Adityanath lauds Modi, Shah for scrapping Article 370

New Delhi, May 15: A group of doctors from the AIIMS, Raipur has recommended restrictions on the use of mobile phones in healthcare institutions amid the COVID-19 pandemic, warning that such devices can be a potential carrier of the virus and lead to infection among healthcare workers.

In a commentary published in the BMJ Global Health journal, the doctors stated that mobile phone surfaces are a peculiar 'high-risk' surface, which can directly come in contact with the face or mouth, even if hands are properly washed and one study indicates that some healthcare workers use phones every 15 minutes to two hours.

Though there have been many significant guidelines from various health organisations like the WHO and CDC focusing on prevention and control of disease, the commentary highlighted "there is no mention of or focus on mobile phones in these guidelines, including the WHO infection control and prevention guidelines, which recommends the use of handwashing".

In healthcare facilities, phones are used to communicate with other health care workers, look up recent medical guidelines, research drug interactions, understand adverse events and side effects, conduct telemedicine appointments and track patients among others, stated the document.

The document has been authored by Dr Vineet Kumar Pathak, Dr Sunil Kumar Panigrahi, Dr M Mohan Kumar, Dr Utsav Raj and Dr Karpaga Priya P from the Department of Community and Family Medicine.

"In their tendency to come in direct contact with the face, nose or eyes in healthcare settings, mobile phones are perhaps second only to masks, caps or goggles," the authors said.

"However, they are neither disposable nor washable like these other three, thus warranting disinfection. Mobile phones can effectively negate hand hygiene... There is growing evidence that mobile phones are a potential vector for pathogenic organisms," they said.

It is the need of the hour to address proper hygienic use of mobile phones in healthcare settings. In a study in India, almost 100 per cent of health workers of a tertiary care hospital used mobile phones in the hospital, but only 10 per cent of them had at any time wiped their mobile phones clean, the commentary published on April 22 said.

"The safest thing to do is to consider your phone as an extension of your hand, so remember you are transferring whatever is on your phone to your hand," Dr Pathak said.

Amidst the ongoing pandemic, two biggest mobile phone companies have uploaded their user support guidelines, saying that 70 pc isopropyl alcohol or Clorox Disinfecting Wipes can be used to gently wipe the exterior surface of phones in switched-off mode.

However, in doing so, the use of bleach or entry of moisture through any of the openings must be avoided, and any harsh chemical may damage the oleophobic screen, leading to damage in the touch screen sensitivity of the phone, the article stated.

Mobile phones are one of the most highly touched surfaces according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), along with counters, tabletops, doorknobs, bathroom fixtures, toilets, keyboards, tablets and bedside tables.

The doctors recommended restriction on mobile phone usage in healthcare settings like hospital wards, ICUs and operation theatres, while advocating the use of headphones to prevent contact with the face while talking.

There should be no sharing of mobile phones, headphones or headsets of any kind. In addition, where available, the use of interdepartmental intercom facility may be promoted.

"Although hand hygiene and mobile phone use by a person are not mutually exclusive, it is high time to acknowledge the potential role of mobile phones in disease transmission cascade and to take evidence-based appropriate actions. This is especially important, given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic," the authors said.

They said it is necessary for government agencies and the WHO to generate public awareness and to formulate suitable information, education and communication material on mobile phone hygiene, especially in healthcare settings.

AIIMS, New Delhi, Resident Doctors' Association (RDA) General Secretary, Dr Srinivas Rajkumar T said even outside health care settings, people should pay special attention to the usage of mobile phones as they carry them to all places.

"Phone and computer peripherals like keyboard, mouse, etc. should be covered with transparent plastic covers which can be cleaned without interfering with their function. Cleaning hands by soap or alcohol-based hand sanitizer before and after contact with phone and between contact with other surfaces can decrease the risk of potential transmission.

"Using a handsfree headset, dedicated operator/assistant per ward handling the communication via common line in hospitals while on duty can enable communication without compromising safety," Dr Srinivas said.

New Delhi, Jan 14: The curative petitions of Vinay Sharma and Mukesh, who were sentenced to death in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, was on Tuesday rejected by a five-judge Supreme Court Bench led by Justice N.V. Ramana.

In a three-page order, the Bench concluded, after an in chamber consideration that began about 1.45 p.m., that there was no merit in their pleas to spare them from the gallows.

“We have gone through the curative petitions and relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra versus Ashok Hurra. Hence, the curative petitions are dismissed,” the court held.

Curative is a rare remedy devised by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Rupa Ashok Hurra case in 2002. A party can take only two limited grounds in a curative petition - one, he was not heard by the court before the adverse judgment was passed, and two, the judge was biased. A curative plea, which follows the dismissal of review petition, is the last legal avenue open for convicts in the Supreme Court. Sharma was the first among the four convicts to file a curative.

The Bench also rejected their pleas to stay the execution of their death sentence and for oral hearing in open court.

Besides Justice Ramana, the Bench comprised Arun Mishra, Rohinton Nariman, R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan.

Curative petitions were filed in the Supreme Court by both convicts on January 9. The petitions had come just days after a Delhi sessions court schedulled the execution of all the four convicts in Tihar jail on January 22.

Sharma and Mukesh, in separate curative petitions, argued that there was a “sea change” in the death penalty jurisprudence since their convictions. Carrying out the death sentence on such changed circumstances would be a “gross miscarriage of justice”.

In his plea, Sharma said the Court had commuted the death penalty in several rape and murder cases since 2017, when it first confirmed the death penalty to the Nirbhaya convicts.

“fter the pronouncement of judgment in 2017, there have been as many as 17 cases involving rape and murder in which various three-judge Benches of the Supreme Court have commuted the sentence of death,” the petition contended.

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a review petition filed by Akshay Singh, another of the four four condemned men, to review its May 5, 2017 judgment confirming the death penalty. It also refused his plea to grant him three weeks' time to file a mercy petition before the President of India.

A Bench led by Justice R. Banumathi had said it was open for the Nirbhaya case convicts to avail whatever time the law prescribes for the purpose of filing a mercy plea.

Akshay (33), Mukesh (30), Pawan Gupta (23) and Sharma (24) had brutally gang-raped a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012. She died of her injuries a few days later.

The case shocked the nation and led to the tightening of anti-rape laws. Rape, especially gang rape, is now a capital crime.

One of the accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar jail. A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board. He was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term.