Case for mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for workers in health and aged care settings: a guide for leaders

BackgroundThis brief paper provides an overview of the analysis in support of mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for all workers in health and aged care settings in Australia. Leaders of health and aged care organisations have a duty of care under work health and safety legislation to eliminate and/or control the risk of transmission of vaccine-preventable disease in their facilities, including COVID-19.MethodsKey issues that should be considered by healthcare leaders when mandating that all health and aged care workers be vaccinated against COVID-19 were analysed by executives from a large Australian national health and aged care provider and discussed in this paper.ResultsThis paper summarises the medical/scientific, ethical, legal, work health and safety, workers’ compensation and industrial relations considerations when mandating COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers.ConclusionLeaders of health and aged care organisations must provide a safe environment and workplace for all those who work for them, as well as for those who receive care or treatment at one of their facilities. It is hoped that this paper will assist leaders of healthcare organisations in making their own decisions during this time.

Communication and Swallowing Disorders: The Effects of Climate Change

Purpose: The environment plays a key role in determining the health of populations, and climate change is considered to be the greatest threat to human health in the 21st century. However, despite extensive research on its increasing effects on health in general, extremely limited attention has been paid to its impact on communication and swallowing disorders (CSDs). This is surprising considering the substantial effect that the environment and climate change (air pollution, infectious diseases, and extreme weather events) have on these disorders. Method: This tutorial is written by a speech-language pathologist and audiologist to provide education and resources on the ramifications of climate change for the professions. It also offers strategies for speech-language pathologists and audiologists (SLPAs) to use and to incorporate into their practice. Results and Conclusions: The effects of climate change on the incidence, development, and exacerbation of CSDs, such as aphasia, developmental language disorders, and dysphagia, are described in detail. As health professionals, SLPAs have the trust and respect of their clients and their community; they also have a duty of care to safeguard the health of their clients. The combination of prevention, advocacy, and education roles places SLPAs in the perfect position to take action on the effects of climate change on these disorders. To fulfill these roles and to address the pressing issue of climate change, several steps, ranging from the individual client level to the global level, are provided.

Making complex decisions in uncertain times: experiences of Dutch GPs as gatekeepers regarding hospital referrals during COVID-19—a qualitative study

Background General practitioners often act as gatekeeper, authorizing patients’ access to hospital care. This gatekeeping role became even more important during the current COVID-19 crisis as uncertainties regarding COVID-19 made estimating the desirability of hospital referrals (for outpatient or inpatient hospitalization) complex, both for COVID and non-COVID suspected patients. This study explored Dutch general practitioners’ experiences and ethical dilemmas faced in decision making about hospital referrals in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Semi-structured interviews with Dutch general practitioners working in the Netherlands were conducted. Participants were recruited via purposive sampling. Thematic analysis was conducted using content coding. Results Fifteen interviews were conducted, identifying four themes: one overarching regarding (1) COVID-19 uncertainties, and three themes about experienced ethical dilemmas: (2) the patients’ self-determination vs. the general practitioners’ paternalism, (3) the general practitioners’ duty of care vs. the general practitioners’ autonomy rights, (4) the general practitioners’ duty of care vs. adequate care provision. Conclusions Lack of knowledge about COVID-19, risks to infect loved ones, scarcity of hospital beds and loneliness of patients during hospital admission were central in dilemmas experienced. When developing guidelines for future crises, this should be taken into account.

A builder's duty of care - When should it apply to the directors and employees of companies involved in the creation of defective buildings?

<p>This thesis considers the issue of when a tortious duty of care to prevent economic loss should be imposed on the company directors and employees who stand behind the complex structure of companies and contracts involved in the creation of a defective building. Set against the background of the leaky building crisis, and what are (it is argued) unfair litigation outcomes, the thesis traverses the emergence and development of the principles that underpin liability for negligence and negligent misstatement in respect of defective buildings. A review of the cases confirms that the concepts of control and general reliance are the basis of New Zealand law in this area. There follows a discussion of the difficult relationship between company law principles and negligence principles, and the role of assumption of responsibility in the law of negligence and negligent misstatement, including a discussion of developments in the leaky building litigation. The thesis advanced is that, in respect of the creation of defective buildings, the approach to the issue of whether to impose a duty of care on company directors and employees would benefit from placing significant weight on the factor of de facto control of the inputs that dictate the outcome of a building project, and on the lower level factor of a direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of the project. It is argued that the approach to imposing a duty of care should be the same for directors and employees and in respect of statements and actions. In cases where the evidence establishes that the financial interest factor is not present, this should give rise to an inference that the company director or employee does not have control of the inputs that dictate the outcome of the project, so that no duty of care arises. This would enable a director or employee to exit litigation by way of an application for summary judgment. This is intended to discourage the practice of joining minor parties to litigation for the purpose of extracting a precautionary settlement. If control of the inputs that dictate the outcome of a project can be established by inference from the existence of the financial interest factor, or by the other evidence, then the two stage approach to the imposition of a duty of care would require a consideration of other factors that might negate the duty, such as the contractual matrix.</p>

A builder's duty of care - When should it apply to the directors and employees of companies involved in the creation of defective buildings?

