT SORT OF LEADERS WE DESERVE.
carrying that forward,we can say
WE GET WHAT SERVICE WE DESERVE,either from Tv channels or companies, or from government.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Motivation...............
Its long time since I have posted anything.As usual I start something, then after sometime leave it and run after some other thing.
Is it lack of clarity or is our attention span so less.
When you think back on great people who in spite of great odds did things which interested them,you know the difference between winners and rest of the world.
What motivates people?
Is it money
fame,in all its forms,
to do good to humanity,
to do the right thing just because it is right ?
Is it lack of clarity or is our attention span so less.
When you think back on great people who in spite of great odds did things which interested them,you know the difference between winners and rest of the world.
What motivates people?
Is it money
fame,in all its forms,
to do good to humanity,
to do the right thing just because it is right ?
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
NO ONE REALLY LISTENS TO ANYONE .....
No one really listens to anyone else,and if you try it for a while you will see why. MIGNON McLAUGHLIN.
When I first read this line I started thinking should we listen to everybody around, to all sorts of advice people dole out.Where would our civilization be if everybody listened to the elders to the authority figures ? Still beliveing Earth is flat, undergoing phelebotomy for diseases, go to witch doctor for remedy( hundereds of people still do that... only they are astrologers not witch doctors)
When I first read this line I started thinking should we listen to everybody around, to all sorts of advice people dole out.Where would our civilization be if everybody listened to the elders to the authority figures ? Still beliveing Earth is flat, undergoing phelebotomy for diseases, go to witch doctor for remedy( hundereds of people still do that... only they are astrologers not witch doctors)
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
EUTHANASIA: EVOLUTION FROM DARK AGES TO "DARK AGE"(MODERN TIMES)
Since the days of the Greek physician Hippocrates some 2,400 years ago, those who practice the science of medicine have taken an oath to protect and preserve human life. For centuries physicians have declared, "I will give no deadly drug if asked for it, or make a suggestion to this effect." In the contemporary version of the oath, known as the Declaration of Geneva, doctors pledge "solemnly, freely, and upon my honour," that, "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."
The shift from a "sanctity of life" ethic to a "quality of life" ethic is the most profoundly evil step a nation can take. "Once they make this transformation,they can justify any atrocity by disguising it behind the alluring masks of ‘compassion’ and ‘realism.’" Any society that loses its belief that life is sacred and that only God can decide when to give or take a life has taken a risky step down the road to totalitarianism. In time, life in such a culture will become meaningless, and death will be incredibly cheap.
The history of euthanasia is a history of how mankind has viewed and dealt with the problems of suffering and death. The earliest recorded examples of active euthanasia were in ancient Greece, where it was a generally accepted practice. Mercy killing by physicians of terminally ill patients continued into the Roman world.3 An argument advanced by the Roman philosopher Seneca in the first century A.D. sounds remarkably similar to the arguments given by the proponents of Initiative 119 today; "it makes a great deal of difference whether a man is lengthening his life or his death. But if the body is useless for service, why should one not free the struggling soul?"4
The philosophy of Neoplatonism which arose in the third century A.D. combined with the rise of Christianity to erode the traditional Roman acceptance of suicide and euthanasia. Neoplatonism taught that suicide for any reason is wrong, and Christianity taught that all life is sacred, regardless of its quality, as opposed to the Greek and Roman ideal that the value of life is determined by the quality of life.
During the Middle Ages, under the influence of the church, suicide was extremely rare and euthanasia, if practiced at all, was not openly accepted. Thomas Aquinas regarded suicide to be a violation of the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and the most dangerous of sins because it left no time for repentance.5 The Reformation, which broke down the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, did not alter the traditional opposition to suicide and euthanasia.
