Submitted To: Mrs. SHAVINA GOYAL Lect.(SMS)

Submitted By: HARDEEP SHARMA MBA-II(SEM-IV) Roll No. 3832 (C)



It gives me great satisfaction on completion of Project entitled IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND LAWS ON ETHICS. On the submission of my project report I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Mrs. Shavina goyal (Lect. SMS, Punjabi University, Patiala) for helping me and taking active interest throughout the project. She was always available, correcting mistakes, intelligently directing me to proper sources of information advising to aim for simplicity, brevity, clarity and accuracy. I am indeed thankful to her for her valuable guidance. I would also like to express my thanks to my friends who helped me on every stage. Without their help the project could not be completed.











What is Ethics?
Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts like good and bad, right and wrong, justice, virtue, etc.

“Ethics” refers to the moral values that govern the appropriate conduct of an individual or group. “Ethics” speaks to how we ought to live, that is, how we ought to treat others and how we ought to run or manage our own lives.

Simply stated, ethics refers to standards of behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations in which they find themselves-as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, teachers, professionals, and so on. Ethics refers to a system of moral principles a sense of right and wrong, and goodness and badness of actions and the motives and consequences of these actions. As applied to business firms, ethics is the study of good and evils, right and wrong and just and unjust actions of businessmen. Ethics is a body of principles or standards of human conduct that govern the behavior of individuals and groups. Ethics arise not simply from man's creation but from human nature itself making it a natural body of laws from which man's laws follow. Ethics is a branch of philosophy and is considered a normative science because it is concerned with the norms of human conduct, as distinguished from formal sciences such as mathematics and logic, physical


sciences such as chemistry and physics, and empirical sciences such as economics and psychology. Ethics is seen as an individual’s own personal attitude and a believe concerning what is right or wrong, good or bad. It is important to note that ethics reside within individuals and that organization doesn’t have ethics. People have ethics. Consequently, its definition and understanding varies from person to person. These are not absolute, but are relative. Ethical behaviors are in the eye of beholder. What is right or wrong is a personal individual matter, but is still influenced by socially accepted norms. Right, and proper and fair are the ethical terms. It expresses a judgment about behavior towards people they felt to be just. Ethics are useful tools for sorting out the good and bad components within complex human interactions. Business ethics does not differ from generally accepted norms of good or bad practices. If dishonesty is considers to be unethical and immoral in the society, then any business man who is dishonest his or her employees, customer’s shareholders, or competitors is unethical and immoral person. Businessmen should not try to evolve their own principles to justify ‘what is right and what is wrong’. Ethics refers to accepted principles of right or wrong that govern the conduct of a person, the members of a profession, or the actions of an organization. Business Ethics are the accepted principles of right or wrong governing the conduct of business people. Ethical decisions are those that are in accordance with those accepted principles of right and wrong, whereas and unethical decision in one that violates accepted principles. This is not as straightforward as it sounds Managers may face ethical dilemmas, which are situations where there is no agreement over exactly what the accepted principles of right and wrong are, or where none of the available alternatives seems ethically acceptable

It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT

Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings provide important information for our ethical choices. Some people have highly developed habits that make them feel bad when they do something wrong, but many people feel good even though they are doing something wrong. And often our feelings will tell us it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is hard.


Ethics is not religion. Many people are not religious, but ethics applies to everyone. Most religions do advocate high ethical standards but sometimes do not address all the types of problems we face.

Ethics is not following the law. A good system of law does incorporate many ethical standards, but law can deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt, as some totalitarian regimes have made it. Law can be a function of power alone and designed to serve the interests of narrow groups. Law may have a difficult time designing or enforcing standards in some important areas, and may be slow to address new problems.

Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms. Some cultures are quite ethical, but others become corrupt -or blind to certain ethical concerns (as the United States was to slavery before the Civil War). "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not a satisfactory ethical standard.

Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Science may provide an explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides reasons for how humans ought to act. And just because something is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it.


When people respond intuitively to the question ‘What is ethics?’ they tend to identify ethics with principles which distinguish right and wrong. And this is correct – as far as it goes. However, the kinds of situations which demand ethical action motivated by sound ethical principles also require a specific kind of thinking, namely ethical reflection.





Law is a system of rules, usually enforced through a set of institutions. It shapes politics, economics and society in numerous ways and serves as a primary social mediator of relations between people. Contract law regulates everything from buying a bus ticket to trading on derivatives markets. Property law defines rights and obligations related to the transfer and title of personal (often referred to as chattel) and real property. Trust law applies to assets held for investment and financial security, while tort law allows claims for compensation if a person's rights or property are harmed. If the harm is criminalized in a statute, criminal law offers means by which the state can prosecute the perpetrator. Constitutional law provides a framework for the creation of law, the protection of human rights and the election of political representatives. Administrative law is used to review the decisions of government agencies, while international law governs affairs between sovereign nation states in activities ranging from trade to environmental regulation or military action. Writing in 350 BC, the Greek philosopher Aristotle declared, "The rule of law is better than the rule of any individual." Legal systems elaborate rights and responsibilities in a variety of ways.