<p>This thesis considers the issue of when a tortious duty of care to prevent economic loss should be imposed on the company directors and employees who stand behind the complex structure of companies and contracts involved in the creation of a defective building. Set against the background of the leaky building crisis, and what are (it is argued) unfair litigation outcomes, the thesis traverses the emergence and development of the principles that underpin liability for negligence and negligent misstatement in respect of defective buildings. A review of the cases confirms that the concepts of control and general reliance are the basis of New Zealand law in this area. There follows a discussion of the difficult relationship between company law principles and negligence principles, and the role of assumption of responsibility in the law of negligence and negligent misstatement, including a discussion of developments in the leaky building litigation. The thesis advanced is that, in respect of the creation of defective buildings, the approach to the issue of whether to impose a duty of care on company directors and employees would benefit from placing significant weight on the factor of de facto control of the inputs that dictate the outcome of a building project, and on the lower level factor of a direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of the project. It is argued that the approach to imposing a duty of care should be the same for directors and employees and in respect of statements and actions. In cases where the evidence establishes that the financial interest factor is not present, this should give rise to an inference that the company director or employee does not have control of the inputs that dictate the outcome of the project, so that no duty of care arises. This would enable a director or employee to exit litigation by way of an application for summary judgment. This is intended to discourage the practice of joining minor parties to litigation for the purpose of extracting a precautionary settlement. If control of the inputs that dictate the outcome of a project can be established by inference from the existence of the financial interest factor, or by the other evidence, then the two stage approach to the imposition of a duty of care would require a consideration of other factors that might negate the duty, such as the contractual matrix.</p>

Council liability for leaky buildings in New Zealand: An analysis of McNamara v Auckland City Council

<p>This paper discusses the Supreme Court decision in McNamara v Auckland City Council. As McNamara is on the fringes of the existing body of law, the Supreme Court had a difficult decision on whether to extend liability, in line with the general development of this area of law or to restrict liability and reverse the earlier trends. William Young, McGrath and Blanchard JJ in the majority held that the Auckland City Council was not in a proximate relationship. The Council owed no duty of care to inspect the procedural validity of the building certificates or the validity of the code compliance certificate in the LIM report. Joined by Tipping J, the majority further concluded the s50(3) good faith defence would also prevail in both situations. Elias CJ dissented on all issues. This paper analyses the decisions and available facts against the accepted negligence framework and analyses policy issues concluding that the approach of Elias CJ is to be preferred to harmonise defective building law.</p>

Council liability for leaky buildings in New Zealand: An analysis of McNamara v Auckland City Council

<p>This paper discusses the Supreme Court decision in McNamara v Auckland City Council. As McNamara is on the fringes of the existing body of law, the Supreme Court had a difficult decision on whether to extend liability, in line with the general development of this area of law or to restrict liability and reverse the earlier trends. William Young, McGrath and Blanchard JJ in the majority held that the Auckland City Council was not in a proximate relationship. The Council owed no duty of care to inspect the procedural validity of the building certificates or the validity of the code compliance certificate in the LIM report. Joined by Tipping J, the majority further concluded the s50(3) good faith defence would also prevail in both situations. Elias CJ dissented on all issues. This paper analyses the decisions and available facts against the accepted negligence framework and analyses policy issues concluding that the approach of Elias CJ is to be preferred to harmonise defective building law.</p>

Catastrophic fraud loss lies where it falls? Push payment scams and the bank’s duty of care to its customer

Purpose This paper aims to examine the legal redress available to a UK bank customer who has been the victim of a sophisticated push payment scam which made use of the bank’s customer facing payment portal. Design/methodology/approach A detailed study was done of the experience of a single UK bank customer who was the victim of a push payment scam in Autumn 2020. Her circumstances are typical of other customers who have been similarly scammed. Her rights of redress are explored in depth in relation to law and an industry code. Findings The industry code provides no reliable means of adjudication and redress. The common law of negligence has not adapted to the technological shift in bank payment methods currently used by customers. The duty of care is inadequate in safeguarding customer interests in relation to payment instructions to banks. Customers are bearing the loss associated with inadequate bank transaction analytics. Originality/value This research casts a unique light on the unbalanced relationship now existing between the bank and its customer in relation to the execution of remote payment instructions.