Law and the public’s health

2021 ◽  
pp. 291-300
Author(s):  
Lawrence O. Gostin
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Positive Duty ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right

Public health law safeguards the health and safety of the population, promoting the human right to life and health, and the realization of social justice. There is sometimes a tension between public health regulation to promote community health and protecting individual liberty and autonomy. Governments must balance the common good with individual freedoms. In many countries, there are constitutional rights to health or to life that provide a positive duty on government to advance the right to health. Governments have multiple legal tools available to improve the public’s health and safety, ranging from the economic power to tax and spend, to the authority to alter the environments in which people live, through to direct and indirect regulation, including, where necessary, deregulation. Although the law can be a powerful agent for change, intervention can also raise critical social, ethical, or constitutional concerns. These issues are illustrated through four brief case studies on infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, unintentional injuries, and violence to self or others.

Conscience and Religious Freedom Trump Public Health

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-4
Author(s):  
Michael Arthur Vacca ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Human Person ◽  
Moral Law ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
Public Health And Safety

Conscience rights and public health often come into conflict. Both Catholic social teaching and the natural moral law give primacy to conscience and religious freedom. Those who put public health on a par with conscience and religious freedom, or who imply an equivalence among them, as if they were comparable elements of public policy, are misguided, however well intentioned. Ironically, the common good that is the foundation of the right to public health is harmed by violating conscience and religious freedom. The principle should be clear: all of society, not solely the state, should promote the common good through public health and safety measures insofar as doing so does not violate the dignity of the human person, especially in matters of conscience and religious freedom.

Defining the Scope of Public Engagement: Examining the “Right Not to Know” in Public Health Genomics

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clarissa Allen ◽  
Karine Sénécal ◽  
Denise Avard
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Health Initiatives ◽  
Genetic Technologies ◽  
Recent Debate ◽  
Right Not To Know ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

While the realm of bioethics has traditionally focused on the rights of the individual and held autonomy as a defining principle, public health ethics has at its core a commitment to the promotion of the common good. While these two domains may at times conflict, concepts arising in one may also be informative for concepts arising in the other. One example of this is the concept of a “right not to know.” Recent debate suggests that just as there is a “right to know” information about one's genetic status, there is a parallel “right not to know” when it comes to genetic information that if communicated, could be detrimental to an individual's social or psychological well-being. As new genetic technologies continue to change the nature of genetic testing and screening, it is crucial that normative frameworks to guide and assess genetic public health initiatives be developed. In this context, the question of whether a “right not to know” may also be said to exist for populations on a public health level merits attention.

scholarly journals A solidariedade na responsabilidade por colapso omissivo regulatório e fiscalizatório do Estado na área ambiental: o dramático episódio do Rio Doce/Solidarity in responsibility for regulatory and regulatory omissive collapse of the State in environment

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Flávio Antonio De Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
The State ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Private Initiative ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Regulation And Supervision ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right

<p>O presente artigo tem por objetivo evidenciar o dever de responsabilidade solidária até dos poderes públicos na regulação e fiscalização da iniciativa privada principalmente relacionada ao meio ambiente, que é o meio onde se pode conceber a própria existência, inclusive humana, e onde se pode priorizar o fundamental de todos os direitos que é o direito à vida e à sua qualidade sadia, eis que o Estado foi concebido para tutelar o bem comum coletivo e não pode se omitir em tal desiderato a ponto de ser conivente com a desídia decorrente da voracidade da iniciativa privada pelo lucro e sede de desenvolvimento sem qualquer compromisso com a sustentabilidade. Para tanto, o argumento de autoridade planificado por uma responsabilidade subsidiária do Estado, contribui para uma letargia no seu dever de eficiência em tutelar o bem comum em detrimento de um de seus mais nobres objetivos republicanos que é promover o bem de todos. </p><p> </p><p>The objective of this article is to highlight the obligation of joint responsibility to public authorities in the regulation and supervision of private initiative, mainly related to the environment, which is the medium where one can conceive one's existence, including human existence, and where one can Prioritize the fundamental of all rights, which is the right to life and its sound quality, the state was conceived to protect the collective common good and can not be omitted in such desideratum as to be conniving with the emptiness due to voracity Of private initiative for profit and thirst for development without any commitment to sustainability. For this, the argument of authority planned by a subsidiary responsibility of the state, contributes to a lethargy in its duty of efficiency to protect the common good to the detriment of one of its noblest republican goals that is to promote the good of all.</p>