A general distinction can be made between civil law jurisdictions, which codify their laws, and common law systems, where judge made law is not consolidated. In some countries, religion still informs the law. Law provides a rich source of scholarly inquiry, into legal history, philosophy,

economic analysis or sociology. Law also raises important and complex issues concerning equality, fairness and justice. "In its majestic equality", said the author Anatole France in 1894, "the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." In a typical democracy, the central institutions for interpreting and creating law are the three main branches of government, namely an impartial judiciary, a democratic legislature, and an accountable executive. To implement and enforce the law and provide services to the public, a government's bureaucracy, the military and police are vital. While all these organs of the state are creatures created and bound by law, an independent legal profession and a vibrant civil society inform and support their progress.

Most of the time laws are written, approved, and then enforced by the level of government where they were written. For example, a State law is enforced by the state. A Federal law is enforced by the Feds. In other words; State Laws and Government Laws go through a process to get approved, written into law, and then are enforced. Ethics are like rules of conduct. For example, Doctors have unwritten ethical rules or practices that they adhere to just because it's the right thing to do. They have the responsibility to take care of you to the best of their ability. It's ethically correct for a Doctor to do his best to help you with your medical malady, but it's not a law that he has to. If a Doctor is unable to help you with your problem he has an ethical responsibility to refer you to a specialist, but there is not a law saying that he has to do that. Most occupations have ethics that come along with the job. They are not written done, they are unspoken rules of conduct that people adhere to. For example an electrician has an ethical responsibility to repair your house wiring correctly so that it works correctly and is not a safety hazard for you.


Natural Law and Reason
Among intellectuals who consider themselves "scientific," the phrase "the nature of man is apt to have the effect of a red flag on a bull. "Man has no nature!" is the modern rallying cry; and typical of the sentiment of political philosophers today was the assertion of a distinguished political theorist some years ago before a meeting of the American Political Science Association that "man's nature" is a purely theological concept that must be dismissed from any scientific discussion.l In the controversy over man's nature, and over the broader and more controversial concept of "natural law," both sides have repeatedly proclaimed that natural law and theology are inextricably intertwined. As a result, many champions of natural law, in scientific or philosophic circles, have gravely weakened their case by implying that rational, philosophical methods alone cannot establish such law: that theological faith is necessary to maintain the concept. On the other hand, the opponents of natural law have gleefully agreed; since faith in the supernatural is deemed necessary to belief in natural law, the latter concept must be tossed out of scientific, secular discourse, and be consigned to the arcane sphere of the divine studies. In consequence, the idea of a natural law founded on reason and rational inquiry has been virtually lost.? The believer in a rationally established natural law must, then, face the hostility of both camps: the one group sensing in this position an antagonism toward religion; and the other group suspecting that God and mysticism are being slipped in by the back door.






Laws and ethics have common aim- defining proper and improper behavior. But the two are not quite same. Laws are the society’s attempt to formalize that is to reduce to written rules- idea about what is right and what is wrong in various walks of like. However, it is rarely possible for written rules to capture all the sublet variations that people give to ethics. Ethical concepts are more complex than writing rules. Ethics deals with human dilemmas that frequently go beyond the formal language of laws and the meanings given to legal rules. Similarities and differences apart, legal rules help promote ethical behavior in organization. Some of the acts which seek to ensure fair business practices in our country are the followings:       The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, now replaced by FEMA. The Companies Act, 1956. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Environment Protection Act, 1986. The Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Government policies on ethics
Cultural Expression as a Human Right :- Although there is no specific mention of ‘culture’ or ‘ethnicity’, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for the equality of individuals, prohibits discrimination based on race/religion/language, and freedom of religion. These protections are generally accepted to cover the right to collective protection of culture.

Cultural Expression as reflected in Social Work Ethics:- The IFSW’s Declaration of Ethical Principles recognizes in its introduction that IFSW guidelines should be adapted to differing cultural contexts. These principles prohibit discrimination on any basis (race, religion, language, etc) and adhere to the UN declaration of human rights. It can be assumed that these ethics encourage social workers to support their government’s adopting policies that fit these principles. Government policy on cultural diversity can have a major impact on the practice of

Social Work Of course, while social workers may refer to such broad principles as the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the IFSW Declaration of Ethical Principles when dealing with cultural diversity, these laudable standards do not always translate into reality on the ground level of day-to-day practice. Both individual and structural barriers may exist. Being human themselves, social workers bring any number of biases to their work and they also practice within the context of government policy on cultural diversity. Governments world-wide have taken a variety of approaches to addressing cultural diversity in policy. And since social workers often work in government regulated settings, have their profession regulated by legislation and deal with the effects of other government policy on their ‘clients’, government policy without a doubt is a key shaping factor of practice. If cultural rights are not being respected, government policy will shape the recourses available to social workers and the people with whom they work.

