Failing Siracusa: governments' obligations to find the least restrictive options for tuberculosis control

The Global Impact of HIV/AIDS on the Realisation of Health Rights

The chapter critically examines the extent to which the HIV/AIDS litigation advanced the prevention, control and treatment of HIV/AIDS and the realisation of health rights. The justiciability of socio-economic (SC) rights underpins the discussion on health rights but questions about justiciability still leaves unanswered the enforceability of measures against duty bearers to achieve health equity so that vulnerable communities, bearing the greatest burden of HIV/AIDS, are targeted. Advancing health rights through the courts highlights the limitations of law as a human rights tool in holding duty bearers accountable.1 Ultimately, the full realisation of health rights to achieve health equity may require rights-based approaches to be embedded across public and private health service delivery, research, national strategies, and plans.

Human rights in pandemics: criminal and punitive approaches to COVID-19

In the early years of the HIV epidemic, many countries passed laws criminalising HIV non-disclosure, exposure and/or transmission. These responses, intended to limit transmission and punish those viewed as ‘irresponsible’, have since been found to undermine effective HIV responses by driving people away from diagnosis and increasing stigma towards those living with HIV. With the emergence of COVID-19, human rights and public health advocates raised concerns that countries might again respond with criminal and punitive approaches. To assess the degree to which countries adopted such strategies, 51 English-language emergency orders from 39 countries, representing seven world regions, were selected from the COVID-19 Law Lab, a database of COVID-19 related laws from over 190 countries. Emergency orders were reviewed to assess the type of restrictions identified, enforcement mechanisms and compliance with principles outlined in the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including legality, legitimate aim, proportionality, non-discrimination, limited duration and subject to review. Approximately half of all orders examined included criminal sanctions related to violations of lockdowns. Few orders fully complied with the legal requirements for the limitation of, or derogation from, human rights obligations in public health emergencies. In future pandemics, policymakers should carefully assess the need for criminal and punitive responses and ensure that emergency orders comply with countries’ human rights obligations.

A Practical Approach to Hospital Visitation During a Pandemic: Responding With Compassion to Unjustified Restrictions

During the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence-based resources have been sought to support decision-making and strategically inform hospitals' policies, procedures, and practices. While greatly emphasizing protection, most guiding documents have neglected to support and protect the psychosocial needs of frontline health care workers and patients and their families during provision of palliative and end-of-life care. Consequently, the stage has been set for increased anxiety, moral distress, and moral injury and extreme moral hazard. A family-centered approach to care has been unilaterally relinquished to a secondary and nonessential role during the current crisis. This phenomenon violates a foundational public health principle, namely, to apply the least restrictive means to achieve good for the many. Instead, there has been widespread adoption of utilitarian and paternalistic approaches. In many cases the foundational principles of palliative care have also been neglected. No circumstance, even a global public health emergency, should ever cause health care providers to deny their ethical obligations and human commitment to compassion. The lack of responsive protocols for family visitation, particularly at the end of life, is an important gap in the current recommendations for pandemic triage and contingency planning. A stepwise approach to hospital visitation using a tiered, standardized process for responding to emerging clinical circumstances and individual patients' needs should be considered, following the principle of proportionality. A contingency plan, based on epidemiological data, is the best strategy to refocus health care ethics in practice now and for the future.

Ethical and human rights considerations in public health in low and middle-income countries: an assessment using the case of Uganda's responses to COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

In response to COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Uganda adopted public health measures to contain its spread in the country. Some of the initial measures included refusal to repatriate citizens studying in China, mandatory institutional quarantine, and social distancing. Despite being a public health emergency, the measures adopted deserve critical appraisal using an ethics and human rights approach. The goal of this paper is to formulate an ethics and human rights criteria for evaluating public health measures and use it to reflect on the ethical propriety of those adopted by the government of Uganda to contain the spread of COVID-19.

MAIN BODY

We begin by illustrating the value of ethics and human rights considerations for public health measures including during emergencies. We then summarize Uganda's social and economic circumstances and some of the measures adopted to contain the spread of COVID-19. After reviewing some of the ethics and human rights considerations for public health, we reflect upon the ethical propriety of some of Uganda's responses to COVID-19. We use content analysis to identify the measures adopted by the government of Uganda to contain the spread of COVID-19, the ethics and human rights considerations commonly recommended for public health responses and their importance. Our study found that some of the measures adopted violate ethics and human rights principles. We argue that even though some human rights can sometimes be legitimately derogated and limited to meet public health goals during public health emergencies, measures that infringe on human rights should satisfy certain ethics and human rights criteria. Some of these criteria include being effective, strictly necessary, proportionate to the magnitude of the threat, reasonable in the circumstances, equitable, and least restrictive. We reflect on Uganda's initial measures to combat the spread of COVID-19 and argue that many of them fell short of these criteria, and potentially limit their effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

The ethical legitimacy of public health measures is valuable in itself and for enhancing effectiveness of the measures. Such legitimacy depends on the extent to which they conform to ethics and human rights principles recommended for public health measures.

