Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 3.260
Filtrar
1.
Leg Med (Tokyo) ; 48: 101832, 2021 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33373948

RESUMO

Along with rising levels of the infection around the world, the state of emergency prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic has also been having a heavy legal impact. The situation is posing important criminal challenges, as well as an ocean of social and public health issues around the world. It has not only directly affected constitutionally-guaranteed rights and individual freedoms, but also brought to the fore certain types of criminal offence that had previously been of little practical importance, such as the crime of 'maliciously or unintentionally causing an epidemic'. Different countries and states have introduced policies to manage the emergency at different times and in different ways. The measures adopted have been the object of much criticism, also raising questions of constitutional legitimacy in countries like Italy. The present contribution begins with a brief outline of the different international scenarios. Then we examine some of the medicolegal aspects of criminal offences previously envisaged and newly introduced since the arrival of the pandemic. We suggest the need for a sort of 'code of public health laws for the time of coronavirus', that could also be applied to other public health emergencies, pandemic or otherwise. The idea is to give operators in the sector and the general population the opportunity to identify clear and simple rules to follow in the current complex global situation. We need a new, appropriate interpretation of the 'boundaries' of our individual rights in relation to the need to safeguard the wider community and its more vulnerable members.


Assuntos
/epidemiologia , Direitos Civis/legislação & jurisprudência , Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/legislação & jurisprudência , Crime/legislação & jurisprudência , Regulamentação Governamental , Política de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Itália/epidemiologia , Responsabilidade Legal , Pandemias
4.
S Afr Med J ; 110(9): 858-863, 2020 08 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32880268

RESUMO

As COVID-19 spreads rapidly across Africa, causing havoc to economies and disruption to already fragile healthcare systems, it is becoming clear that despite standardised global health strategies, national and local government responses must be tailored to their individual settings. Some African countries have adopted stringent measures such as national lockdown, quarantine or isolation, in combination with good hand hygiene, mandatory wearing of masks and physical distancing, to prevent an impending healthcare crisis. The impact of stringent measures in low- to middle-income African countries has bought time for healthcare facilities to prepare for the onslaught of COVID-19 cases, but some measures have been challenging to implement. In some settings, public health measures have been associated with serious violations of individual rights owing to abuse of power and gaps in implementation of well-intentioned policy. Collateral damage with regard to non-COVID-19 diseases that were suboptimally managed in pre-pandemic times may mean that lives lost from other diseases could exceed those saved from COVID-19. While individuals complying with lockdown regulations have embraced an acceptance of the concept of the common good, at a broad community level many are finding the transition from individualism to collective thinking required during a pandemic difficult to navigate. In this article, we look at government responses to the pandemic in six African countries (Malawi, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana), and highlight ethical concerns arising in these contexts.


Assuntos
Direitos Civis/ética , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Autonomia Pessoal , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Saúde Pública/ética , África , Betacoronavirus , Botsuana , Direitos Civis/legislação & jurisprudência , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Liberdade , Humanos , Malaui , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Saúde Pública/legislação & jurisprudência , África do Sul , Uganda , Zâmbia , Zimbábue
16.
Clin Ter ; 170(1): e36-e43, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31850482

RESUMO

The author has delved into the most significant Italian and European court rulings related to heterologous fertilization and surrogate motherhood between 2012 and 2019, with a close focus on same-sex couples seeking to have their donor-conceived children born abroad legally registered in their country of origin. Undeniably, surrogacy has brought about a crisis in the traditional family model, made up of a mother and a father. The paper draws upon European Court of Human Rights established jurisprudence that upholds the children's best interests. Italian Court rulings are expounded upon as well, which have been instrumental in establishing the principles by which parental figures do not necessarily coincide with those who have generated the children (through biological bonds or delivery), but rather with those who wish to be recognized as parents. The cases herein examined involve homosexual couples who decided to travel abroad in order to gain access to surrogacy, from which children were born. In the case regarding two fathers, the child had no genetic tie with either one intended parent. The Italian Supreme Court's joint sessions have ruled that such children cannot be legally registered in Italy, since their foreign-issued birth certificates indicate no genetic connection between the children and their intended parents. The Author believes that the Supreme Court decision is valuable, but further legislative interventions will be necessary on account of scientific advancements; the issue of surrogacy is utterly complex and multi-faceted.


Assuntos
Direitos Civis/legislação & jurisprudência , Pai/legislação & jurisprudência , Fertilização In Vitro/legislação & jurisprudência , Saúde Global/legislação & jurisprudência , Direitos Humanos/legislação & jurisprudência , Casamento/legislação & jurisprudência , Mães Substitutas/legislação & jurisprudência , Adulto , Europa (Continente) , Feminino , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Itália , Estudos Longitudinais , Masculino
17.
J Homosex ; 67(8): 1135-1144, 2020 Jul 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31020923

RESUMO

In 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) began allowing anyone who believed that they experienced sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI) discrimination to file charges of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Very little is known about the impact of the EEOC's decision and whether it has enhanced protections for LGBT people. In this brief report, we present preliminary findings on trends and patterns in charge filing, paying particular attention to differences that emerge in charges filed in states with and without SOGI employment nondiscrimination laws. Differences in the characteristics of charging parties, allegations, and charge outcomes suggest that legal protections operating at the state level shape the experiences and disputing behaviors of LGBT individuals in pursuing Title VII remedies.


Assuntos
Identidade de Gênero , Preconceito , Política Pública , Sexismo/legislação & jurisprudência , Comportamento Sexual , Direitos Civis/legislação & jurisprudência , Tomada de Decisões , Emprego , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Estados Unidos
20.
S Afr Med J ; 110(11): 1086-1087, 2020 09 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33403983

RESUMO

This article deals with whether the COVID-19 regulation that prohibits parental visits to their children who are patients in hospital is invalid in terms of the Constitution of South Africa. The article contends that the ban on visits by parents to their children in hospital is a violation of the children's rights provisions of the Constitution regarding the 'best interests of the child', and the 'best interests standard' in the Children's Act 38 of 2005. The article also points out that the regulations are not saved by the limitations clause of the Constitution, because the restriction is not 'reasonable and justifiable' and a 'less restrictive means' can be used to achieve the same purpose of preventing the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The article concludes that the relevant regulation is legally invalid, and hospitals would be fully justified in allowing parental visits to child patients provided proper precautions are taken to contain the virus.


Assuntos
/prevenção & controle , Criança Hospitalizada/legislação & jurisprudência , Direitos Civis/legislação & jurisprudência , Constituição e Estatutos , Pais , Política Pública/legislação & jurisprudência , Visitas a Pacientes/legislação & jurisprudência , Criança , Humanos , África do Sul
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...