How government policies affect the ethics
Sometimes it's easy to see when things go wrong in government: Elected officials take bribes; candidates lie about their opponents; city officials make important public decisions in secret meetings. Other times, the right thing is not so obvious: Should a councilmember represent the wishes of the majority, even when he or she thinks the majority is wrong? Is it acceptable for a governor to appoint a family member to his or her cabinet if the appointee is the best person for the job? Whether the ethical issues are obvious or complicated, they are easier to address if public servants have given some thought to the kinds of dilemmas they will confront before a crisis occurs. The materials in this "primer" on government ethics are intended to provide elected officials, government workers, and ordinary citizens with an introduction to the basic questions that are likely to come up in the conduct of public business.


A Framework for Thinking Ethically
We all have an image of our better selves-of how we are when we act ethically or are "at our best." We probably also have an image of what an ethical community, an ethical business, an ethical government, or an ethical society should be. Ethics really has to do with all these levelsacting ethically as individuals, creating ethical organizations and governments, and making our society as a whole ethical in the way it treats everyone. Why Identifying Ethical Standards is Hard There are two fundamental problems in identifying the ethical standards we are to follow:  On what do we base our ethical standards?  How do those standards get applied to specific situations we face? If our ethics are not based on feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or science, what are they based on? Many philosophers and ethicists have helped us answer this critical question. They have suggested at least five different sources of ethical standards we should use.

Five Sources of Ethical Standards
The Utilitarian Approach Some ethicists emphasize that the ethical action is the one that provides the most good or does the least harm, or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over harm. The ethical corporate action, then, is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who are affected-customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment. Ethical warfare balances the good achieved in ending terrorism with the harm done to all parties through death, injuries, and destruction. The utilitarian approach deals with consequences; it tries both to increase the good done and to reduce the harm done.

The Rights Approach Other philosophers and ethicists suggest that the ethical action is the one that best protects and respects the moral rights of those affected. This approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. On the basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends and not merely as means to other ends. The list of moral rights -including the rights to make one's own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on-is widely debated; some now argue that non-humans have rights, too. Also, it is often said that rights imply duties-in particular, the duty to respect others' rights. The Fairness or Justice Approach Aristotle and other Greek philosophers have contributed the idea that all equals should be treated equally. Today we use this idea to say that ethical actions treat all human beings equally-or if unequally, then fairly based on some standard that is defensible. We pay people more based on their harder work or the greater amount that they contribute to an organization, and say that is fair. But there is a debate over CEO salaries that are hundreds of times larger than the pay of others; many ask whether the huge disparity is based on a defensible standard or whether it is the result of an imbalance of power and hence is unfair. The Common Good Approach The Greek philosophers have also contributed the notion that life in community is a good in itself and our actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others-especially the vulnerable-are requirements of such reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone. This may be a system of laws, effective police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreational areas. The Virtue Approach A very ancient approach to ethics is that ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of

values like truth and beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, "What kind of person will I become if I do this?" or "Is this action consistent with my acting at my best?" Putting the Approaches Together Each of the approaches helps us determine what standards of behavior can be considered ethical. There are still problems to be solved, however. The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of some of these specific approaches. We may not all agree to the same set of human and civil rights. We may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even agree on what is a good and what is a harm. The second problem is that the different approaches may not all answer the question "What is ethical?" in the same way. Nonetheless, each approach gives us important information with which to determine what is ethical in a particular circumstance. And much more often than not, the different approaches do lead to similar answers.

Making Decisions Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact our choice of a course of action. Having a method for ethical decision making is absolutely essential. When practiced regularly, the method becomes so familiar that we work through it automatically without consulting the specific steps. The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we need to rely on discussion and dialogue with others about the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of the problem, aided


by the insights and different perspectives of others, can we make good ethical choices in such situations. We have found the following framework for ethical decision making a useful method for exploring ethical dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action.

A Framework for Ethical Decision Making
Recognize an Ethical Issue

Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? Does this decision involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two "goods" or between two "bads"?

Is this issue about more than what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Evaluate Alternative Actions
 

Evaluate the options by asking the following questions: Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm? (The Utilitarian Approach)

  

Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake? (The Rights Approach) Which option treats people equally or proportionately? (The Justice Approach) Which option best serves the community as a whole, not just some members? (The Common Good Approach)

Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be? (The Virtue Approach)

Make a Decision and Test It
 

Considering all these approaches, which option best addresses the situation? If I told someone I respect-or told a television audience-which option I have chosen, what would they say?

Act and Reflect on the Outcome


How can my decision be implemented with the greatest care and attention to the concerns of all stakeholders?

How did my decision turn out and what have I learned from this specific situation?


