Parliamentary Privileges & The Courts

The two Houses of Parliament, its committees, and their members are granted specific rights, immunities, and exemptions known as "parliamentary privileges." The Indian Constitution's Article 105 defines certain rights. Members of Parliament are protected by these privileges from civil liability for statements made or actions taken while performing their official duties, but not from criminal culpability. Only when a person is a member of the house can they make use of the privileges. The privileges are stated to be terminated as soon as the person ceases to be a member. The privilege matters only see the question of Parliament and Court relationship. It involves certain facets, that are who amongst the Court or the Legislature, decides whether a particular privilege claimed by a House exists or not? When a privilege is held to exist, is the House the final judge of how, in practice, that privilege is to be exercised? Can the Courts go into the privilege of validity or proprietary of committal by a House for its contempt or breach of privilege? Can the Courts interfere with the working of the Committee of Privileges? These are the areas that shall be dealt with in the following article to clarify the relation existing between the privileges provided to parliamentarians and the powers of the Courts.

Consideraciones sobre la necesidad de supervisión a los ingresantes a las residencias médicas / On the need for supervision of the entrants to medical residences

Según la Asociación Americana de Facultades de Medicina existen 13 actividades profesionales confiables que los graduados de medicina deberían poder realizar en su primer día de residencia sin supervisión directa. Esas actividades no están claramente definidas en nuestro país. Además, no existen datos locales sobre la necesidad de su supervisión. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar la opinión de residentes y docentes acerca del nivel de supervisión que requieren los médicos ingresantes al sistema de residencias para realizar esas actividades. Se efectuó un estudio de corte transversal. Se incluyeron residentes de primer año de especialidades clínicas y quirúrgicas y sus docentes. Se enviaron encuestas electrónicas o en papel, con participación voluntaria y anónima. Se investigó la estimación sobre el nivel de supervisión que requerían los médicos ingresantes durante el primer mes de formación para 13 actividades. Se observaron diferencias significativas entre la evaluación hecha por residentes (n = 71) y los docentes (n = 39) en 11 de 13 de esas actividades. Más de la mitad de los docentes consideró que los residentes requerían supervisión directa para realizarlas, con las excepciones de formular interrogatorios clínicos y buscar evidencia. La mayoría de los residentes consideró que se requería supervisión directa solo en seis de ellas. En conclusión, los residentes estimaron requerir menor supervisión que sus docentes, quienes pensaban que los ingresantes al sistema de residencia no eran capaces de realizar la mayoría de las competencias clínicas de manera autónoma. Sería importante mejorar esta evaluación en los recién graduados, para definir con mayor precisión los niveles de supervisión.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, there are thirteen core Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) that medical graduates should be able to perform in their first day of residency, without direct supervision. In Argentina EPAs are not clearly defined. Moreover, there is no local data about the need of supervision regarding these activities. The aim of this study was to assess residents' and teaching physicians' estimations about the level of supervision that physicians in their first month of residency needed in order to perform EPAs. A cross-section study was conducted. First-year medical residents and teaching physicians were included. Electronic or paper surveys were sent, asking the level of supervision the participants estimated that residents needed to perform the 13 core EPAs, during their first month of residency. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. There were significant differences between the opinion of residents (n = 71) and teaching physicians (n = 39), for 11 out of 13 EPAs. More than half of the teaching physicians considered that residents needed direct supervision when performing EPAs, except for asking clinical questions and looking for evidence. Most residents thought that they required direct supervision in 6 EPAs. In conclusion, medical residents perceived the need of lower levels of supervision when compared to teaching physicians, who considered that medical graduates were not capable of performing most EPAs without direct supervision upon entering residency. Thus, it would be important to improve the procedures to evaluate the competences of medical graduates in order to establish more accurate supervision levels.

Crenças de mães de diferentes níveis socioeconômicos sobre punição física e privação de privilégios / Beliefs of mothers from different socioeconomic levels about physical punishment and deprivation of privileges / Creencias de madres de diferentes niveles socioeconómicos acerca de castigo físico y privación de privilegios

Este estudo comparou as crenças de mães de diferentes níveis socioeconômicos sobre dois tipos de práticas de socialização coercitivas: a punição física e a privação de privilégios. Participaram 40 mães com filhos entre cinco e seis anos, de ambos os sexos. Vinte mães eram de nível socioeconômico baixo e 20 mães eram de nível socioeconômico médio/alto, de acordo com os critérios de Hollingshead. As mães responderam a uma entrevista estruturada de crenças sobre as práticas coercitivas, e suas respostas foram submetidas à análise de conteúdo. A única diferença significativa entre os dois grupos mostrou que as mães de nível socioeconômico médio/alto apresentaram maior frequência de crenças na eficácia da privação de privilégios. Discute-se os possíveis efeitos da ampla difusão das desvantagens da punição física e de outras práticas coercitivas sobre as crenças maternas. (AU)

This study compared the beliefs of mothers from different socioeconomic levels about two types of coercive socialization practices: physical punishment and deprivation of privileges. Participants in the study were 40 mothers of children of both sexes, aged 5 to 6 years. Twenty mothers belonged to low socioeconomic status, and twenty mothers belonged to medium/high socioeconomic status according to Hollingshead. The mothers answered a structured interview regarding beliefs about coercive practices, and their answers were submitted to content analysis. The only significant difference between the two groups showed that mothers from middle/high socioeconomic status had a higher frequency of beliefs in the efficacy of deprivation of privileges. The possible effects of the widespread debate about the disadvantages of physical punishment and other coercive practices on maternal beliefs are discussed. (AU)

Este estudio comparó las creencias de madres de diferentes niveles socioeconómicos sobre dos tipos de prácticas de socialización coercitivas: el castigo físico y la privación de privilegios. Las participantes fueron 40 madres con niños entre cinco y seis años, de ambos sexos. Veinte madres eran de bajo nivel socioeconómico y 20 madres eran de nivel socioeconómico medio/alto, de acuerdo con los criterios de Hollingshead. Las madres respondieron una entrevista estructurada sobre las creencias sobre las prácticas coercitivas, y sus respuestas fueron sometidas a análisis de contenido. La única diferencia significativa entre los dos grupos mostró que las madres de nivel socioeconómico medio/alto tenían una frecuencia más alta de creencias en la eficacia de la privación de privilegios. Se discute los posibles efectos de la difusión del debate sobre las desventajas del castigo físico y otras prácticas coercitivas sobre las creencias maternas. (AU)