RESUMO
The Northern Territory Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act 2013 (AMT Act) permits mandatory residential alcohol rehabilitation for up to 3 months. International guidelines and human rights law confirm that mandatory rehabilitation should only be used for short periods. Evidence concerning the efficacy of long-term mandatory alcohol rehabilitation is lacking, and minimal data concerning the efficacy of the scheme have been released. Specific legal issues also arise concerning the AMT Act, including its potentially discriminatory application to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The program only permits referral by police, despite the fact that it is ostensibly a medical intervention. Use of a treatment as a method of effectively solving a public intoxication problem is highly dubious, and should be of concern to the medical community. Given that more cost-effective and proven measures exist to combat alcohol dependence, the utility of the AMT Act is questionable.
Assuntos
Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Álcool/reabilitação , Havaiano Nativo ou Outro Ilhéu do Pacífico/estatística & dados numéricos , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente/ética , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente/legislação & jurisprudência , Centros de Tratamento de Abuso de Substâncias/ética , Centros de Tratamento de Abuso de Substâncias/legislação & jurisprudência , Dissuasores de Álcool/uso terapêutico , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Álcool/epidemiologia , Serviços de Saúde Comunitária/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Northern Territory , Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudênciaRESUMO
Internship selection is becoming more competitive due to substantial increases in numbers of medical graduates. Australian states operate a "priority system" for medical internship selection which discriminates against Australian interstate applicants. This discrimination arguably infringes section 117 of the Australian Constitution, which seeks to ensure that all citizens are treated equally and promotes national unity. The priority system should be reformed. It is inequitable and inconsistent with other aspects of medical training and regulation.
Assuntos
Internato e Residência/métodos , Discriminação Social/legislação & jurisprudência , Austrália , Constituição e Estatutos , Humanos , Internato e Residência/legislação & jurisprudência , Internato e Residência/normas , Fatores SocioeconômicosRESUMO
Many medicines currently available on the market are simply too expensive for millions around the world to afford. Many medicines available in the developing world are only available to a small percentage of the population due to economic inequities. The profit-seeking behavior of pharmaceutical companies exacerbates this problem. In most cases, the price reductions required to make drugs affordable to a broader class of people in the developing world are not offset by the resultant increase in sales volume. Simply stated, in most of the developing world, it is more profitable to sell drugs to the very wealthy at high prices than it is to sell cheaper drugs to a greater number of people. As a result, medicines remain unaffordable for the vast majority of people in many parts of the world. While this might be an acceptable outcome for certain commodities, such as luxury goods, it is completely unacceptable for life-saving medicines. Therefore, in order to effectively address the global lack of access to medicines, the role pharmaceutical companies play in the international intellectual property regime must be critically examined.