Blaming the Victim

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Illingworth ◽  
Wendy E. Parmet
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Communicable Disease ◽  
The United States ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Health Measures ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Public Health Protection ◽  
Developed World

International law recognizes public health protection as a human right that states are obligated to protect. Government efforts to fulfill that right may at times justify the restriction of individual liberty, but because of the perceived association between disease and immigration, highly coercive public health measures such as isolation and quarantine have often been applied disproportionately against immigrants. This chapter reviews the history and constitutional status of the use of coercive public health measures and the constitutional rights of newcomers in the United States, then considers the case of tuberculosis (TB), which tends to be far more prevalent in immigrant communities than in native populations in the developed world. Despite the higher prevalence of TB in among newcomers, highly coercive and punitive approaches to communicable disease control are unlikely to prevent the disease’s spread. Communicable diseases such as TB demonstrate the interdependency of human health and the importance of meeting the needs of people in high-prevalence countries as well as providing health care for, and working with rather than against, immigrants in their new homes.

scholarly journals The right to life in the system of constitutional rights and freedoms of individual and citizen

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-41
Author(s):  
Oleg Amel'chakov
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The right to life is traditionally recognized as a natural and inalienable right of any person and citizen. It is intrinsically connected with realization of other rights and liberties. The aim of the article is to clarify the concept and the essential nature of the constitutional right to life, to define its place in the system of fundamental human and civil rights and liberties. The article analyses constitutional rights, reveals the difference from the other human and civil rights and liberties and analysis other approaches of constitutional rights theoretic to the definition of the notion «right to life» as a constitutional right. The research gives the monitoring of the main statutory documents that defines the legal «understructure» of fixation and content of the notion «right to life» and the review of the foreign constitutional statutory documents that are devoted to the different aspects of law. Based on the results of the research a conclusion was made that the right to life takes a special place in the system of the constitutional rights and freedoms. The right to life is the inherent human right and this is admitted on the international level. Being fundamental in nature, it is based on the constitutional norms and principles, which set up uniformity of appliance and mechanisms for ensuring and protecting the right to life.

The right to life: A comparative analysis of the relevant norms of the Constitutions of the Republic of Azerbaijan and Russian Federation

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-32
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The relevance of the work is determined by the fact that the right to life belongs to the basic constitutional human rights, therefore, its observance and protection is the duty of the state. Despite its undeniable importance, today the right to life anywhere in the world is not really ensured in sufficient quantities. The constitutional consolidation of the right to life raises a number of issues related to the concept, nature, legislative and practical implementation of this right. It should be noted that various aspects of the human right to life were considered in the scientific works of G.B. Romanovsky, O.G. Selikhova, T.M. Fomichenko, A.B. Borisova, V.A. Ershov and other Russian authors. The aim of the study is to study and comparative analysis of the legal content of the constitutional norm that defines the right to life, to comprehend and identify possible problems of the implementation of this right. To achieve this goal, this article discusses relevant issues of ensuring the right to life, proclaimed by Article 20 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Article 27 of the Constitution of Azerbaijan Republic. The results of a comparative analysis of these constitutional norms and the relevant norms of industry law allow us to determine, that there is no contradiction between Article 20 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the norms of the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation, which imply the death penalty as an exceptional measure of punishment, because a moratorium has been imposed on the death penalty in the Russian Federation since April 16, 1997. However, after the abolition of the death penalty in the criminal legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan in 1998, there was a discrepancy between parts II and III of Article 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the criminal legislation of Azerbaijan Republic that requires the introduction of the necessary changes in the content of the analyzed constitutional norm. The value of the work is determined by the fact that the introduction of appropriate changes will contribute to the further improvement of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the effective implementation of the right to life of everyone.