A Case:- On February 14, 2006, a U.S. District Court issued an unprecedented ruling concerning the California execution by lethal injection of murderer Michael Morales. The ruling ordered that the state have a physician, specifically an anesthesiologist, personally supervise the execution, or else drastically change the standard protocol for lethal injections. Under the protocol, the anesthetic sodium thiopental is given at massive doses that are expected to stop breathing and extinguish consciousness within one minute after administration; then the paralytic agent pancuronium is given, followed by a fatal dose of potassium chloride. The judge found, however, that evidence from execution logs showed that six of the last eight prisoners executed in California had not stopped breathing before technicians gave the paralytic agent, raising a serious possibility that prisoners experienced suffocation from the paralytic, a feeling much like being buried alive, and felt intense pain from the potassium bolus. This experience would be unacceptable under the Constitution's Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. So the judge ordered the state to have an anesthesiologist present in the death chamber to determine when the prisoner was unconscious enough for the second and third injections to be given — or to perform the execution with sodium thiopental alone. The California Medical Association, the American Medical Association (AMA), and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) immediately and loudly opposed such physician participation as a clear violation of medical ethics codes. "Physicians are healers, not executioners," the ASA's president told reporters. Nonetheless, in just two days, prison officials announced that they had found two willing anesthesiologists. The court agreed to maintain their anonymity and to allow them to shield their identities from witnesses. Both withdrew the day before the execution, however, after the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit added a further stipulation requiring them personally to administer additional medication if the prisoner remained conscious or was in pain. This they would not accept. The execution was then postponed until at least May, but the court has continued to require that medical professionals assist with the administration of any lethal injection given to Morales.





The protection, preservation and promotion of one’s culture is widely recognized as a basic Human Right and professional social work ethics also recognise the importance of cultural autonomy in social work practice. Government policy, however, can greatly influence the degree to which social workers are able to respect their ethics and human rights. In Canada, there is a celebrated national policy addressing cultural diversity, but our experience highlights the difficulty of actually implementing such a policy and the difficulty in reaching social consensus on what is an equitable approach. Social workers, despite the degree to which they are impacted by government policy, need to do more research and reflection on the topic, developing the means by which they might advocate for equitable government policy for cultural diversity.

BAN ON TABBACO ADS BY THE GOVT OF INDIA In a case which started in 1991 and ended in 1997, RJ Reynolds Tobacco company, marketer of Camel cigarettes, was forced to withdraw its mascot, Joe Carmel, an animated camel, from all its advertisements, after the California Supreme Court (USA) ruled that the company could be prosecuted for exploiting minors.


The accusation was that the slick, colorful advertisements (using an animated camel) appealed to the children and encouraged them to smoke. In India, analysts estimated that cigarettes contributed only 0.14% of the G.D.P and the health costs roughly translated to 0.21% of the G.D.P. So the revenue logic of huge contribution in the form of excise to the Exchequer did not seem to be valid. Also, given the state's significant contribution to health care, smokers, by

damaging their health were in fact enhancing the State's expenditure. Questions were also raised about the economic impact of such a ban, given the fact that the tobacco industry provided direct and indirect employment to 26 million people.

However, a study on tobacco consumption and employment, showed that effective policies to reduce smoking were likely to increase, and not decrease employment. The reason for this was that when people stopped smoking, the money did not disappear from the economy. It was spent on other goods and services, which the study showed, were more labor intensive. This, in turn produced more jobs. The impact of cigarette advertising on consumers was another contentious issue. A World Bank report had pointed out that policymakers who wanted to control tobacco should be aware of the fact that bans on advertising and promotion would prove effective, only if they were comprehensive-covering all media and all uses of brand names and logos.

The report also published the details of a comprehensive study of over 100 countries, comparing the consumption trends over time in those countries where relatively complete bans on advertising and promotion were and where no such bans were. In the countries with nearly complete bans, the downward trend in consumption was much steeper

In 1992, the Department of Health (DOH), UK reviewed various forms of evidence to assess whether tobacco advertising affected the aggregate demand for tobacco products. Four countries (Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand) were chosen, as these countries had already imposed an advertising ban and enforced it effectively. The main conclusion of the DOH was that the evidence available on these four countries indicated a significant effect. In each case, the banning of advertising was followed by a fall in smoking.


In 1997, in a similar study for the International Union against Cancer, the available data in the same four countries was examined. It was found that per capita consumption of cigarettes (15 years +) had dropped between 14 and 37 % after the implementation of the ban. (Refer Table I). In three out of the four countries, smoking among young people had decreased, while in one it remained stable. The conclusion was that advertising bans worked if they were properly implemented as part of a comprehensive tobacco control policy

The National Population Policy
The National Population Policy (NPP) hopes to address the unmet need for contraception, and provide health infrastructure, personnel and integrated service delivery for basic reproductive and child health, bring the total fertility rate to replacement level by 2010, and achieve a stable population by 2045. Besides more general directives such as making school education free and compulsory and promoting delayed marriage for girls, the policy advocates an “integrated package of essential services”, which seems to consist of providing contraceptives, treating some reproductive infections and implementing some communicable disease programmes. Shortfalls in the government’s services are to be made up by involving the voluntary and private sectors. Many of the NPP’s recommendations are uncontroversial on paper, and seem to be aimed at providing people more services. However, the proposed incentives to poor couples for sterilization, and rewards to local bodies for their performance, could encourage coercion. Women’s organizations have also asked how the ‘intersectoral approach’ will be implemented, and whether contraceptive technology and research will focus on safe and women-controlled products.

