'THIS IS NO COUNTRY FOR OLD (WO)MEN'? AN EXAMINATION OF THE APPROACH TAKEN TO CARE HOME RESIDENTS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.

This article discusses the human rights of residents in care homes in England who were affected by restrictions that were imposed during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to safeguard health and life at a time of public health emergency. It focuses on the potentially adversarial relationship between the need to protect the health of these residents and the possible adverse interferences with their human rights in the initial phase of the pandemic. The scope and application of these rights to the healthcare context is not straightforward due to the exigencies of the pandemic. Consideration is given to whether their rights, as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) are vindicated or breached by the actions taken in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The article questions whether the restrictions that were applied were justified, given the limitations that exist within some ECHR Articles. It deliberates upon what can be done to ensure that relevant bodies and care homes, themselves, are better enabled to respond to a public health emergency in an individualistic, rights-based manner, based upon both principlism and pragmatism.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Legal Preparedness: Lessons from Ireland.

Ireland has been a leader in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in the EU, with almost 80% of the eligible population (aged over 5 years) fully vaccinated at the time of writing. The success of the vaccine rollout in this jurisdiction notwithstanding, the legal frameworks supporting the rollout had significant lacunas. Two aspects in particular highlighted a lack of legal preparedness: the inadequacy of the legal framework for consent and the absence of a vaccine injury redress scheme. This paper explores these components of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout through the lens of legal preparedness. Whilst most often discussed in the context of command and control measures such as social distancing requirements and regional lockdowns, this paper argues for an expanded understanding of what it means to be legally prepared, highlighting the importance of the preparedness of domestic legal frameworks.

Re H (A Child) (Parental Responsibility: Vaccination): The Merits of Adopting A Softer Approach To Vaccination of A Child in Care?

In Re H (A Child) (Parental Responsibility: Vaccination), the Court of Appeal decided that vaccination did not represent 'grave' or 'serious' medical treatment and determined that, in the case of a child under the care of a Local Authority, court authorization for consent to and arrangement of vaccination is no longer required. This is due to the strong medical evidence in support of vaccination. Thus, with due reference to 33(3)(b) Children Act 1989 and while considering proportionality and, particularly, the proportionate response to interference with the parents' right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court held that vaccination is in line with the best interests of the child. This commentary supports this judgment but identifies a slight prospective anomaly in the approach adopted to children in care and those who are not in care. The resolution of this dichotomy lies in broadening the scope of King LJ's approach in this case.