USD $163.00
Browse results
Series Editor:
Global Health, Human Rights and Social Justice brings together a constellation of overlapping fields. These include but are not limited to: international human rights law; public law and comparative constitutional law; access to medicines specialists (intellectual property law); bioethics, international environmental law; global health law, legal anthropology and socio-legal studies.
At this pivotal point post pandemic, we require writing scholarship that interrogates the most pressing questions regarding lacunae in specific domains of the law, many of which have been illuminated by the pandemic. However, we also need studies that draw connections between the interlocking problems that face the world from growing socio-economic inequalities within and between countries, global governance for health that has revealed itself to be unfit for purpose, a growing climate crisis which affects global health in a variety of ways, and a context of growing nationalism that threatens global cooperation norms developed since World War II.
Continued siloed work will not yield the transformative thinking that we need to take on any of the challenges the world faces, from future pandemics to climate catastrophe. Thus, the series encourages multi-disciplinary perspectives on the law and on legal strategies across movements.
The book series addresses such questions as: normative development (e.g. a new pandemic treaty/agreement); landmark jurisprudence from supra-national tribunals and important constitutional courts around the world on issues related to health and human rights; advances and backlash relating to reproductive justice; implementation and policy (such as the institutionalization of Universal Health Coverage); philosophical debates regarding global health justice; human rights and ethical implications of biotechnological innovations (e.g. artificial intelligence, heritable gene editing); analysis of growing calls for decolonizing global health, as well as resurgent calls for a ‘right to development’.
A unifying thread throughout the series will focus on historically and/or contextually-situated appraisals of the effectiveness of international law and global institutions in promoting greater population health and social justice.
At this pivotal point post pandemic, we require writing scholarship that interrogates the most pressing questions regarding lacunae in specific domains of the law, many of which have been illuminated by the pandemic. However, we also need studies that draw connections between the interlocking problems that face the world from growing socio-economic inequalities within and between countries, global governance for health that has revealed itself to be unfit for purpose, a growing climate crisis which affects global health in a variety of ways, and a context of growing nationalism that threatens global cooperation norms developed since World War II.
Continued siloed work will not yield the transformative thinking that we need to take on any of the challenges the world faces, from future pandemics to climate catastrophe. Thus, the series encourages multi-disciplinary perspectives on the law and on legal strategies across movements.
The book series addresses such questions as: normative development (e.g. a new pandemic treaty/agreement); landmark jurisprudence from supra-national tribunals and important constitutional courts around the world on issues related to health and human rights; advances and backlash relating to reproductive justice; implementation and policy (such as the institutionalization of Universal Health Coverage); philosophical debates regarding global health justice; human rights and ethical implications of biotechnological innovations (e.g. artificial intelligence, heritable gene editing); analysis of growing calls for decolonizing global health, as well as resurgent calls for a ‘right to development’.
A unifying thread throughout the series will focus on historically and/or contextually-situated appraisals of the effectiveness of international law and global institutions in promoting greater population health and social justice.
Essays in Honour of Bartha Maria Knoppers
Professor Bartha Maria Knoppers stepped down from the Canada Research Chair in Law and Medicine at McGill University in April 2024, a post she held for more than 20 years. Professor Knoppers consistently prioritized “humanity” in her academic work and in policymaking. As such, she forged a strong intellectual legacy, notably through her work on the human right to science, genomic and health-related data sharing, genome editing, human reproductive technologies, stem cell research, the rights of children, and population health. This collection of essays honours her extraordinary academic contributions to law, policy, and medicine.
Essays in Honour of Bartha Maria Knoppers
Professor Bartha Maria Knoppers stepped down from the Canada Research Chair in Law and Medicine at McGill University in April 2024, a post she held for more than 20 years. Professor Knoppers consistently prioritized “humanity” in her academic work and in policymaking. As such, she forged a strong intellectual legacy, notably through her work on the human right to science, genomic and health-related data sharing, genome editing, human reproductive technologies, stem cell research, the rights of children, and population health. This collection of essays honours her extraordinary academic contributions to law, policy, and medicine.