Most important, perhaps, is the fact that the NPP does not seriously address the conditions which produce ill health. Without significant change at this level, family planning will remain a low priority for the poor.


The Living Wage: Building on the Minimum Wage
The “age of the living wage” has arrived with a vengeance. In less than a decade, a wellorganized coalition of community groups, labor unions, political parties, think tanks, and churches has coaxed dozens of local governments across the United States into forcing designated employers to pay workers well above the current federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. Living wage jurisdictions include major cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Baltimore plus a large number of smaller cities and suburban counties. Local school boards and institutions of higher learning are participating as well. By the end of 2002 there were 103 living wage measures on the books, enacted mostly by municipal and county general governments, and another 74 campaigns actively under way. Activists defend living wage laws as protecting vulnerable entry-level workers from poverty. They also argue that such laws improve employee morale and productivity, which in turn improves employers’ profits. Local governments, to the extent they pay contractors living wages, deliver better services at lower cost. Residents are more satisfied with the quality of life, and the pathologies associated with poverty are reduced. Only exploitative employers and their political supporters lose. Common sense and human decency therefore require national as well as local action in the face of rightwing scare tactics. The federal minimum wage should be made a “living” wage. The reality is quite different. At best, living wage laws bring about modest benefits at a higher cost to businesses and taxpayers. There should be little surprise in that. As an elevated version of the minimum wage, the living wage magnifies the former’s labor market distortions. If applied to all employers in the United States, the living wage would make it far more difficult for first-time job seekers, especially those coming off welfare, to find work. The economic case for the living wage is difficult to make. Indeed, some three-fourths of economists surveyed by the Washington-based Employment Policies Institute said that living wage laws would result in employers looking for more-skilled employees, thus crowding out the people with the least skills—the very people whom living wage laws are intended to benefit.


The Minimum Wage as a Living Wage: A Critique
Displacement of Less-Skilled Workers Congress established the first federal minimum wage in 1938, as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and has raised it 19 times since. More than 80 studies have demonstrated a link between an increase in the minimum wage and subsequent job loss, especially among teenagers and unskilled adults, the workers with the least skills, experience, and education.12 The more employers have to pay such workers, the less likely they are to employ them. Those workers may turn out to be productive employees, but they present risks to the employer so, given the minimum price set by the state, the employer reduces risk by hiring only more-qualified workers. Hyundai’s are less reliable automobiles than Hondas or Toyotas. If the Hyundai’s could not compete on the basis of a lower price, none would be bought. A review of the empirical research over the past quarter century supports that thesis. In 1977 Congress created a Minimum Wage Study Commission. Economists on the commission surveyed a broad range of studies and estimated that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage decreased teen employment by about 1 to 3 percent.13 One skeptical researcher not on the commission replicated the earlier study’s methodology and found a teen job loss of 0.6 percent.

Counterproductive Anti-Poverty Policy

Advocates of the living wage argue that it combats poverty, but the evidence does not support that claim. First, the problem for low-income Americans is really insufficient hours rather than insufficient wages. A Bureau of Labor Statistics report revealed that in 2000 only 3.5 percent of all household heads who worked full-time 27 weeks or more over the course of the year fell below the poverty line. By contrast, this figure was 10.2 percent for household heads who worked less than 27 weeks.23 The BLS study also revealed that only a few more than 20 percent of all household heads with below-poverty-line incomes attributed their condition solely to low earnings. The remaining 80 percent cited unemployment, involuntary part-time employment, or one or both of those factors in combination with low earnings.


Social Legislation pertaining to women
1. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 2. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 3. Sexual Harassment and Rape Laws 4. Right to Abortion

Subordination of women has led to violence under this head to rise. Incidence of domestic violence crosses all the barriers of class, income, rare, culture and religion and in a highly under reported crime. Domestic violence is one of the greatest obstacles to gender equality and securing for women their fundamental rights to equal protection under the law and the right to life and liberty.

Provision under IPC which aims at protecting the Women: 1. Under Sec. 125, the wife can file a suit against her husband if the husband fails to maintain her. 2. Sec.375 and 376 specify the punishment for rape. 3. Under Sec.359-396, Kidnapping of women is punishable Sec.363 to 373 clarify as to what constitute kidnapping and abduction. 4. Sec.302/304 (b) Define the meaning and punishment relating to homicide for dowry, dowry death or their attempts. U/s 304 (b) death of a woman within seven years of her marriage shall be deemed to have been caused by any demand for dowry. 5. Sec.306 says that any person who commits suicide, whosoever abert the commission of such suicide is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years and also fine. The offence is cognizable, non-bail able, non compoundable. 6. Under Sec.312 to 314, a person causing miscarriage be punished with imprisonment which may extend up to 3 years, or with fine or both. 7. Bigamy is an offence u/s 494. It is punishable with imprisonment for a term extending up to 7 years or with fine. 8. U/S 407, a person who commits adultery shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 5 years or with fine or both.

