Search

Facial recognition technology represents the state of the art in modern criminal investigations. However, the legal position regarding its use in Europe remains unclear. This ambiguity is not because of a total lack of applicable norms. Rather, it occurs because the existing standards create a kind of legal patchwork distributed among European Union primary and secondary laws and norms from the Council of Europe. Although the recent European Commission proposal on a legal framework for artificial intelligence has clarified some issues, it has also added more complexity to an already unclear domain. Before launching an effort to build a specific set of norms for the use of FRT in criminal investigations, it is crucial to survey the norms already in place to avoid contradictions and overlaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has boosted the development and use of technology by increasing the use of previously existing technological resources, such as maps identifying population movements; assigning new uses to previously existing technological mechanisms, such as the use of facial recognition for monitoring infected people; and encouraging the development of new technologies, such as apps that ascribe risk codes to citizens. Without these digital measures, the pandemic would probably continue to expand, or, alternatively, entire populations would have to be quarantined for months (or even years), with significant consequences arising from either scenario. Technologies provide tools to avoid those scenarios. However, digital measures come at a price to our rights, namely our rights to privacy and liberty. Precautions and limitations ought to be imposed on the use of these technologies, forming a code of digital governance for COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Facial recognition technology is a state-of-the-art digital tool widely used by private and public entities. Its benefits are notable, but the challenges that it presents cannot be overlooked, as this paper will expose. In Europe, a major challenge is ensuring compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation, starting with the search of a proper legal ground for data processing and the identification of an adequate exception to allow the processing of biometric data. The implementation of security measures and the risks associated with data transfer to third countries must also be considered. A further issue is the reliability of facial recognition technology, which relates to data accuracy. These challenges are substantial, but they are not insurmountable. More comprehensive and in-depth knowledge of the legal intricacies of the General Data Protection Regulation, more secure and transparent data-processing procedures, and full acknowledgement of the technology's limitations might provide a liability shield. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In contrast to the extreme caution that has been imposed on genetic medical procedures, in European law genetic drugs, or medications, have found a legal loophole that allows flexible (perhaps too flexible) access to these drugs. In Europe, Gene Therapy Medicinal Products are a form of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products and as such submitted to the marketing authorization procedure. However, there are legal mechanisms in place — such as compassionate use, named patient use, and hospital exception — that allow for their provision to patients without proper approval. This is not, de per se, problematic; the problem arises, though, because such mechanisms are neither properly regulated nor monitored, and their application differs substantially according to the jurisdiction. This disparity and lack of control have given rise to situations of genetic tourism, where patients in desperate need travel to so-called genetic paradises, looking for a miraculous, and extremely expensive cure. The outcome is sometimes tragic, endangering patients' safety and undermining confidence in genetic products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main objection to genetic enhancement is that it will create a “genetic apartheid,” deepening existing inequalities. This paper offers considerations that can weaken the inequality argument against genetic enhancement. First, I question the dichotomy of treatment versus enhancement since the differences between the two are unclear. Second, I argue that human enhancement is part of human nature and that there is no sound reason to accept it in other domains while rejecting it in genetics. The paper also demonstrates that inequality is present in every dimension of society, that “God-given” genetics is profoundly unequal, and that genetic enhancement can operate as a mechanism by which a new genetic equality can be achieved. However, the paper underlines that genetic equality is not, per se, a value to which we ought to aspire if it leads us to a uniform community of downsized human beings. Genetic equality is only valuable if it enhances humankind in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to analyse non-pharmaceutical approaches to control pandemics. Currently vaccines are our best hope to control the COVID-19 pandemic, but before the appearance of the first vaccines the available possibilities were much more limited. While most people worldwide were confined to their homes to slow the spread of the new coronavirus, some countries (most notably the United Kingdom) advocated infecting the majority of the community, aiming to achieve what has been called "herd immunity". This article focuses on two non-therapeutic strategies for dealing with deadly viruses and points out their respective problems: natural herd immunity and quarantines/lockdowns. It analyses these strategies from three perspectives: legal, ethical and social. The article concludes that in the absence of therapeutic alternatives (vaccines), short-term lockdowns are necessary, but long-term lockdowns are legally, ethically, socially and financially impossible to sustain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article will