EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW最新文献

The UK left the European Union's single market on 1 January 2021. A Withdrawal Agreement made special provision for Northern Ireland. However, 'grace periods' concerning supply of goods were agreed, delaying full application of the new rules. The Northern Ireland NHS is heavily reliant on supplies from Great Britain. If these supplies are disrupted, the quality of care offered to patients will diminish. This article shows the legal details of applicable law once the 'grace periods', which are currently securing supply, cease to apply. It reveals significant costs and uncertainties associated with supply of products to the NHS in Northern Ireland. The direction of travel, unless something changes, is that new products will reach patients later than in Great Britain, and there is a real possibility that some products become difficult or impossible for the NHS in Northern Ireland to source. The result will be reduced quality of patient care.

The recent case of Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v Iceland adds to the emerging ECtHR jurisprudence on cross-border surrogacy. It reinforces principles established in previous cases and, in doing so, clarifies the scope of the child's rights under Article 8 ECHR, and hence clarifies the scope of the obligations placed on Member States in cases of cross-border surrogacy. At the same time, consideration of Valdís Fjölnisdóttir reveals significant omissions in the approach adopted by the ECtHR as regards consideration of the rights of the child. In this way, aspects of Valdís Fjölnisdóttir confuse, rather than clarify, the scope of the child's Article 8 ECHR rights in cases of cross-border surrogacy. This article examines the Valdís Fjölnisdóttir judgment with a view to identifying emerging principles, as well as contradictions, in the developing body of jurisprudence relating to cross-border surrogacy.

Defensive medicine describes behaviours engaged in by physicians, for the purposes of averting the threat of medical negligence litigation and/or complaints. Defensive practice typically encompasses 'assurance' or 'avoidance' behaviours, or 'positive' or 'negative' defensive medicine. Assurance behaviours include, for example, meticulous notetaking and ordering further clinically unnecessary tests, whereas avoidance behaviours encompass actions such as refusing to engage with a patient perceived to be high-risk. Whilst such practices may be understandable, defensive medicine is problematic for a number of reasons: it may result in a lower standard of patient care, where for example, a patient is exposed to unnecessary risk(s); and it can increase healthcare costs, which in turn limits resources. Drawing on the findings of a survey of surgeons in Ireland, this study investigates the existence of defensive practices, and explores the impact of the civil and regulatory responses to patient safety incidents on surgical practice. Given the increasing emphasis on patient safety and cultivating a "no-blame" culture both nationally and internationally, the findings of this research illustrate the tension between the current medico-legal and regulatory environment and medical practice, with implications for quality and safety.

Significant changes in the field of Azerbaijan's healthcare legislation came just at the time when the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic broke out in the world. The end of 2019 was supposed to lay the groundwork for the introduction of the country's long-awaited health insurance - a landmark change in terms of national healthcare transformation; although the Law 'On health insurance' was adopted in the 1990s, its implementation was per se frozen for many years due to various reasons. Therefore, the pandemic complicated the process even more. It also coincided with significant updates of the Law 'On human organs and tissues donation and transplantation', which comes into force in 2022, and legislation related to disability. Thus, this paper focuses on recent changes in healthcare legislation; analyses system of health insurance, updated transplantation and disability laws. It gives an overview of the developments that accompany the process of legislation transformation.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the most dramatic pandemic of the new millennium, and extraordinary measures concerning with health, law and policy are required around the world. One of these is without doubts the "green pass", officially known in the European Union (EU) as EU Digital COVID Certificate (EUDCC). Initially conceived as a tool for overcoming the lockdown restrictions, it has unexpectedly turned into a means of discrimination between pass holders and non-holders, thus increasing social tension at the expense of solidarity and brotherhood. Here, we analyze in depth the dark sides of the "green pass" in the light of the European and international legislation and of the ongoing pandemic scenario.

In 2016, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted General Comment 22 on the right to sexual and reproductive health, which affirmed that states are obliged to adopt "appropriate legislative measures" to achieve the full realization of sexual and reproductive health and rights. It affirmed that the right to sexual and reproductive health is an integral part of the right to health and recognizes abortion services as a component part of the right to health. While a liberal legislation is in itself a step towards the realization of this obligation, in this article we explore a number of potential barriers to abortion access in an autonomy-based legal model using the Danish legal model as the case study.