What is meant by &quot;make declaration of brain stem death mandatory for every hospital&quot;? I am an activist working for organ donation popularization in India, a country with a dismally low rate (0.5 per million). Apart from working for deceased donation, I had also offered my own organs as a living donor, but the donation couldn't go through due to unfortunate legal hurdles in unrelated living donation in India. While reading a recent paper on the challenges, I found the following: Sensitization of doctors regarding brain stem death declaration is one of the biggest challenges encountered by the transplant programme in India. A major change in the transplant laws can significantly increase the deceased donor pool if declaration of brain stem death is made mandatory for every hospital. Could the experts here please elaborate, in some detail, what is meant here? How are the brain stem deaths dealt with now, in the absence of such a law? Is it not reported/communicated? Are only the authorities not informed? Or is the family also not informed? Why is a separate law needed? How is it legal to not inform a death? In other words, my question is what exactly is lacking today and why? Thank you so much for this community. Your answer will guide my activist group's efforts.
The law presently doesn't define “dead” Therefore each doctor must decide on the basis of their own knowledge and experience when someone is dead. In those circumstances, it is common for doctors to be unwilling to call a brain dead individual who still has respiratory and circulatory function “dead”, even if those functions require a machine. Contrast this with new-south-wales, a jurisdiction where the type of law reform proposed has already happened: Human Tissue Act 1983 s33: 33 When death occurs For the purposes of the law of New South Wales, a person has died when there has occurred-- (a) irreversible cessation of all function of the person's brain, or (b) irreversible cessation of circulation of blood in the person's body.
In general, a &quot;mandate&quot; is not a legal term. It can refer to any situation is whch people are &quot;required&quot; to do something, such as wear masks or become vaccinated. A mandate can come from a private business, that imposes rules on customers; it can come from a business that imposes rules on employees, it can come from executive action not directly authorized by any law, it can come from a regulation authorized by some law, or be directly imposed by law. Mandates imposed by law or regulation are likely to be enforceable in court, depending on their exact terms. Mandates imposed by executive action may perhaps be enforced in court. Mandates imposed by private businesses can often be enforced by the business ejecting a customer, refusing to deal with an entity that does not comply, or by disciplining or discharging an employee. In each case the exact terms of the mandate will matter, and may define how it may be enforced.
There are no legal requirements for official certification of BSL-1 and BSL-2 laboratories in the US. There are legal requirements for higher-level labs that deal with Select Agents. The CDC has a page on certification laws and regulations, which is &quot;about&quot; samples derived from the human body. Organizations (such as universities) have offices that perform inspections and approve (or not) a particular laboratory, by reference to standard professional guidelines. This is, of course, different from the situation in Europe. There may be state-level legal requirements.
The most important aspects in India which are governed by specific religious laws are: Marriage Inheritance Marriage It is easier and faster to get married using the religious laws (Hindu Marriage Act or Shariat Act), as compared to the secular marriage law (Special Marriage Act, 1954). That is why many young couples convert to a single religion to get married quickly. Inheritance If one's ancestors identified with a specific religion, and one identifies with another religion, then that could affect one's inheritance. The inheritance of a person, especially a woman, could also be affected by them marrying outside their religion or state. So, if one decides to become the first generation atheist in a family (against the wishes of the family or the larger religious community), their inheritance and their rights (especially if they are engaged in agriculture) could be severely affected. This becomes all the more difficult, if the business of their family is not incorporated as a company under the Companies Act. If you are professional or a first generation business owner, then you shouldn't have legal challenges but primary and secondary social challenges. Primary social challenges could be people not ready to deal with you or engage with you if you declare publicly that you are an atheist. Secondary social challenges, would be to be able to find a lawyer (in your town and whose services are affordable) who can address these challenges. And in case you go to court, the judge may not have a lot of experience or education about how to deal with atheist cases. Also, most lawyers will advise you to identify yourself as a member of a religion to avoid unnecessary legal hassle.
See http://www.lawstuff.org.uk/the-facts/what-are-childrens-rights The relevant parts are: Wi-fi Freedom of expression and getting information: You must be able to get and share information with others, as long as this does not damage others (article 13). However, even in the UK, it is unlikely that Wi-Fi, the internet or a computer would be considered essential for this. If you can get a newspaper, reasonable access to a radio and have the ability to socialise then that would probably suffice. Food Health: You must also be able to get clean water, nutritious food and live in a healthy environment. Note that this does not require any specific foodstuffs or any drinks other than water. Bed Standard of living: You have the right to a standard of living that is necessary for your physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. This would include somewhere to sleep; in the UK this would probably be a bed.
There is no time limit on performing a legal abortion. §2599-bb of the bill says that a physician may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health It is left to ordinary language interpretation to understand what "abortion" is. The ordinary meaning of abortion does not include act that follow birth or a child. The law as amended still defines homicide as conduct which causes the death of a person under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the second degree, or criminally negligent homicide and deleted the clause which included the clause an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks (this is how abortion past 24 weeks was formerly illegal). The definitions say that A person, when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive Once a fetus becomes a person by being born, the homicide statute prohibits killing the person. So apart from the fact that killing a person is not "an abortion", the law does not make it legal to kill any man being who has been born and who is alive. As for what constitutes "health", that is not delimited by law, that is, it says simply "health", not "physical health". In general, "health" without modifiers means any kind of health. In fact, in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 it was found that whether a particular operation is necessary for a patient's physical or mental health is a judgment that physicians are obviously called upon to make routinely whenever surgery is considered
Yes, see the General Medical Council's Ethical Guidance for Doctors: Here: You must take prompt action if you think patient safety, dignity or comfort is being compromised. And here: All doctors have a duty to raise concerns where they believe that patient safety or care is being compromised by the practice of colleagues or the systems, policies and procedures in the organisations in which they work. They must also encourage and support a culture in which staff can raise concerns openly and safely. Whether any criminal, civil or disciplinary action is taken will depend on the particular circumstances and available facts.
If a line in your will bequeaths something that you don't have the power to give (e.g. you bequeath something that you don't own at the time of your death), that line has no legal effect. If I died and left you the house at 10 Downing Street in London, for example, you wouldn't actually be getting it. If your will contains enough of those lines and/or they seem excessively unreasonable, it may cause the validity of the will to be challenged on the basis that you weren't competent to prepare and sign it. If the people reading it think it's reasonable, it may have a social effect based on what it conveys to them, which could lead to voluntary compliance with your wish (especially if the main obstacle to that being realized is a mistaken understanding of and desire to respect your wishes). That could help make peace, for example, if a surviving parent's remarriage would otherwise be opposed by children (or the surviving partner) or others based solely on a mistaken understanding of the wishes of the deceased. It could also make for a really awkward moment, depending on the views of and relationships between survivors. Addressing user662852's comment on the question: You can also use a will to name a guardian for anyone you have guardianship over, which is usually more important for children (e.g. see "Why Every Parent Needs a Will.").