Cuba y seguridad sanitaria mundial: Cuba's role in global health security

Cuba has been largely absent in academic and policy discourse on global health security, yet Cuba's history of medical internationalism and its domestic health system have much to offer contemporary global health security debates. In this paper, we examine what we identify as key traits of Cuban health security, as they play out on both international and domestic fronts. We argue that Cuba demonstrates a strong health security capacity, both in terms of its health systems support and crisis response activities internationally, and its domestic disease control activities rooted in an integrated health system with a focus on universal healthcare. Health security in Cuba, however, also faces challenges. These concern Cuba's visibility and participation in the broader global health security architecture, the social controls exercised by the state in managing disease threats in Cuban territory, and the resource constraints facing the island-in particular, the effects of the US embargo. While Cuba does not frame its disease control activities within the discourse of health security, we argue that the Cuban case demonstrates that it is possible to make strides to improve capacity for health security in resource-constrained settings. The successes and challenges facing health security in Cuba, moreover, provide points of reflection relevant to the pursuit of health security globally and are thus worth further consideration in broader health security discussions.

Apology and Unintended Harm in Global Health

Over the past few decades, investments in global health programs have contributed to massive advances in health for human populations. As with clinical medicine, however, global health interventions sometimes result in unintended harm, economic adversity, or social disruption. In clinical medicine, when medical error occurs, it is increasingly common for health care workers to offer apology, which involves acknowledging the error, taking responsibility for it, and expressing genuine remorse. In addition, hospitals are beginning to offer affected patients and their families reparation or compensation in an attempt to restore patients' health and repair relationships, as well as take steps to prevent similar harm in the future. By contrast, little is known about apology and reparation for unintentional harm in global health practice. Several factors, including the scale of global health programs, diffusion of responsibility across international networks of state and non-state actors, and concern that acknowledging harm could threaten otherwise successful health programs, render apology and reparation in global health more difficult than in clinical medicine. This article examines how and when individuals and global health organizations address inadvertent harm, illustrated by four case studies. It also describes ethical, legal, and human rights principles that could inform a more systematic approach. Addressing unintended harm in global health requires further attention at the individual, organizational, and global levels.

The first 5 years of Part 2A Orders: the use of powers from court applications to protect public health in England 2010-15

BACKGROUND

Part 2A Orders are the legal means which allow local authorities (LAs), upon application to court, to exercise powers over persons, things or premises to protect public health.

METHODS

We surveyed lead professionals involved in applications to understand the use and utility of such Orders since their inception in April 2010 to July 2015.

RESULTS

All applications for Orders were granted; 29 for persons (28 for tuberculosis, 1 for HIV); these were renewed in 18 (18/25, 72%) cases up to seven times; 23 applications related to things (tattoo and piercing equipment); and three applications related to 'premises' (Escherichia coli 0137 on farm, faecal contamination). Use of the Orders against things occurred where there was failure of the Health and Safety Executive to transfer powers to LAs. Orders against persons were used as a last resort and renewed until treatment completion in the minority of cases (n = 3). One patient was detained under quarantine powers while assessing infectiousness. Significant difficulties in implementing the Part 2A Orders due to lack of resources, facilities and interagency collaboration were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Part 2A Orders are used as a last resort but improved facilities for safe and secure isolation would help improve implementation.

Rights, laws and tensions: A comparative analysis of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the WHO Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation

BACKGROUND

Good mental health legislation is essential for ensuring high quality mental health care and protecting human rights. Many countries are attempting to bring mental health legislation in line with the UN - Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (UN-CRPD). The UN-CRPD requires policy-makers to rethink the 'medical model' of mental illness and existing laws. It also challenges WHO guidelines on drafting mental health law, described in the WHO Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation (WHO-RB).

AIMS

This study examines the relationship between the UN-CRPD and the WHO-RB.

METHODS

It compares the documents, highlighting similarities and identifying areas of disagreement. The WHO-RB contains a checklist of human rights standards it recommends are met at national level. This study analyses each component on this checklist and identifies the relevant sections in the UN-CRPD that pertain to each.

RESULTS

Both the UN-CRPD and WHO-RB address more than just acute exacerbations of illness, providing guidelines on, inter alia, treatment, education, occupation and housing. They are patient-centred and strongly influenced by social rights. The UN-CRPD, however, gives just superficial consideration to the management of acute illness, forensic and risk issues, and does little to identify the role of family and carers.

CONCLUSION

The UN-CRPD has evolved from disability research and strong advocacy organisations. Careful consideration is needed to enable it to address the specific needs encountered in mental illness. Both the UN-CRPD and WHO-RB highlight common tensions that must be resolved by clinicians, and provide some guidance for stakeholders who commonly need to observe one principle at the expense of another.