ABSTRACT
“Fear of law and veneration for the Scomm and of the law constitutes the foundation of a civilized society. Lynching is an affront to the rule of law and to the exalted values of the Constitution itself. We may say without any fear of contradiction that lynching by unruly mobs and barbaric violence arising out of incitement and instigation cannot be allowed to become the order of the day.”-Tehseen S. Poonawalav. Union of India The term ‘Law’ do not just have a mere existence rather is being enacted and enforced for the betterment of the public at large. For benefits of the citizens various basic rights has been conferred upon them and accordingly their social behaviour is being regulated. Citizens in return is required to mandatorily abide by the enforced laws. From the era of divinity, the study of various religion has always laid emphasis on to the laid down norms to regulate the human conduct in the society. Law has been the crucial part of this man-made society. The very basic purpose of law is to keep a check upon the actions of the individual and to protect the society from various criminal activities. But Lynching, an act, comprising of violence which sets aside the laid down laws is gradually becoming a fear for the public at large. It signifies that people are seeking for instant justice for any form of crime thereby creating a threat to the existing laws which are meant to preserve and protect the society. Nothing else can define the act of Lynching in a best possible way then this statement given by Mahatma Gandhi: “an eye for an eye can turn the whole world blind.”.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the onset, quality and duration of sensory and motor blockade achieved with hyperbaric bupivacaine and nalbuphine combination when administered intrathecally for spinal anesthesia in lower abdominal surgery as well as efficacy of nalbuphine for postoperative analgesia and its side effects if any. 40 ASA I and II patients of age group 50-70 years, scheduled for below umbilicus surgeries were chosen for this study. Patients were randomised in two equal groups of 20 each by lottery method. Group I [Study Group] received 3 ml of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% + 0.5 ml inj. nalbuphine [0.5 mg] intrathecally. Group II [Control Group] received 3 ml of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% + 0.5 ml of inj. normal saline intrathecally. Assessment of motor and sensory blockade was done by Bromage scale and pin prick method. Pulse rate, BP, respiratory rate and SpO[2] were monitored. There is no significant difference between 2 groups for onset of motor and sensory blockade but mean time of postoperative analgesia in Study Group was highly significant than Control Group. No patient in our study developed any side effects. Nalbuphine provides better quality of block as compared to bupivacaine alone. It also prolongs postoperative analgesia when used as adjuvant to spinal bupivacaine in elderly patients