Indigenous ontology, international law and the application of the Convention to the over-representation of Indigenous children in out of home care in Canada and Australia.

This paper explores the efficacy of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Convention, UN General Assembly, 1989) through the lens of the over-representation of First Nations children placed in out-of-home care in Canada and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Australia. A general overview of Indigenous worldviews frames a discussion on the coherence of international human rights law and instruments, including the Convention, account for Indigenous Peoples' ontologies. The authors argue that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN General Assembly, 2007) and a new theoretical framework published by the Pan American Health Organization (2019) on health equity and inequity are useful tools to augment the Convention's coherence with Indigenous ontologies. The paper discusses how the Convention can be applied to structural and systemic risks driving the over-representation of First Nations and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out of home care in Canada and Australia. These two countries are included as First Nations and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in these countries have both had significant impact in advocating for their children despite experiencing similar barriers including contemporary colonialism. The advocacy work of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society in Canada and the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency in Victoria, Australia are discussed. The paper ends by outlining some of the challenges ahead that include the need to meaningfully recognize Indigenous self-determination and equitable funding and resources to enable the actualization of self-determination. Further research contrasting international human rights instruments with Indigenous ontologies could help inform possible amendments to international human rights treaties and general comments.

Do we have a right to an unmanipulated genome? The human genome as the common heritage of mankind.

The human genome is commonly regarded as a 'natural' connection between all human beings, as it has been handed down to us by our predecessors. As such, it is believed to represent common heritage of humanity, e.g. a resource of outstanding value that should be the object of special protection and international concern. Some critics argue that germline manipulation would disrupt this natural heritage and that we have a duty to preserve the integrity of the human germline. However, a closer look reveals that the concept of common heritage of humanity does not necessarily imply the impermissibility of germline manipulation. If it is restricted to the prevention of severe diseases, germline manipulation does not represent a threat to the unity and identity of the human species, even though this would create a new form of relationship between human beings, namely that between a designer and a genetically designed person.

Dual loyalties: Everyday ethical problems of registered nurses and physicians in combat zones.

BACKGROUND:: When healthcare personnel take part in military operations in combat zones, they experience ethical problems related to dual loyalties, that is, when they find themselves torn between expectations of doing caring and military tasks, respectively. AIM:: This article aims to describe how Swedish healthcare personnel reason concerning everyday ethical problems related to dual loyalties between care and military tasks when undertaking healthcare in combat zones. DESIGN:: Abductive qualitative design. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT:: Individual interviews with 15 registered nurses and physicians assigned for a military operation in Mali. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS:: The participants signed up voluntarily, and requirements for informed consent and confidentiality were met. The research was approved by the Regional Ethics Review Board in Gothenburg (D no. 816-14; 24 November 2014). FINDINGS:: Three main categories emerged: reasons for not undertaking combat duties, reasons for undertaking combat duties and restricted loyalty to military duties, and 14 subcategories. Reasons for not undertaking combat duties were that it was not in their role, not according to ethical codes or humanitarian law or a breach towards patients. Reasons for undertaking combat duties were that humanitarian law does not apply or has to be treated pragmatically or that it is a case of force protection. Shortage of resources and competence were reasons for both doing and not doing military tasks. Under some circumstances, they could imagine undertaking military tasks: when under threat, if unseen or if not needed for healthcare duties. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION:: These discrepant views suggest a lack of a common view on what is ethically acceptable or not, and therefore we suggest further normative discussion on how these everyday ethical problems should be interpreted in the light of humanitarian law and ethical codes of healthcare personnel and following this, further training in ethical reflection before going on military operations.

Caso Esperancita: hacia un estándar legal mínimo de aborto terapéutico en el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos / Esperancita Case: towards a minimum legal standard on therapeutic abortion in the Interamerican System of Human Rights / Cas Esperancita: cap a un estàndard legal mínim d'avortament terapèutic en el Sistema Interamericà de Drets Humans

El presente artículo describe la estrategia jurídica utilizada en el caso de Rosaura Almonte (Esperancita) vs. República Dominicana ante la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Se argumenta que el artículo 4 de la Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos (CADH), que consagra el derecho a la vida, establece que los Estados, en cumplimiento de sus obligaciones, deben permitir como mínimo el aborto terapéutico. A partir de un análisis de los métodos de interpretación establecidos en la Convención de Viena sobre Derecho de los Tratados y su aplicación en el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, resulta admisible establecer que el artículo 4 de la CADH protege la vida y salud de la mujer embarazada cuando se encuentren en riesgo

This paper describes the legal strategy used in the case of Rosaura Almonte (Esperancita) vs. the Dominican Republic before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. This argues that Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), which enshrines the right to life, establishes that States, in compliance with their obligations, should allow at least therapeutic abortion. Indeed, based on an analysis of the methods of interpretation established in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and their application in the Inter-American System of Human Rights, it is admissible to establish that Article 4 of the ACHR protects the life and health of the pregnant woman when they are at risk

El present article descriu l'estratègia jurídica utilitzada en el cas de Rosaura Almonte (Esperancita) vs. la República Dominicana davant la Comissió Interamericana de Drets Humans. S'argumenta que l'article 4 de la Convenció Americana de Drets Humans (CADH), que consagra el dret a la vida, estableix que els Estats, en compliment de les seves obligacions, han de permetre com a mínim l'avortament terapèutic. A partir d'una anàlisi dels mètodes d'interpretació establerts en la Convenció de Viena sobre Dret dels Tractats i la seva aplicació al Sistema Interamericà de Drets Humans, resulta admissible establir que l'article 4 de la CADH protegeix la vida i salut de la dona embarassada quan es trobin en risc