Introduction:The topic of euthanasia has induced differences not only among professionals in the medical fraternity but also in other fields as well. The dying process is being lengthened by the new state of art technologies erupting as such higher pace, and it is at the expense of standard quality of life and of a gracious death.Aim:To study the awareness and attitude toward euthanasia among select professionals in Delhi.Methodology:It was a questionnaire-based descriptive cross-sectional study. The study population included doctors, nurses, judges, lawyers, journalist, and social activists of Delhi. Tool included a sociodemographic questionnaire, two questions to know awareness regarding euthanasia and a modified euthanasia attitude scale used to measure attitude toward euthanasia. Data were analyzed using Stata 11.2.Results:Through our study, it is evident that professionals who participated in the study (judges, advocates, doctors, nurses, journalists, and social activists) in Delhi were familiar with the term euthanasia. No significant difference was seen in the attitude of professionals of different age group and sex toward euthanasia.Conclusion:Through this study, it is found that judiciary group most strongly endorsed euthanasia. The attitude of doctors was elicited from mixed group with doctors belonging to different specialties. Oncologists are not in favor of any form of euthanasia. However, doctors from other specialties did support euthanasia.

ObjectivesSince the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, behavioural interventions to reduce disease transmission have been central to public health policy worldwide. Sustaining individual protective behaviour is especially important in low-income and middle-income settings, where health systems have fewer resources and access to vaccination is limited. This study seeks to assess time trends in COVID-19 protective behaviour in India.DesignNationally representative, panel-based, longitudinal study.SettingWe conducted a panel survey of Indian households to understand how the adoption of COVID-19 protective behaviours has changed over time. Our data span peaks and valleys of disease transmission over May–December 2020.ParticipantsRespondents included 3719 adults from 1766 Indian households enrolled in the Harmonised Diagnostic Assessment of Dementia for the Longitudinal Ageing Study in India.AnalysisWe used ordinary least squares regression analysis to quantify time trends in protective behaviours.ResultsWe find a 30.6 percentage point (95% CI (26.7 to 34.5); p<0.01) decline in protective behaviours related to social distancing over the observation period. Mask wearing and handwashing, in contrast, decreased by only 4.3 percentage points (95% CI (0.97 to 7.6); p<0.05) from a high base. Our conclusions are unchanged after adjusting for recorded COVID-19 caseload and nationwide COVID-19 containment policy; we also observe significant declines across socioeconomic strata spanning age, gender, education and urbanicity.ConclusionWe argue that these changes reflect, at least in part, ‘COVID-19 fatigue,’ where adherence to social distancing becomes more difficult over time irrespective of the surrounding disease environment.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has posed several challenges to clinical laboratories across the globe. Amidst the outbreak, errors occurring in the preanalytical phase of sample collection, transport and processing, can further lead to undesirable clinical consequences. Thus, this study was designed with the following objectives: (i) to determine and compare the blood specimen rejection rate of a clinical laboratory and (ii) to characterise and compare the types of preanalytical errors between the pre-pandemic and the pandemic phases. Materials and methods This retrospective study was carried out in a trauma-care hospital, presently converted to COVID-19 care centre. Data was collected from (i) pre-pandemic phase: 1 st October 2019 to 23 rd March 2020 and (ii) pandemic phase: 24 th March to 31 st October 2020. Blood specimen rejection rate was calculated as the proportion of blood collection tubes with preanalytical errors out of the total number received, expressed as percentage. Results Total of 107,716 blood specimens were screened of which 43,396 (40.3%) were received during the pandemic. The blood specimen rejection rate during the pandemic was significantly higher than the pre-pandemic phase (3.0% versus 1.1%; P < 0.001). Clotted samples were the commonest source of preanalytical errors in both phases. There was a significant increase in the improperly labelled samples (P < 0.001) and samples with insufficient volume (P < 0.001), whereas, a significant decline in samples with inadequate sample-anticoagulant ratio and haemolysed samples (P < 0.001). Conclusion In the ongoing pandemic, preanalytical errors and resultant blood specimen rejection rate in the clinical laboratory have significantly increased due to changed logistics. The study highlights the need for corrective steps at various levels to reduce preanalytical errors in order to optimise patient care and resource utilisation.

No abstract

No abstract