The Boundaries of Legitimate Limitations on Fundamental Freedoms
Series:
Ius Comparatum, Volume: 2
Editor:
This book offers a wide comparative overview of the legal measures enacted by countries throughout the world to react to the unprecedented public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The volume gathers the General Reports and selected National Reports presented at the 2022 General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law. While the National Reports focus on single countries, the General Report provides a comparative analysis of observed trends and main legal issues. In doing so, it draws some guidelines on how to improve responses to potential forthcoming emergencies characterized by a global reach, as COVID-19 was.
The Boundaries of Legitimate Limitations on Fundamental Freedoms
Series:
Ius Comparatum, Volume: 2
Editor:
This book offers a wide comparative overview of the legal measures enacted by countries throughout the world to react to the unprecedented public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The volume gathers the General Reports and selected National Reports presented at the 2022 General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law. While the National Reports focus on single countries, the General Report provides a comparative analysis of observed trends and main legal issues. In doing so, it draws some guidelines on how to improve responses to potential forthcoming emergencies characterized by a global reach, as COVID-19 was.
Author:
Abstract
The European healthcare sector is transforming toward patient-centred and value-based healthcare delivery. The European Health Data Space (EHDS) Regulation aims to unlock the potential of health data by establishing a single market for its primary and secondary use. This paper examines the legal challenges associated with the secondary use of health data within the EHDS and offers recommendations for improvement. Key issues include the compatibility between the EHDS and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), barriers to cross-border data sharing, and intellectual property concerns. Resolving these challenges is essential for realising the full potential of health data and advancing healthcare research and innovation within the EU.
Author:
Abstract
The creation of the European Health Data Space is a milestone. It establishes something new and makes it possible to have faster and more efficient health treatment, but also to untap the potential of unused data for policy-making and development of new technologies. However, for the EHDS to be functional, it is imperative that a balance it struck between the aim of having useful data to achieve important public objectives on one side and the goal of enabling patients to have control over their health data. The original Draft Report of the European Parliament came closest to achieving these objectives and should have represented the blueprint for the final compromise. Having a harmonised opt-out for secondary use is crucial for striking the right balance between the mentioned objectives. The end result is far from perfect regarding primary use, but represents a good balance in the area of secondary use concerning the opt-out.
Abstract
Uterus transplantation (UT) is a surgical procedure that seeks to correct absolute uterine infertility. As such, it is coupled with assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Currently performed as an investigational procedure in France, this technique could be subject to a legal framework in the future. Given its specificities, the French legislator will need to state their position on several matters. Regarding the donor, they will need to determine whether the benefits for the infertile woman justify exposure of a living person to the risks of the removal procedure. If necessary, they will have full freedom to set the criteria for selecting the living donor based on age, the existence or not of past pregnancies or the nature of the donor-recipient relationship. On the other side, the conditions for becoming a recipient should be consistent with the existing rules for ART. Other considerations could include age and past pregnancies again. Lastly, the legislator will also need to address the possible desire for UT without the endpoint of pregnancy.
Author:
Abstract
Anonymous gamete donation creates a specific conflict between human rights and public interests under Article 8 of the ECHR. This was first assessed in the ECtHR’s landmark decision in Gauvin-Fournis and Silliau v. France of 7 September 2023. This article critically analyses this judgment, taking into account the European legal framework for anonymous gamete donation, the recommendations of the competent authorities and the previous case law of the ECtHR on the right to know one’s biological origin as an integral part of one’s identity that is protected under the right to private and family life.
Author:
Abstract
Legislation produced under the EU Commission’s Better Regulation Agenda sometimes fails to achieve the Treaty obligation to ensure a high level of health protection in all EU policies and activities. Public health advocates have raised the question of whether EU law can be employed to challenge this apparent breach of Treaty obligations at the proposal preparation stage, compelling the Commission to amend prospective EU legislation so that it better protects health. This article will demonstrate that unfortunately this is not possible due to the justiciability of both Article 168 TFEU and the Better Regulation Agenda. However, this awareness can help public health advocates to re-focus their efforts on strategies that will likely have a greater impact in swaying the direction of EU health policy.