Ellen Sends Nursing, Midwifery Bill to Senate

first_imgPresident Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf has sent to the Senate for enactment, an Act to amend Chapter 65 and 66 of Title 33 of Public Health Law to grant autonomy to the Liberia Board of Nursing and Midwifery.In a communication dated July 8, 2014 and addressed to the Senate, President Sirleaf noted that “as the name of the instrument suggests, the draft Act amends the Public Health Law and makes the Liberia Board for Nursing and Midwifery an autonomous agency with the exclusive power to regulate nursing and midwifery practice in Liberia.”According to President Sirleaf’s communication, when the Act is established, the board will have the authority among other things; to create regulations, policies and punishments for the practice of nursing and midwifery; to enter into contract to afford the performance in acting this law in borrowing money in line with the Public Financial Management Act; register all person engaged in or desirous to engage in the practice of nursing and midwifery.The President said the Act will further design and harmonize the curriculum of the midwifery institution in the country, and establish the necessary professional standards to regulate the midwifery and nursing section.The President’s proposed amended Act wants the board to comprise of not less than 13 and not more than 17 members who shall be appointed based on a recommendation of the Professional Nursing and Midwifery Institutions; and all its members, except an ex-officio, legal adviser, shall have nursing and midwifery-related experience.She said the Act is in continuation of reform in the health sector of the country.The Act, which is sponsored in the Senate by the Senate Committee on Gender, Health, Social Welfare, Women and Children Affairs, Senator Peter Coleman and Grand Gedeh County Senator Isaac Nyenabo, and was sent to the committees on Health and Welfare, and Judiciary.Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)last_img read more

CAS rules Narsingh intentionally took substance in tablet form

first_imgNew Delhi, Aug 22 (PTI) While handing down a four-year ban on Narsingh Yadav, the Court of Arbitration for Sports has ruled that the wrestler failed to produce any “real evidence” regarding the sabotage theory he had advanced and the balance of probabilities” was that he orally took the banned substance intentionally in tablet form on more than one occasion. In its full award, the ad hoc panel of the CAS relied on expert evidence that Narsinghs dope offence was not due to one-time ingestion of the prohibited substance and its concentration in the first test result (of June 25) was so high that it had to come from an oral ingestion of one or two tablets of methandienone, rather than from a drink where the powder had been mixed with water. The expert opinion was given by Professor Christiane Ayotte from Canada who was presented by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Professor Ayotte is a member of IAAF Doping Commission since 1995 and was elected representative of the Heads of IOC Accredited Laboratories in 1995-1996. She is currently the Director of the WADA-accredited laboratory in Montreal. Narsinghs urine sample taken out-of competition on June 25 was found to contain metabolites of methandienone and long term metabolite of methandienone. Another sample taken out-of competition on July 5 was also found to contain long term metabolites of methandienone. “…all in all found the sabotage (s) theory possible, but not probable and certainly not grounded in any real evidence. The panel therefore determined that the athlete had failed to satisfy his burden of proof and the panel was satisfied that the most likely explanation was that the athlete simply and intentionally ingested the prohibited substance in tablet form on more than one occasion,” the CAS panel said. The CAS had handed Narsingh a four-year ban in its operative award on August 18 barely hours before his 74kg freestyle opening bout was scheduled. “The panel had to weigh circumstantial evidence of the athlete against scientific evidence of WADA to determine whether it was satisfied with the athletes position that he did not take the prohibited substance intentionally. The panel is conscious that expert evidence offered by Professor Ayotte may be susceptible to qualification by other expert (s). However, the panel has no reason to question the scientific data and/or her expert testimony,” the full award said. Narsingh had submitted that the doping offence was due to sabotage carried out by Jithesh (a junior wrestler and a member of Sushil Kumars entourage) by mixing his energy drinks with prohibited substance on either June 23 or 24. The panel also noted that the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of the NADA had heard three persons — Paswan, Rahul Kumar and Pankaj Kumar — who had confirmed that they had seen Jithesh trying to contaminate Narsinghs food earlier on June 5 by pouring some powder into the curry. PTI PDS PDSadvertisementlast_img read more