Not until the Renaissance, when Greek and Roman ideals were looked back to, did the idea of easing the process of dying again gain acceptance. In Thomas Moore's Utopia, voluntary euthanasia is officially sanctioned, and Francis Bacon said that physicians should help patients "to make a fair and easy passage from life."6 The Renaissance also experienced the first explosion in medical technology since classical Greece. While quite primitive by today's standards, these advances allowed doctors to keep patients alive longer, often prolonging their suffering. The proponents of euthanasia at this time were speaking of passive euthanasia, that is withholding medical treatments which only prolong the suffering of a dying patient and doing what can be done to ease the pain and discomfort of the patient in the process of natural death. This general acceptance of passive euthanasia has continued into the this century.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, calls for the legalization of active euthanasia (i.e. mercy killing) became more common. By 1937 the Voluntary Euthanasia Act was introduced in the Nebraska legislature. This bill would have granted euthanasia to any person claiming to have an incurable or fatal disease (including the infirmities of old age) and it would have allowed the next of kin to request euthanasia on behalf of an incompetent adult or a parent to request it for an incompetent child. Organizations were formed to promote the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia and public support for legalization reached 41% by 1939.7 The Nebraska bill failed, however, and efforts to have similar legislation introduced in other states also met with failure.
About this time, in Germany, an experiment was taking place which many of today's opponents of legalized active euthanasia point to for support of their position.8 Calls for euthanasia in Germany, in contrast to the humanitarian motivation found in America, were based on the philosophy of Nazi Socialism which preached racism and subordination of the individual to the community. This ideology, combined with the ideas of eugenics, resulted in a system which exterminated those who were deemed useless to the community, such as the mentally ill and invalids, as well as those from races considered inferior; namely the Poles, Russians, Gypsies, and Jews.9 By the end of World War II, the Nazis had performed "euthanasia" on more than six million people.
Curiously, the German "euthanasia" campaign had little if any effect on public opinion in America regarding voluntary active euthanasia.10 Efforts to legalize active euthanasia continued after the war but with no success.Washington State is operating under the 1979 Natural Death Act. This act states that patients in a terminal condition who have signed an advance directive (i.e. a living will) can have life-sustaining procedures withdrawn or withheld. Some of the additional provisions of the act include: 1) the advance living will directive may include personalized instructions by the patient, 2) there will be immunity from liability for health professionals complying with the directive, 3) a physician who is unwilling to comply with the directive must make reasonable efforts to transfer the patient to another physician, and 4) a terminal condition must be certified in writing by two physicians.14
In addition to the Natural Death Act, case law has established certain principles relating to the right to die naturally. In 1983, the Washington State Supreme Court held, in In re Colyer,15 that a man, acting as his wife's guardian, was authorized to exercise her right to withdraw ventilator support; even though she had not signed a living will. This decision enunciated the law in Washington concerning patients who did not sign a prior directive in accordance to the Natural Death Act. Since there was evidence presented that Mrs. Colyer would not have wanted to be kept alive in such a state, the court found that the Natural Death Act's failure to address such cases does not take away from the patient's constitutionally derived right to refuse medical treatmentIn addition to the living will statute and case law, the Durable Power of Attorney and the Informed Consent statutes provide further legal recourse for making decisions in Washington State regarding the withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures. If an individual has conferred to another the Durable Power of Attorney for health care decisions, that person can make the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments for the patient if the patient is unable to do so.22 The Informed Consent statute specifies a hierarchy of individuals who can consent to health care on behalf of incompetent patients. The hierarchy is as follows: 1) a guardian, 2) the Durable Power of Attorney for health care, 3) spouse, 4) adult children, 5) parents, and 6) siblings. Decisions must be made by the member of the highest class that exists, and a consensus from lower classes is not necessary
The shift from a "sanctity of life" ethic to a "quality of life" ethic is the most profoundly evil step a nation can take. "Once they make this transformation,they can justify any atrocity by disguising it behind the alluring masks of ‘compassion’ and ‘realism.’" Any society that loses its belief that life is sacred and that only God can decide when to give or take a life has taken a risky step down the road to totalitarianism. In time, life in such a culture will become meaningless, and death will be incredibly cheap.
The history of euthanasia is a history of how mankind has viewed and dealt with the problems of suffering and death. The earliest recorded examples of active euthanasia were in ancient Greece, where it was a generally accepted practice. Mercy killing by physicians of terminally ill patients continued into the Roman world.3 An argument advanced by the Roman philosopher Seneca in the first century A.D. sounds remarkably similar to the arguments given by the proponents of Initiative 119 today; "it makes a great deal of difference whether a man is lengthening his life or his death. But if the body is useless for service, why should one not free the struggling soul?"4
The philosophy of Neoplatonism which arose in the third century A.D. combined with the rise of Christianity to erode the traditional Roman acceptance of suicide and euthanasia. Neoplatonism taught that suicide for any reason is wrong, and Christianity taught that all life is sacred, regardless of its quality, as opposed to the Greek and Roman ideal that the value of life is determined by the quality of life.
