Medical Law Review最新文献

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated profound inequalities in the conditions in which people live, work, and age. Law plays a critical role in shaping these structural health inequalities, which have existed for decades. This dynamic can be observed at the local level, with cities operating as environments unequally distributing the risks of non-communicable diseases between population groups. This article first focuses on urban development to explore the conceptual links between health inequalities and the role of law. I expand this observation and I posit that the social determinants of health are about human rights. With that in mind, I argue that human rights are necessary to address the issue of unequally unhealthy urban environments, hence recognising that people are entitled to a minimum essential level of the conditions in which they live, work, and age, which the State is responsible to fulfil. By way of strengthening my argument, I lay out how a human rights framework can improve these conditions and ameliorate unfair inequalities. Finally, I recognise and respond to the limits of a human rights approach.

This article assesses the equity of COVID-19 vaccination programmes in three jurisdictions that have historically taken different approaches to the institutionalisation of equity considerations. The Sars-Cov-2 pandemic has thrown into sharp relief persistent societal inequalities and has added novel dimensions to these problems. Certain groups have proved particularly vulnerable, both in terms of infection risk and severity as well as the accompanying social fallout. Against this background the implementation of 'objective' vaccination programmes may seem like a great leveller, addressing the disparate risks that are tied to social determinants of health and the pandemic behemoth. However, implementing vaccination programmes in an equitable manner is itself essential for the realisation of such a vision. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the English, Italian, and American jurisdictions and critically assesses two aspects of their vaccination frameworks: (i) the prioritisation of groups for vaccination and (ii) the nature of public compensation schemes for those who have suffered vaccine-related injuries. It examines whether and to what extent these measures address the inequalities raised by COVID-19 and the role of the law in this pursuit.

Social determinants of health are the social and economic conditions that have a determining impact on health at an individual and population level. Working within this framework, in 2019 the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University and The Lancet published The legal determinants of health: Harnessing the power of law for global health and sustainable development. This report identifies and promotes four legal determinants: provision of universal health coverage under the Sustainable Development Goals; governance of national and global health institutions; implementation of evidence-based health interventions; and building legal capacity. These determinants are dominated by the role of law in founding and governing health institutions and regulating their interventions. Such work is essential. However, the relationship between law, health improvement, and health equity articulated through these four determinants risks marginalising questions of disadvantage and inequality that social determinants of health research-and the report itself-mandate we attend to. Addressing the UK experience of COVID-19, and how social inequalities profoundly impacted experiences and outcomes in the first year of the pandemic, this article builds on the Lancet-O'Neill Commission's important work to argue that any articulation of legal determinants of health must foreground law's role in improving fairness in social arrangements and the distribution of resources.

When a system comes under strain, the persons most likely to suffer from the repercussions are those at and beyond its margins, as the age-old rule 'Help yourself before helping others' typically guides crisis management within the system. Similar behavioural patterns on the side of policy-makers have left a distinct mark on the healthcare rights of forced migrants in the context and aftermath of the so-called 'migration crisis' of 2015-2016, as this article demonstrates. Following the crisis, this group of persons, who are traditionally situated at the margins of society already, have been pushed further outside social and healthcare systems through increasingly restrictive incorporation policies across Europe. By analysing recent legislative reforms in four countries (Germany, Italy, Sweden, and the UK) which stood out in various ways during the crisis, this article sheds light on the increasing politicisation and polarisation of the intersection of incorporation and healthcare. It shows that the crisis induced similar responses of legal adaptation in countries with fundamentally different healthcare and incorporation systems, and analyses the dynamics behind such processes of change. The article thereby contributes to a better understanding of healthcare legislation as a reflection of political opposition to or acceptance (if not fuelling) of societal inequalities.