The DNA is now seen as irrefutable proof, both by actors on the ground and by civil society in general, especially in criminal matters. Nevertheless, although it's valuable in some cases, the DNA evidence cannot be described as infallible. It has many limitations, in particular as regards fundamental freedoms.
Until very recently, the decision to donate a body to science was governed solely by the funeral policy. There was no legal framework setting out how such bodies were to be used. The Descartes mass grave scandal set in motion a process of reflection that led to the introduction of several provisions in the French Public Health Code. Reception facilities must now be licensed and have governance in place. Use may only be made of bodies once plans have been reviewed by scientific and educational ethics committees, and donors must be better informed as to how their bodies will be used. Families are given wider scope for inclusion, meaning that they can be notified of the wishes of the deceased, and of the possibility of having the body returned to them for burial. These long-awaited legal provisions are a real step forward. However, it is unfortunate that this work did not provide an opportunity for wider reflection on the use of bodies, particularly for research purposes. In fact, the provisions and supervisory bodies change according to whether the ultimate goal is research on bodies arising from a donation, research on samples, or research on brain-dead persons. It would have been worthwhile to standardize procedures and control bodies, and perhaps to include research on antique corpses in this reflection.
The following reflections have to do with the "end of life" and are presented here as a lecture addressed to high school and preparatory school student attending a Parisian institute. They were developed with the aim of finding where a current citizens' debate called for by the executive branch and timeless, age-old questions might overlap. When we begin to ponder ultimates such as birth or death, we owe it to ourselves to take into consideration all the nuances involved; this is the only way to process the complexity of these topics. The goals of this course are, first of all, to situate the current debate within the ethical and juridical history of France, and then proceed towards making necessary conceptual distinctions. Finally, we will consider, as much as possible, what is at stake with the options at hand.
Medical research collects a huge number of medical data sheltered in Data Centers. An European regulation rule (GDRP) or General Data Protection Regulation aims to give an ethic frame to protect personal data and delegate responsability to citizens.
Despite the appearance from the Mesopotamian era of medical responsibility, an apparent impunity of the doctor will be in place until the 19th century. In France, it will be necessary to wait for the Napoleonic codes of 1804 and 1810 in order to clearly dissociate the civil and criminal responsibilities of the doctor. If liability for fault remains the rule in medical matters today, the concept of liability without fault introduced by the industrial revolution and the legislation on industrial accidents was taken up by the Kouchner law of 2002. It definitively opens the way to a statutory and legal compensation for non-faulty medical accidents under national solidarity via the National Office for Compensation for Medical Accidents (ONIAM) and the Conciliation and Compensation Commissions (CCI). Expertise in medical liability is now the backbone of the victim compensation process. It guides the magistrate in the recognition of faulty or non-faulty medical liability and helps him to set the amount of compensation allocated with regard to bodily injury.
The Covid-19 pandemic has brought new challenges to the health systems of Latin America. However, the institutions and mechanisms created by the Social State of Law were unable to confront these new risks. As a result of that, populist governments have used this crisis as an opportunity to deepen the high levels of inequalities through the appropriation of power, wealth and social welfare. Courts have also reacted in order to guarantee the right to health; however, many challenges remain.
To examine the challenges and opportunities of the judicial protection of the right to health in the context of Covid-19 and Populism in Brazil.
Qualitative, descriptive and exploratory. Documentary research was carried out by reviewing databases such as Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus. Indexed articles, jurisprudence, legislation, and literature were also reviewed. Additional publications were also identified through other sources.
There is an inversely proportional relationship between the intensity of the crisis and the level of judicial activism on the part of the Courts. Therefore, the more the scale and intensity of the crisis generated by populist governments in the context of pandemics, uncertainty, and inequality the more reflexive, and strategic courts should be and the more protection, defense and monitoring should be promoted in order to ensure the fulfilment of the right to the highest attainable level of health especially of the most vulnerable. On the other hand, the more compliance through the availability of health goods and services, and the more availability of health workers with better salaries, social security and working conditions the more resilient the State will be to face emergencies, which at the same time will promote fewer restrictions on fundamental rights.
Courts play a special role in protecting the right to health, especially in the context of emergencies and crises. States must adopt measures by using the maximum available resources in order to protect the right to the highest attainable standard of health.
Medically assisted reproduction offers a technique that allows to have children of a recently deceased person. This is provided for in the Hellenic Civil Code. This article analyzes and criticizes the conditions of post-mortem assisted reproduction according to the Hellenic Civil Code.
After a twenty-year hiatus, the issue of transfusion refusal issued by Jehovah's Witnesses comes up in legal news with the decision of May 20, 2022 rendered by the Council of State. During these 20 years the rights of patients and the autonomy of the person have been considerably strengthened. Although the refusal of treatment is clearly stated in the law, the High Administrative Court nevertheless maintains its position.
As hundreds of so-called transgender children and teenagers enter “medical transition” processes with serious consequences, the relevance of the application of the rules of the Public Health Code relating to patient information and consent must be questioned : to what extent are these young minors capable of understanding the information provided and giving free and informed consent to these programmes?
The medical controversies that have arisen concerning the consequences of the medical transition processes, the experimental nature of which has been pointed out, raise serious doubts about the quality, reliability and fairness of the information given. Furthermore, is the complexity of the information communicated to minors who have no life experience, the eagerness of young patients, the influence of social networks, and the censure attached to possible therapeutic alternatives compatible with the capacity to give free and informed consent?
Finally, if it is not a question of treating a pathology but of “concretising the right to self-determination”, can we still claim the application of rules specific to the medical field? If there is no medical necessity or very serious medical reason, is it legitimate to accede to a minor's request to irreversibly damage his or her body?
In the UK, a thousand families are reportedly preparing to take legal action for medical negligence, alleging that their vulnerable children have been misdiagnosed and placed on a damaging medical transition course. Yet these minors had been found to be ‘consenting’.
It is time to weigh up the relevance of the sacredness of the minor's consent.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：