During the Middle Ages, under the influence of the church, suicide was extremely rare and euthanasia, if practiced at all, was not openly accepted. Thomas Aquinas regarded suicide to be a violation of the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and the most dangerous of sins because it left no time for repentance.5 The Reformation, which broke down the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, did not alter the traditional opposition to suicide and euthanasia.
Not until the Renaissance, when Greek and Roman ideals were looked back to, did the idea of easing the process of dying again gain acceptance. In Thomas Moore's Utopia, voluntary euthanasia is officially sanctioned, and Francis Bacon said that physicians should help patients "to make a fair and easy passage from life."6 The Renaissance also experienced the first explosion in medical technology since classical Greece. While quite primitive by today's standards, these advances allowed doctors to keep patients alive longer, often prolonging their suffering. The proponents of euthanasia at this time were speaking of passive euthanasia, that is withholding medical treatments which only prolong the suffering of a dying patient and doing what can be done to ease the pain and discomfort of the patient in the process of natural death. This general acceptance of passive euthanasia has continued into the this century.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, calls for the legalization of active euthanasia (i.e. mercy killing) became more common. By 1937 the Voluntary Euthanasia Act was introduced in the Nebraska legislature. This bill would have granted euthanasia to any person claiming to have an incurable or fatal disease (including the infirmities of old age) and it would have allowed the next of kin to request euthanasia on behalf of an incompetent adult or a parent to request it for an incompetent child. Organizations were formed to promote the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia and public support for legalization reached 41% by 1939.7 The Nebraska bill failed, however, and efforts to have similar legislation introduced in other states also met with failure.
About this time, in Germany, an experiment was taking place which many of today's opponents of legalized active euthanasia point to for support of their position.8 Calls for euthanasia in Germany, in contrast to the humanitarian motivation found in America, were based on the philosophy of Nazi Socialism which preached racism and subordination of the individual to the community. This ideology, combined with the ideas of eugenics, resulted in a system which exterminated those who were deemed useless to the community, such as the mentally ill and invalids, as well as those from races considered inferior; namely the Poles, Russians, Gypsies, and Jews.9 By the end of World War II, the Nazis had performed "euthanasia" on more than six million people.
Curiously, the German "euthanasia" campaign had little if any effect on public opinion in America regarding voluntary active euthanasia.10 Efforts to legalize active euthanasia continued after the war but with no success.Washington State is operating under the 1979 Natural Death Act. This act states that patients in a terminal condition who have signed an advance directive (i.e. a living will) can have life-sustaining procedures withdrawn or withheld. Some of the additional provisions of the act include: 1) the advance living will directive may include personalized instructions by the patient, 2) there will be immunity from liability for health professionals complying with the directive, 3) a physician who is unwilling to comply with the directive must make reasonable efforts to transfer the patient to another physician, and 4) a terminal condition must be certified in writing by two physicians.14
In addition to the Natural Death Act, case law has established certain principles relating to the right to die naturally. In 1983, the Washington State Supreme Court held, in In re Colyer,15 that a man, acting as his wife's guardian, was authorized to exercise her right to withdraw ventilator support; even though she had not signed a living will. This decision enunciated the law in Washington concerning patients who did not sign a prior directive in accordance to the Natural Death Act. Since there was evidence presented that Mrs. Colyer would not have wanted to be kept alive in such a state, the court found that the Natural Death Act's failure to address such cases does not take away from the patient's constitutionally derived right to refuse medical treatmentIn addition to the living will statute and case law, the Durable Power of Attorney and the Informed Consent statutes provide further legal recourse for making decisions in Washington State regarding the withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures. If an individual has conferred to another the Durable Power of Attorney for health care decisions, that person can make the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments for the patient if the patient is unable to do so.22 The Informed Consent statute specifies a hierarchy of individuals who can consent to health care on behalf of incompetent patients. The hierarchy is as follows: 1) a guardian, 2) the Durable Power of Attorney for health care, 3) spouse, 4) adult children, 5) parents, and 6) siblings. Decisions must be made by the member of the highest class that exists, and a consensus from lower classes is not necessary
why do bad things happen to "good" people?
Why does this happen to me?
What have I done to deserve this? For no mistake of mine these things happen to me.
These are some of complaints we hear from a lot of people. Is it their karma that is working or is it a test that GOD gives us or is it just a coincidence of events .
Whatever the cause of these problems,we have to grit and bear with them ,learn from themand deal with them.We have to think in terms of "problems" instead of as "curses"or as "difficulties".
What have I done to deserve this? For no mistake of mine these things happen to me.
These are some of complaints we hear from a lot of people. Is it their karma that is working or is it a test that GOD gives us or is it just a coincidence of events .
Whatever the cause of these problems,we have to grit and bear with them ,learn from themand deal with them.We have to think in terms of "problems" instead of as "curses"or as "difficulties".
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Reservations ---- have they served their purpose.
Reservations based on caste are unique to India just like Tajmahal. They have been started with the purpose of getting social equality,60 yrs down the lane I personnally think there is a need for introspection . Have the reservations really searved their stated purpose(other than preserving the caste based political parties). I come from a village where there are alot of people (sc and st)who are still in the same conditions in which they were before,their children have not left for any jobs .Then whose children are getting better seats in colleges ?????
Do the children of an IAS officer or of any doctor or engineer need reservations(whatever be their caste)?The only people who need reservations are people who cant send their children to better schools .Give reservations to people in villages and to people in slums,only then India will achieve social equality.Education is a great leveller of caste or class based societies.Just see how europe and usa have broken the class systems in their countries, after second world war.
60 yrs of reservations have improved the lifes of many people the there is still a long way to go .
I think there is a need for audit on reservations.
Do the children of an IAS officer or of any doctor or engineer need reservations(whatever be their caste)?The only people who need reservations are people who cant send their children to better schools .Give reservations to people in villages and to people in slums,only then India will achieve social equality.Education is a great leveller of caste or class based societies.Just see how europe and usa have broken the class systems in their countries, after second world war.
60 yrs of reservations have improved the lifes of many people the there is still a long way to go .
I think there is a need for audit on reservations.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
what patient wants.
We don't care if the doctor we see knows the most, I want the doctor willing to learn or investigate the most
We don't care if the doctor we see has the nicest office, we want the doctor who is nicest while in his office, not just to his patients, to his staff as well.
We don't need a doctor who can talk with authority on everything he knows, we want a doctor who knows what he doesn't know.
We don't need the doctor who can solve everything, we need the doctor who can find someone who can, when help is needed.
We don't need the doctor who will do all the talking, we need a doctor who can listen.
We don't need a doctor who always agrees, but we need a doctor whose opinion I can respect when they do disagree.
Actually these are not my words. I "borrowed " them from " A BUGS LIFE blog by DAYANA.
I copied them so that they will serve as a remainder for me.
We don't care if the doctor we see has the nicest office, we want the doctor who is nicest while in his office, not just to his patients, to his staff as well.
We don't need a doctor who can talk with authority on everything he knows, we want a doctor who knows what he doesn't know.
We don't need the doctor who can solve everything, we need the doctor who can find someone who can, when help is needed.
We don't need the doctor who will do all the talking, we need a doctor who can listen.
We don't need a doctor who always agrees, but we need a doctor whose opinion I can respect when they do disagree.
Actually these are not my words. I "borrowed " them from " A BUGS LIFE blog by DAYANA.
I copied them so that they will serve as a remainder for me.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Gandhi -- Father of nation or not???
Recently while surfing the net I came across a forum about Mahatma Gandhi, almost half of the people were of view that Gandhi is wrong or all our problems were because of him.
Should he be included as a freedom fighter or not was the topic of discussion.
I think we are all armchair critics purely having beliefs based on propaganda and not on facts. If not with non-violence how else could you bind such varied cultures and beliefs into an idea called INDIA .
At lest for that he should be called Father Of The Nation.
Should he be included as a freedom fighter or not was the topic of discussion.
I think we are all armchair critics purely having beliefs based on propaganda and not on facts. If not with non-violence how else could you bind such varied cultures and beliefs into an idea called INDIA .
At lest for that he should be called Father Of The Nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)