9. U/S 498 (a) FIR can be lodged at any Police Station or a Women Cell for torture, both mental and physical by the husband or a in-laws. The offence is cognizable, non-bail able, non compoundable. The punishment is imprisonment; which may extend up to 7 years with fine. 10. Importation of girl up to 21 years of age from a foreign country shall be punishable U/s 366 of IPC. The punishment can extend up to a term of 10 years and also fine. 11. Section 354 deals with outraging modesty of women. Any act of molestation with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman is punishable. 12. Section 509 is related to the suit of modesty of a woman (Sexual Harassment). Such an act shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to 10 years and also fine.

Abortion means the expulsion of a living fetus the mother’s womb before it is viable. “In medical parlance,” according to Dr. Andre E. Hellegers, “abortion is the termination of pregnancy spontaneously or by induction prior to viability. Thereafter, termination of pregnancy is called delivery.”


PHYSICAL: · Woman may suffer habitual miscarriage · Ectopic pregnancies · Menstrual disturbances or discomfort · Still births · Bleeding · Shock · Insomnia


PSYCHOLOGICAL: · May manifest guilt · Suicidal tendency · Loss of sense of fulfillment · Loss of confidence · Loss of appetite · Coma · Perforated anus · Fever and cold sweat · Intense pain · Weight loss · Frigidity · Hostility · Thwarted maternal instinct · Self-destructive behavior · Anger, rage · Helplessness · Loss of interest in sex · Inability to forgive herself · Intense interest in babies

MORAL CONSIDERATIONS The direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral even when it is performed as a means to a good end. The magisterium of the church has consistently condemned abortion throughout history, even when the exact moment of fetus animation is still being disputed. The sanctity of human life demands that it must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being already possesses the rights of a person, among which is the inviolable right of every innocent human being. This alienable right must be recognized and respected by civil society and political authority. Abortion destroys life and violates the right to life. As such it is morally evil and it should not be in any way legalized and liberally permitted in the laws and constitution of a

nation. Abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. We should reject abortion, unless for therapeutic reasons, for it is simply the murder of an innocent being.

PHILIPPINES: Article II, Section 12 of the 1986 Constitution provides that “The State recognizes the sanctity of life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” Despite this position, however, the illegal practice of abortion continues and formal complaints against violators have yet to be filed in the Philippine courts. Based on the study conducted by the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), the number of cases of induced abortion in the Philippines ranges from 150,000 to 750,000 every year. In one Metro Manila hospital alone, 4,000 cases of abortion are undertaken annually. What usually happens is that illegal abortionists perform abortions outside, and when the woman suffers from profuse vaginal bleeding, she goes to a hospital for confinement.

UNITED STATES: Roe v. Wade gave strength to a woman’s right to privacy in the context of matters relating to her own body, including how a pregnancy would end. However, the Supreme Court also has recognized the interest of the states in protecting potential life and has attempted to spell out the extent to which the states may regulate and even prohibit abortions. First trimester. In the first trimester the pregnancy starts with a fertilized egg that divides to become tissue and cleavage, which becomes an embryo. In these first three months the embryo goes through organogenesis and develops body organs, its heart beats after the fourth week, brain waves can be monitored after six weeks, and by the eighth week all major body parts are present. At the end of the trimester the embryo has matured into a fetus. The decision to undergo an abortion procedure is between the woman and her physician. Second trimester. During the second trimester the fetus grows from the approximately 5cm it was at the end of the first trimester to about 30cm long. It also begins to move as it is continuing to mature. During approximately the fourth to sixth months of pregnancy, the state may regulate the medical conditions under which the procedure is

performed. The constitutional test of any legislation would be its relevance to the objective of protecting maternal health. Third trimester. By the third trimester it becomes fully-grown, completely fills the capacity of the womb, and fully matured at about 50cm long. Since the heart has been beating since the beginning of the first trimester, a fetus in the stages of the second and third trimesters are almost always considered alive and, therefore, state property to some extent unless there are extenuating circumstances. During the final stage of pregnancy, a state may prohibit all abortions except those deemed necessary to protect maternal life or health.

UNITED KINGDOM: There are two key statutes relevant to abortion: the Offences Against the Person Act and the Abortion Act. The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 remains the definitive law in England. It gives statutory grounds to the effect that abortion is a crime except where subsequent legislation provides protection against criminal prosecution. The Abortion Act (1967), amended 1990 The Abortion Act was designed to tackle two main issues. The first was increasing concern at the number of ‘back street abortions’, despite their being illegal. These were often medically quite unsafe, and an increasing number of women were being admitted to hospital with complications from such abortions. The second was the lack of clarity over the question of when a doctor could carry out an abortion for the sake of the mother’s health. · Prior to 24 weeks a doctor may carry out an abortion, with the woman’s consent, on very wide grounds. · After 24 weeks abortion is only lawful either to prevent risk of considerable harm to the mother, or for the sake of the fetus. · Except in an emergency two doctors are required to be of the opinion that abortion is justified n one of the grounds stated in the Act. · It is generally assumed that when the Act states that ‘pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week’ it means 24 weeks since the first day of the woman’s last period.