The Dynamic Free Speech Clause

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Zick
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Relational Dynamics ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Common ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
The Right ◽  
Speech Clause

This book examines the relational dynamics between the U.S. Constitution’s Free Speech Clause and other constitutional rights. The free speech guarantee has intersected with a variety of other constitutional rights. Those intersections have significantly influenced the recognition, scope, and meaning of rights ranging from freedom of the press to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. They have also influenced interpretation of the Free Speech Clause itself. Free speech principles and doctrines have facilitated the recognition and effective exercise of constitutional rights, including equal protection, the right to abortion, and the free exercise of religion. They have also provided mediating principles for constructive debates about constitutional rights. At the same time, in its interactions with other constitutional rights, the Free Speech Clause has also been a complicating force. It has dominated rights discourse and subordinated or supplanted free press, assembly, petition, and free exercise rights. Currently, courts and commentators are fashioning the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the image of the Free Speech Clause. Borrowing the Free Speech Clause for this purpose may turn out to be detrimental for both rights. The book examines the common and distinctive dynamics that have brought free speech and other constitutional rights together. It assesses the products and consequences of these intersections, and draws important lessons from them about constitutional rights and constitutional liberty. Ultimately, the book defends a pluralistic conception of constitutional rights that seeks to leverage the power of the Free Speech Clause but also to tame its propensity to subordinate, supplant, and eclipse other constitutional rights.

Theology as Work: The Mandatum and the Rights of Labor

Horizons ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 128-134
Author(s):  
Patrick T. McCormick
Keyword(s):  
Academic Freedom ◽  
Working Conditions ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Catholic Social Teaching ◽  
Social Teaching ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Church ◽  
Safe Working

ABSTRACTMany oppose the mandatum as a threat to the academic freedom of Catholic scholars and the autonomy and credibility of Catholic universities. But the imposition of this juridical bond on working theologians is also in tension with Catholic Social Teaching on the rights and dignity of labor. Work is the labor necessary to earn our daily bread. But it is also the vocation by which we realize ourselves as persons and the profession through which we contribute to the common good. Thus, along with the right to a just wage and safe working conditions, Catholic Social Teaching defends workers' rights to a full partnership in the enterprise, and calls upon the church to be a model of participation and cooperation. The imposition of the mandatum fails to live up to this standard and threatens the jobs and vocations of theologians while undermining this profession's contribution to the church.

scholarly journals Coupling and Deviating of Altruism-Voluntariness Relationship in Organ Transplantation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mesut Güvenbaş ◽  
Omur Sayligil
Keyword(s):  
Organ Transplantation ◽  
Living Donor ◽  
Living Donors ◽  
Indirect Utility ◽  
Universal Principle ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Real Situation ◽  
New Approach ◽  
The Right

Organ transplantation is an issue that concerns two people (donor and recipient) at the same time in terms of the right to life, which is the most basic human right. The direct utility arising from organ transplantation involves the patient to whom the organ is transplanted, and the indirect utility relates to the donor. Today, the decision to obtain an organ from a living donor is based on the idea of doing something good by those who sacrifice themselves for their relatives. The person who donates an organ treats their body as an instrument and uses their willpower on it. If the statement “I will care about the health of others” is accepted as a universal principle, it will be very important to establish a balance between the duty of caring for the health of others and protecting one’s own health. If we want to introduce a new approach to be adopted in the assessment of living donors in society, we must look at the real situation in terms of utility, altruism, and volunteering. This Chapter thus evaluates organ transplantation from living donors in terms of utility, altruism, and volunteering.

scholarly journals RIGHT TO FOOD FOR ALL IN INDIA: MYTH OR REALITY

2018 ◽  
pp. 178-189
Author(s):  
Grishma Soni ◽  
Prachi V. Motiyani
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide Emission ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Right To Food ◽  
Complex Issue ◽  
The People ◽  
The World ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

As we all know that food is the basic Human necessity, without which no one can survive. Making food available for all the people in the world is now days becoming a complex issue. The availability food is decreasing as a result of increase in population that will result in food insecurity or malnutrition. Indian constitution interprets the right to food as part of right to life, which is fundamental human right. Change in climate, the impact of globalization, Global Warming, Carbon dioxide emission from fuel etc. also affects the right to food of many people. This paper examines the situation prevailing in India and looks into the obligations and initiatives by the government of India to ensure Right to Food and make suggestions for addressing the issue and examines the possible way to make the scheme workable to achieve food security.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document