Bandewar Sunita Vs
Bioethics and Programme Evaluation, Independent researcher in Global Health, C-5, Mantri Avenue-I, Panchavati, Pashan Rd, Pune, Maharashtra, 411 008 India.
Indian J Med Ethics. 2015 Apr-Jun;12(2):77-82. doi: 10.20529/IJME.2015.025. Epub 2015 Mar 23.
It was in the early 1990s that an appeal was made, both in India and globally, for access to palliative care to be treated as a human rights issue. Over the past few years, India has witnessed robust advocacy efforts which push for the consideration of palliative care and pain management as a human right. Central to this paper is India's Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985: its genesis, its critique, and the amendments aimed at enhancing access to the NDPS for medical care and research. I refer to the advocacy efforts in India, particularly the most recent ones, which led to the amendments to the NDPS Act, 1985 in February 2014; and the contribution of the global and local human rights discourse on palliative care to these efforts. This I situate in the overall status of palliative care in India. Towards the end, I briefly set out the agenda that should be pursued in the coming years to enhance access to controlled medicines for pain management and palliative care.
20世纪90年代初，印度乃至全球都发出呼吁，要求将获得姑息治疗视为一项人权问题。在过去几年里，印度见证了强有力的宣传努力，推动将姑息治疗和疼痛管理视为人权。本文的核心是印度1985年的《麻醉药品和精神药物法》：其起源、批评意见以及旨在增加医疗护理和研究中获取麻醉药品和精神药物机会的修正案。我提及印度的宣传努力，特别是最近的那些努力，这些努力促成了2014年2月对1985年《麻醉药品和精神药物法》的修正；以及全球和地方人权话语对姑息治疗的贡献。我将此置于印度姑息治疗的总体状况之中。最后，我简要列出未来几年应推行的议程，以增加获取用于疼痛管理和姑息治疗的管制药品的机会。