There are specific laws that pertain to abortion. Certain laws even permit abortion within a maximum time limit. They state that abortion is possible only up to a certain stage during pregnancy and should essentially be at the woman’s request. Abortion is allowed only for medical reasons in very exceptional circumstances, e.g., to save the mother’s life. Today, with the legislation and positive authorization of abortion in some cases, things have changed. A review of the legal proceedings of those countries which have legalized abortion show some differences in modalities, which can be observed upon reading the World Health Organization chronicle of 1976. This chronicle summarizes the conditions or situations in which the legislation of different countries authorizes the practice of abortion. Such situations are

· When the mother is authorized to safeguard her physical and mental health;

· When pregnancy is the consequence of rape or incest, or when it occurs in minors; · When the mother contracts sub-cola during a critical stage of gestation or has been exposed to other risks which can lead to defective fetal development; · When Down’s syndrome or other chromosomal abnormalities are diagnosed through amniocentesis; and · When the parents are mentally deficient and considered incapable of adequately rearing a child.


Legal considerations Over the last decade a number of cases have been heard in the courts concerning the legality of enforcing a caesarian section n an unwilling woman. Most cases have been heard in great haste, and without legal representation for the pregnant woman. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists produced guidelines that stated:


· Obstetricians must respect the woman’s legal liberty to ignore or reject professional advice…. · We conclude that it is inappropriate…., to invoke judicial intervention to overrule an informed and competent woman’s refusal to treatment, even though that refusal might place her life and that of her fetus at risk. The courts have interpreted common law as giving a competent woman the right to refuse treatment even where the life of the fetus is at grave risk. However, they fall over backwards to find the woman incompetent in order, perhaps, to justify saving the fetus, and perhaps on the view that the woman will be glad afterwards that that was the decision taken.

Ethical considerations In thinking about the ethical issues raised by decisions or interventions in reproductive medicine it is important to distinguish between an identity-preserving and an identity-altering intervention or decision. An example of an identity-preserving intervention is when a pregnant women drinks large amount of alcohol. If the child is subsequently born with some brain damage as a result, it has been harmed by the mother’s alcohol intake. An example of an identity-altering decision is when a woman decides to delay reproduction from, for example, 30 years to age 40 years. A different child will be born as a result of her decision. Suppose that she has a child (child a) at age 40 that is born with Down’s syndrome. The likelihood is that, had she conceived a child at age 30, it would not have suffered from Down’s syndrome. Has Child A been harmed as a result of her decision to delay reproduction? The decision has altered the identity of the child who is born. Had she conceived at the age 30 she would have given birth to a different child. Because child A would not have come to existence at all, had she not decided to delay reproduction, it is not clear that child A has been harmed by having Down’s syndrome as a result of her decision. On one view of harm, the decision could only have harmed child A if it would have been better for A not to have existed at all than to exist with Down’s Syndrome. Children in situations of crime and exploitation Recognizing the flaws of the 1986 Juvenile Justice Act, the government passed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000. But the knee jerk reaction in amending the law without a wider discussion and consultation with child rights practitioners has left many who are concerned with children and work with them deeply distressed. In 2003 the government drafted amendments to the law. But, because of criticisms and concerns raised by several organizations


and groups, it has been placed before a Parliamentary Standing Committee. The Committee is currently reviewing the law. The Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation Act) was enacted in 1986, to specifically address the situation of children in labor. However, this law distinguishes between hazardous and nonhazardous forms of labor, and identifies certain processes and occupations from which children are prohibited from working. It leaves out a large range of activities that children are engaged in and are exploited and abused. The large-scale exploitation and abuse of children employed in domestic work and hotels are cases in point. Child trafficking is one of the most heinous manifestations of violence against children. This is taking on alarming proportions - nationally and internationally. Although, very little reliable data or documentation is available, meetings and consultations across the country have revealed the gravity and the extent of this crime. It is high time we understood and realised that children are trafficked for a number of reasons and this cannot be treated synonymously with prostitution. The absence of this comprehensive understanding and a comprehensive law that addresses all forms of trafficking to back it makes this issue even more critical.

Adoption: The need for greater checks and balances Adoption is one of the best and appropriate forms of alternative family care. Indeed, it is the only way to break the mindset of institutional care for children, which has been posed as the only solution for many years. However, adoption of children continues to be determined by religion of the adoptive parents or the child when religion is known. Only Hindus, Janis, Buddhists and Sikhs can adopt children. The personal laws of other religions - Muslims, Parses, and Jews do not allow it. Even as it exists for Hindus, the law has serious flaws discriminating against married women. It allows only married men to adopt. Further, it only allows for adoption of children of opposite genders.

