Public Health Executive Decision-Making and the Law: Responsibilities, Strategies, and Consequences

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise Chrysler ◽  
Lance Gable ◽  
Donna E. Levin ◽  
Peter D. Jacobson
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Executive Decision Making ◽  
The Law

scholarly journals The Unmeritorious ‘Legality’/‘Merits’ Distinction in Singapore Administrative Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Benjamin Joshua Ong
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Rough Approximation ◽  
Executive Decision Making ◽  
The Law

Abstract The Singapore courts often state that judicial review of executive decision-making ought only to involve an inquiry into the ‘legality’ of a decision or the ‘decision-making process’, and not the ‘decision itself’ or its ‘merits’ – let us call this the ‘Distinction’. This article argues that the Distinction should be expunged from Singapore law. The Distinction has its roots in English case law which aimed to prevent the courts from arbitrarily substituting their decision for the executive's by reason of mere disagreement. But Singapore case law has gone further and treated the Distinction as a general principle applicable to all of administrative law. However, the Distinction is too vague for this purpose (as seen from Singapore cases which have interpreted the distinction inconsistently). It is conceptually problematic, incompatible with the practicalities of judicial review (particularly substantive review as recognised in Singapore law), and has occasionally been paid lip service but not followed in substance. The Distinction cannot form a coherent principle to guide the courts and ought to be replaced by a more nuanced application of constitutional principles relevant to determining the appropriate scope of review. Whatever these principles may be, and however they are to be balanced, the Distinction can be but an over-inclusive rough approximation of them which hampers the development of the law.

Parliamentarism and the Legislative Branch

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
András Sajó ◽  
Renáta Uitz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Legislative Branch ◽  
Effective Decision ◽  
The Law ◽  
Internal Operations ◽  
Effective Decision Making ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Law Making

This chapter examines the relationship between parliamentarism and the legislative branch. It explores the evolution of the legislative branch, leading to disillusionment with the rationalized law-making factory, a venture run by political parties beyond the reach of constitutional rules. The rise of democratically bred party rule is positioned between the forces favouring free debate versus effective decision-making in the legislature. The chapter analyses the institutional make-up and internal operations of the legislature, the role of the opposition in the legislative assembly, and explores the benefits of bicameralism for boosting the powers of the legislative branch. Finally, it looks at the law-making process and its outsourcing via delegating legislative powers to the executive.

scholarly journals A tale of two citizens: The Brey-Dano proportionality gap in UK courts and tribunals

2021 ◽  
pp. 138826272110049
Author(s):  
Victoria E. Hooton
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
National Level ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The Law

The role of proportionality and individual assessments in EU residency and welfare access cases has changed significantly over the course of the last decade. This article demonstrates how a search for certainty and efficiency in this area of EU law has created greater uncertainty, more legal hurdles for citizens, and less consistency in decision-making at the national level. UK case law illustrates the difficulty faced by national authorities when interpreting and applying the rules relating to welfare access and proportionality. Ultimately, the law lacks the consistency and transparency that recent CJEU case law seeks to obtain, raising the question of whether the shift from the Court's previous, more flexible, case-by-case approach was desirable after all.

Voluntary food fortification policy in Australia: did ‘formal’ stakeholder consultation influence the outcome?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bronwyn Ashton ◽  
Cassandra Star ◽  
Mark Lawrence ◽  
John Coveney
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Food Fortification ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
Stakeholder Consultation ◽  
Regulatory Decision ◽  
Food Regulation ◽  
Ministerial Council

Summary This research aimed to understand how the policy was represented as a ‘problem’ in food regulatory decision-making in Australia, and the implications for public health nutrition engagement with policy development processes. Bacchi’s ‘what’s the problem represented to be?’ discourse analysis method was applied to a case study of voluntary food fortification policy (VFP) developed by the then Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (ANZFRMC) between 2002 and 2012. As a consultative process is a legislated aspect of food regulatory policy development in Australia, written stakeholder submissions contributed most of the key documents ascertained as relevant to the case. Four major categories of stakeholder were identified in the data; citizen, public health, government and industry. Predictably, citizen, government and public health stakeholders primarily represented voluntary food fortification (VF) as a problem of public health, while industry stakeholders represented it as a problem of commercial benefit. This reflected expected differences regarding decision-making control and power over regulatory activity. However, at both the outset and conclusion of the policy process, the ANZFRMC represented the problem of VF as commercial benefit, suggesting that in this case, a period of ‘formal’ stakeholder consultation did not alter the outcome. This research indicates that in VFP, the policy debate was fought and won at the initial framing of the problem in the earliest stages of the policy process. Consequently, if public health nutritionists leave their participation in the process until formal consultation stages, the opportunity to influence policy may already be lost.

scholarly journals Public health decisions in the COVID-19 pandemic require more than ‘follow the science’

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-107134
Author(s):  
Thana Cristina de Campos-Rudinsky ◽  
Eduardo Undurraga
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Public Health Policy ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Ethical Reasoning ◽  
Reliable Data ◽  
Good Decision

Although empirical evidence may provide a much desired sense of certainty amidst a pandemic characterised by uncertainty, the vast gamut of available COVID-19 data, including misinformation, has instead increased confusion and distrust in authorities’ decisions. One key lesson we have been gradually learning from the COVID-19 pandemic is that the availability of empirical data and scientific evidence alone do not automatically lead to good decisions. Good decision-making in public health policy, this paper argues, does depend on the availability of reliable data and rigorous analyses, but depends above all on sound ethical reasoning that ascribes value and normative judgement to empirical facts.

scholarly journals Patterns and correlates of mis-implementation in state chronic disease public health practice in the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret M. Padek ◽  
Stephanie Mazzucca ◽  
Peg Allen ◽  
Emily Rodriguez Weno ◽  
Edward Tsai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Multinomial Logistic Regression ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Organizational Level ◽  
Effective Programs

Abstract Background Much of the disease burden in the United States is preventable through application of existing knowledge. State-level public health practitioners are in ideal positions to affect programs and policies related to chronic disease, but the extent to which mis-implementation occurring with these programs is largely unknown. Mis-implementation refers to ending effective programs and policies prematurely or continuing ineffective ones. Methods A 2018 comprehensive survey assessing the extent of mis-implementation and multi-level influences on mis-implementation was reported by state health departments (SHDs). Questions were developed from previous literature. Surveys were emailed to randomly selected SHD employees across the Unites States. Spearman’s correlation and multinomial logistic regression were used to assess factors in mis-implementation. Results Half (50.7%) of respondents were chronic disease program managers or unit directors. Forty nine percent reported that programs their SHD oversees sometimes, often or always continued ineffective programs. Over 50% also reported that their SHD sometimes or often ended effective programs. The data suggest the strongest correlates and predictors of mis-implementation were at the organizational level. For example, the number of organizational layers impeded decision-making was significant for both continuing ineffective programs (OR=4.70; 95% CI=2.20, 10.04) and ending effective programs (OR=3.23; 95% CI=1.61, 7.40). Conclusion The data suggest that changing certain agency practices may help in minimizing the occurrence of mis-implementation. Further research should focus on adding context to these issues and helping agencies engage in appropriate decision-making. Greater attention to mis-implementation should lead to greater use of effective interventions and more efficient expenditure of resources, ultimately to improve health outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document