Vaccination as an Equaliser? Evaluating COVID-19 Vaccine Prioritisation and Compensation.

This article assesses the equity of COVID-19 vaccination programmes in three jurisdictions that have historically taken different approaches to the institutionalisation of equity considerations. The Sars-Cov-2 pandemic has thrown into sharp relief persistent societal inequalities and has added novel dimensions to these problems. Certain groups have proved particularly vulnerable, both in terms of infection risk and severity as well as the accompanying social fallout. Against this background the implementation of 'objective' vaccination programmes may seem like a great leveller, addressing the disparate risks that are tied to social determinants of health and the pandemic behemoth. However, implementing vaccination programmes in an equitable manner is itself essential for the realisation of such a vision. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the English, Italian, and American jurisdictions and critically assesses two aspects of their vaccination frameworks: (i) the prioritisation of groups for vaccination and (ii) the nature of public compensation schemes for those who have suffered vaccine-related injuries. It examines whether and to what extent these measures address the inequalities raised by COVID-19 and the role of the law in this pursuit.

The Institutional Tragedy of Pandemic Triage Regulation in Italy and Germany.

This article adopts a comparative approach exploring the reactions to the scarcity of resources resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic in Italy and Germany. Both countries showed a fragmented structure including individual hospitals, medical associations and recommendatory interdisciplinary bodies, such as ethics councils. Against this background, the authors use the different constitutional frameworks in which the healthcare systems are embedded to assess the legitimacy of the intervention by non-legislative bodies. It is demonstrated that, in both jurisdictions, a certain level of parliamentary involvement in establishing triage criteria or procedures is constitutionally required, as in situations of extreme scarcity the prioritisation decision cannot be determined by a mere clinical analysis but rather demands a normative choice.

Antigone Betrayed? The European Court of Human Rights' Decisions on Conscientious Objection to Abortion in the Cases of Grimmark v. Sweden and Steen v. Sweden.

The article deals with the recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of two Swedish midwives who claimed a right to conscientious objection to abortion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). After giving an overview of the relevant previous case-law of the Court, I argue that the decisions of inadmissibility in the midwives' cases are a step backwards in the promising evolution of the Court's jurisprudence that began with the judgments in the cases of Eweida and others v. the United Kingdom and Bayatyan v. Armenia. In particular, the Court's reasoning in Grimmark v. Sweden and Steen v. Sweden failed to take into consideration the existence of a European consensus and the fact that less restrictive alternatives could have reasonably accommodated the conscientious claims of the two applicants.