Legal Literacy A citizen should be aware of his rights. He may know that he has a right to a ration card. But he doesn't know how to get it in a reasonable time if he loses it. Similarly, the question of personal liberty. He doesn't know what to do if a constable comes calling. There are so many procedural things courts have laid down. It is in these matters — regarding life and liberties — that legal

literacy is not realized. Legislation like the Right to Information Act will be blocked by bureaucrats if people don't know its provisions and procedures. If there is an enlightened citizenry such things will not happen.


India being a cosmopolitan country tolerates personal laws of its citizen. As a result each citizen of India is entitled to have his own personal laws inter alia in the matter of marriage and divorce. Hindus are governed by Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which provides for the conditions of a Hindu Marriage where under the bridegroom should be of 21 years and bride of 18 years, they both should be Hindus and should not be within the degree of prohibited relationship or sapindas, neither party should have a spouse living nor any party should be subject to recurrent attacks of insanity or epilepsy, either of them should not be suffering from mental disorders or should not be unfit for marriage and procreation of children and both should be of sound mind and capable of giving valuable consent. Divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 can be obtained on the grounds of Adultery, Cruelty, Desertion for two years, Conversion in religion, Unsound mind, Suffering from venereal disease and/or Leprosy has renounced the world not heard for 7 years no resumption of co-habitation for one year after the decree of judicial separation, no restitution of conjugal rights for one year after decree for restitution of conjugal rights, Husband guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality and if after an order of maintenance is passed under the Hindu Maintenance and Adoptions Act or the Criminal Procedure Code there has been no cohabitation for one year.

Drugs and the Law
A policy that sets drugs in context and seeks above all to reduce drug-related harm needs a new legal framework to reflect these objectives. In our view, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Classification system it embodies achieves neither of these aims. The Act, and all the later legislation following on from it, should be repealed and superseded by a new Misuse of Substances Act that:

• sets drugs in the wider context of substance misuse alongside alcohol and tobacco; • is linked directly to a scientifically based index that makes clear the relative risks of harm from individual substances; • seeks to punish harmful behaviors stemming from drug use rather than the simple possession of drugs. Regulating alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs all within the same framework would have an integrity and credibility that the present system lacks. Centering the framework on a harms index that can be changed in order to reflect the latest developments and the most recent research would give it both authority and flexibility. A framework of this kind would be a neutral instrument. It could be used either to relax or to tighten the regulation of individual substances. Some drugs that are currently illegal could be brought under the same kind of regulation that is now used to control comparably harmful but legal substances; for example, milder forms of cannabis might be regulated in much the same way as tobacco. Conversely, some drugs whose current regulation is elastic and discretionary might be more strictly controlled alongside substances that inflict similar amounts of harm; for example, the stronger forms of ‘skunk’ cannabis might be regulated alongside amphetamines instead of Valium. Not all members of the Commission, like many in the arena of drugs policy, are agreed on whether or not any particular drug should be legalized, or even on whether the possession and use of anydrug should be treated as a civil rather than a criminal offence. But they have refrained from trying to settle these narrower issues in order to advocate the broader principle of a new legal framework to replace one that is manifestly failing in its aims. The UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 requires its 180 signatories to declare illegal the cultivation, manufacture, export, import, distribution, sale and possession of the major plant-based drugs – heroin, opium, cocaine and cannabis – other than for scientific and medical purposes. There are wide variations in the way in which the Convention is interpreted by its signatories, but it remains the framework within which drugs policy makers are on the whole constrained to operate. The 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances adds LSD, ecstasy and other psychoactive pharmaceutical drugs to the list of substances to be controlled. The 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances strengthens existing provisions against money laundering, directs signatories to cooperate in tracing and seizing drug-related assets and inserts the requirement that


they should impose criminal penalties for all drug offences, including possession of drugs for personal use. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Britain fulfils its obligations under these UN Conventions mainly through the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA), which makes it unlawful to produce, import, export, supply or possess anything designated as a controlled drug unless an exception or exemption applies. Controlled drugs are listed in Schedule 2 to the Act. Beside the best known illicit drugs, the list includes a large number of drugs that are used mainly for medical purposes but that may also be used recreationally: Ritalin, for example, which is prescribed in order to dampen down hyperactivity but abused for precisely the opposite reason. The idea of controlling these commonly prescribed drugs is to protect their licit use (in the interests both of public health and of the pharmaceutical industry) while at the same time restricting their illicit use. To enable doctors, dentists, pharmacists, researchers and others to prescribe and handle these drugs for medical purposes, the Home Secretary makes exemptions to the Act under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.






BOOKS 1. Ethics for life - Judith A. Boss 2. Government ethics and law enforcement- El-Ayouty 3. Natural law and the possibility of a global ethics- By Mark J. Cherry

Articles in newspapers (june01 – jan10)

1. The Tribune 2. Hindustan Times 3. The Hindu

1. India today 2. Business today

1. 2.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful