Pakistani journalist critical of the military wounded by gunfire Six people have so far died of the coronavirus in Pakistan, including a doctor in a remote northern region, but observers expect a wave of more cases in the coming days. “You cannot rule out the possibility that the three journalists who have tested positive for Covid-19 caught it while reporting in the field,” said Daniel Bastard, the head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk. “This is why we ask all of the country’s media executives and owners to put their reporters’ health first and not send large numbers of them into the field. Everything must be put in place so that they can work from home and avoid any potential source of infection.” April 21, 2021 Find out more Organisation RSF_en Pakistani supreme court acquits main suspect in Daniel Pearl murder The news was broken on Twitter yesterday morning and then confirmed during the day that two journalists with News 24 HD TV and one with AbbTakk TV have tested positive. All three, whose names have not been disclosed, are based in Lahore, the capital of the eastern province of Punjab. March 23, 2020 – Updated on May 6, 2020 Three Pakistani reporters catch coronavirus Punjab’s government has imposed a partial lockdown in the province from yesterday because the number of coronavirus cases has been growing steadily for the past few days. For Pakistan as a whole, the number of cases has gone from 22 last weekend to more than 800 now. News After three Pakistani TV journalists who do field reporting tested positive for Covid-19, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) calls on the Pakistani media to temporarily close their bureaux for the sake of the health of their staff. PakistanAsia – Pacific Protecting journalists Covid19 PakistanAsia – Pacific Protecting journalists Covid19 Follow the news on Pakistan Pakistan is ranked 142nd out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2019 World Press Freedom Index. News A Pakistani journalist wearing a protective facemask uses his mobile phone outside the Aga Khan University Hospital where a patient of the COVID-19 novel coronavirus has been admitted in Karachi on February 26, 2020. (Asif Hassan / AFP). Pakistani TV anchor censored after denouncing violence against journalists June 2, 2021 Find out more Receive email alerts Help by sharing this information to go further News News January 28, 2021 Find out more
Twitter Facebook Previous articleListen: The Last Post News Roundup April 13, 2019Next articleNo sex assault unit in Limerick despite rise in number of victims Alan Jacqueshttp://www.limerickpost.ie Call to extend Patrickswell public sewer line Email €110,700 for four Limerick Projects under Town and Village Renewal Scheme Richard O’Donoghue, Independent. Photo: Cian ReinhardtINDEPENDENT councillor Richard O’Donoghue has urged Limerick City and County Council to use “common sense” and light up the public road in front of apartments off High Street in Croom.He maintains that the area has suffered a number of ongoing issues because of the lack of public lighting,Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up “This is a public area serviced by a public road. The ongoing issues are anti-social behaviour, especially at holiday time, constant break-ins in the area, with two more house break-ins and one break-in to a car again this week,” he told the Limerick Post.“The lights are there, wired and working, as agreed with Limerick City and County Council at the time that the apartments were built. Residents signed a petition to block off a roadway at the back of High Street and a light was erected to light the public roadway and agreed with the Council.“Thousands upon thousands have been wasted on investigations by the Council and others when hundreds will fix this. Lives and properties can be saved if common sense is used.“I have made countless representations on this matter. I have met on-site with Gardaí due to anti-social behaviour in the area. Countless man-hours have been wasted in an attempt to resolve this issue and my representations are going around in circles.”Cllr O’Donoghue met on-site last week with residents and the owner of the apartments.“Three poles were erected in the area to light up the public road. I discovered yesterday that the power at the main pillar box at High Street, feeding these three poles, has been disconnected,” he said.He is now calling on the local authority to restore, without any further delay, the power to the three poles lighting this public roadway.“The resources of the Gardaí and the Council can be better spent. Common sense must be used in this instance. For an outlay of little more than €200 per annum this public area could be lit and made safe,” Cllr O’Donoghue declared.There was no response from Limerick City and County Council at the time of going to print. Linkedin Heartbroken publicans call time on their Covid lockdown Print Advertisement Patrickswell women get to the heart of the matter Limerick people will have their say on ‘bigger picture’ issues WhatsApp NewsLocal NewsPoliticsCommon sense would light up CroomBy Alan Jacques – April 11, 2019 779 TAGSCroomIndependentLimerick CountyLocal Elections 2019local newsNewspoliticsRichard O’Donoghue RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Limerick cafe owner calls for injection centres to tackle on-street drug use
Kerala HC Dismisses Pharmacists’ Challenge To Circulars Allowing Nurses/Authorised Persons To Give Out Drugs For Non-Communicable Diseases.
