Medical Law Review最新文献

Partial ectogestation continues to move towards human clinical trials. This article draws upon the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Warnock Report) to provide guidance as to what may need to be considered for the future regulation of this technology. While the Warnock Report dates back to 1984, its significance and legacy continue to influence the current regulation of reproductive practices in the UK. By drawing upon specific elements within the report, many of the decisions and recommendations within it could provide direction for the future regulation of partial ectogestation. The role of the public, the social and political context at the time of the Warnock report, the determination of the status of the embryo, and arguments pitted against in vitro fertilisation (IVF) at the time, are all examined. As a result, this article suggests that the inclusion of the general public in the development and implementation of partial ectogestation prior to another Warnock-style inquiry will increase the success of long-standing regulatory and legislative provisions.

Challenges to the legitimacy of mental capacity over the past 10 years have been spearheaded by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the treaty body for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). This challenge has been asserted to have produced a 'paradigm shift'. In this article, we examine why that interpretation has had such limited traction in the legal policy arena, and whether it should have traction. We also analyse whether the Committee has subtly but importantly shifted its position. We then develop an argument that the true goal, compatible with the CRPD, is the satisfactory determination of whether a person has or lacks mental capacity to make or take a relevant decision. Our article contextualises multi-disciplinary, research-informed guidelines designed as a contribution to satisfactory determination. While our article is based upon the position in England and Wales, we suggest that our conclusions are of wider application.

Several COVID-19 vaccinations have been authorised worldwide. Whilst some vaccines are contraindicated for certain age groups or health conditions, there are often multiple clinically suitable authorised vaccine brands available. Few states have allowed recipients to choose amongst them, though there are multiple reasons why choice would be valued. We consider the policy justifications for state controls on recipient choice amongst COVID-19 vaccine brands, focusing on European countries and drawing on the UK context as an example. We contrast justifications for not offering choice at the height of the early pandemic crisis, and as some states seek to de-escalate their response and transition towards living with COVID-19. We argue that in the latter context public expectations of choice between available vaccine brands and platforms may rise, but that several considerations may justify continued restrictions on choice. A key factor which states should continue to take into consideration is the global nature of the pandemic. Insofar as offering recipient choice at a national level might exacerbate global inequity in vaccine distribution, states retain a normative and legal justification for restricting choice amongst available and clinically suitable vaccine brands.

Over the last 7 years, a multidimensional crisis in Venezuela has resulted in massive emigration. Over 7 million have fled the country, with more than 2.4 million seeking to settle in Colombia. Of these, as of 2021, more than 1 million were undocumented, but the situation has started to change with the implementation of an ambitious migrant regularisation scheme. Regularisation promises access to comprehensive healthcare, full educational opportunities and the formal labour market. Securing these social determinants of health is critical because social inequalities produce health inequalities-that is, systematic health differences that are preventable and thus unjust. Social medicine, social epidemiology and international human rights law agree on this, yet law-focused studies of health equity initiatives remain rare. Aiming to reverse this, we examine Colombia's response to Venezuelan migration, including its recent migrant regularisation initiative, which was introduced in part to comply with the country's obligations under international human rights law. The examination foregrounds what we are calling 'legal literacy', testing the hypothesis that advancing health equity involves asking more and better questions about international human rights law.