News UpdatesKerala HC Dismisses Pharmacists’ Challenge To Circulars Allowing Nurses/Authorised Persons To Give Out Drugs For Non-Communicable Diseases. Lydia Suzanne Thomas20 March 2021 4:35 AMShare This – xThe Kerala High Court recently upheld two DHS directives allowing Junior Nurses and persons supervised by Medical Officers in Public Health Centre Sub-Centres to distribute drugs. A trade union of pharmacists had alleged that the authorisation violated the Pharmacy Act, 1948 which allowed only pharmacists to dispense drugs. Upholding the legality of the circulars, Justice PB…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Kerala High Court recently upheld two DHS directives allowing Junior Nurses and persons supervised by Medical Officers in Public Health Centre Sub-Centres to distribute drugs. A trade union of pharmacists had alleged that the authorisation violated the Pharmacy Act, 1948 which allowed only pharmacists to dispense drugs. Upholding the legality of the circulars, Justice PB Suresh Kumar distinguished the terms distribution, administration, and dispensation of drugs. Noting that the Pharmacy Act dated back to 1948, the Court stressed the need for a doctrine of updating construction, where provisions of a legislation were to be interpreted in the context of the circumstances prevailing at a point in time. “having regard to the various developments took place in the field of medicines during the last several decades, it cannot be said that dispensing of medicines which now come in blister packs under the direct supervision of the Medical Officer would contravene Section 42 of the Act in any manner”, Justice Suresh Kumar emphasised. Specifically, the petitioner, All Kerala Pharmacists Union (Trade Union) challenged two circulars issued by the State Director of Health Services (DHS). The Circulars, issued in 2018, allowed pharmacists to dispense NCD medicines directly to patients in a sealed cover. The sealed cover medicines could be entrusted to Junior Public Nurses in subcentres for safekeeping and periodic distribution, the Circular provided. Where a pharmacist was unavailable, the Medical Officers could arrange for the dispensing of medicines. All arrangements for the dispensing of drugs were to be under the direct supervision of the Medical Officers. Averring that the 2018 circulars contravened Section 42 of the Pharmacy Act as well, the Trade Union moved the High Court. It was contended that junior nurses could not dispense drugs and that medical officers if at all permitted to dispense medicines, would have to personally dispense the drugs to patients. The relevant portion of Section 42 reads as below: 42. Dispensing by unregistered persons.–(1) On or after such date as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint in this behalf, no person other than a registered pharmacist shall compound, prepare, mix, or dispense any medicine on the prescription of a medical practitioner:Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to the dispensing by a medical practitioner of medicine for his own patients, or with the general or special sanction of the State Government, for the patients of another medical practitioner. Rebutting the challenge, the State in its counter affidavit asserted that there was no violation of the Pharmacy Act, since the nurses authorised to distribute/administer drugs were not dispensing drugs. The state urged that there was a distinction between dispensing and administering, because any merger of the two terms would make it impossible for nurses to administer medicines in inpatient wards, or one’s relatives/bystanders to administer medicine to the patient. In this respect, those administering medicines at PHCs acted as caregivers. This arrangement was imperative for the success of National and State level Health Programmes, it was emphasised, to ensure vital drugs reached persons who were unable to travel to PHCs. Additionally, the State asserted that the dispensation of medicines under the direct supervision of a Medical Officer did not go against Section 42. Expressing a desire to dispose of the cases on merits, the Court analysed Section 42 of the legislation, as well as the Pharmacy Practice Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) to conclude that there was a distinction between dispensing, administering, and distributing a drug for the purpose of administration. “Dispensing” means the interpretation, evaluation, supply and implementation of a prescription, drug order, including the preparation and delivery of a drug or device to a patient or patient’s agent in a suitable container appropriately labeled for subsequent administration to, or use by, a patient. Underscoring that authorising nurses to give out drugs would not amount to dispensing medicines, it was stated that the same amounted only to distribution for administration. Such an interpretation would be keeping in line with the Central Government’s Guidelines for the prevention, screening and control of common non-communicable diseases, for which the NCD medicines are distributed through Sub Centres. As regards the authorisation of medical officers to dispense drugs, the Court observed that the word dispense in Section 42 was not be construed narrowly to imply that either the Pharmacist or the Medical Practitioner should deliver the drugs/medicines personally to the patients or their agents. While interpreting Section 42, Justice Suresh Kumar insisted upon adopting an updating construction of a legislation, especially of a legislation like the Pharmacy Act that applied over a period of time. The Court explained, “The doctrine of updating construction is premised on the principle that the provisions in the statute are to be interpreted and constructed with reference to its contemporary understanding and the constructions should be continuously updated to allow for changes, for in such legislations, the Legislature is not expected to intervene every now and then.” Noting that Section 42 sought to ensure the safety of patients, the Court pointed out that the process of dispensing drugs had undergone a sea change, with drugs now being safely available in blister packs. Therefore, the Bench reasoned, “..having regard to the various developments took place in the field of medicines during the last several decades, it cannot be said that dispensing of medicines which now come in blister packs under the direct supervision of the Medical Officer would contravene Section 42 of the Act in any manner..” Against this backdrop, the Court dismissed the writ petition opining that that the challenge was without merit.Click here to download the judgmentSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story