unpack the European Draft Act on Artificial Intelligence (AI), the first (both in Europe and in the world) far-reaching regulation in this domain. It categorizes AI systems in three (eventually four) levels of risk and it assigns to each level a particular legal framework, with its own limitations and obligations. The Draft Act was created for laudable purposes, namely to harmonize digital development with fundamental rights and European values. However, similar to many other ambitious projects, it falls short in many ways. As this article will show, several issues are incompletely regulated, and there are doubts about the exact scope and content of the legal solutions outlined in the draft. It also potentially overlaps with several other European norms, introducing the possibility of conflicts. Finally, the law's focus on fundamental rights may come at the price of digital innovation, although critics claim that the Draft Act does not go far enough to protect such rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, technology has been widely deployed to deter the spread of the virus. One such technology is wearable devices that can collect health data and inform health authorities about potential infections. Despite the laudable purposes of this technology, we might be on the verge of another digital Big Brother. This is not a case in which our moves are being watched, but our bodies are, in an extreme form of public health surveillance. This paper analyses the use of wearable devices to track potential COVID-19 infections within the framework of public health and related individual and state duties. The paper focuses on the threats that these devices may pose to individual rights and liberties, particularly self-determination (the freedom to not be tested for infectious diseases) and privacy (the protection of private data). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses claims involving parental allegations pertaining to the features their children were born with in violation of the express requests they made when they used reproductive procedures. This kind of claim, encouraged by the development of reproductive techniques and their associated procedures, has until now found little support in the courts. However, the increased level of precision of the scientific procedures used in reproduction, the amplified range of services provided by reproductive clinics, and the level of success they guarantee to service recipients might lead to a different judicial outcome. The author examines several court cases that involve incidents of this nature and suggests the conceptualization of a differentiated claim titled 'wrongful disturbance of reproductive planning'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on the COVID-19 vaccines authorised for use in the European Union, and explores the mechanisms in place to control vaccine safety and to compensate injured patients, mainly in the context of European law. Based on these considerations, the paper concludes that the refusal by some potential vaccinees to take the vaccine based on safety concerns is ungrounded and an indication of unrealistic expectations, but that in order to build public trust proper compensation mechanisms should be in place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The events surrounding COVID-19, combined with the mandatory quarantines widely imposed in Asia and Europe since the virus outbreak, have reignited discussion of the balance between individual rights and liberties and public health during epidemics and pandemics. This article analyses this issue from the perspectives of precaution and necessity. There is a difficult relationship between these two seemingly opposite principles, both of which are frequently invoked in this domain. Although the precautionary principle (PP) encourages the use of quarantines, including mandatory quarantines, and associated restrictive measures, the principle of necessity (PN) puts a break on such measures. The COVID-19 pandemic reveals once again the different interrelations between these two principles. However, the alleged conflict between the PN and the PP is based on a superficial analysis. The relation between these two principles is far more complex, as this article will demonstrate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the 'loss of chance doctrine' with a comparative perspective, across three different jurisdictions: China (where the loss of chance doctrine is in its infancy); continental Europe (in which many countries have adopted loss of chance to solve medical malpractice cases) and Australia (where loss of chance has been excluded by the High Court and is no longer a valid defense for negligence where causation is otherwise difficult to prove). The article compares these three different approaches to establish a line of development, from initial acceptance, through its widespread application, to finish with its judicial rejection, which might be a prediction about the future of this doctrine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of reproductive techniques and the eventual reproductive negligence from the provider of reproductive services gave rise to situations in which the intended parents are deprived of raising a child genetically connected to them. Courts have been dealing with cases of those for years, but have systemically denied claimants (the prospective parents) compensation, failing to recognise as damage the loss of genetic connection. In 2017, for the first time, the Singapore High Court provided compensation for that damage, labelled "loss of genetic affinity" (ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and Others [2017] SGCA 20). This paper will argue that the damage in question is the loss of genetic connection (wrongful genetic connection) and results from a violation of reproductive rights (and eventually also the right to found a family) because a key element of reproductive rights is to have children with whom we keep a genetic bond and raise them. The paper will explain why the arguments classically argued against such compensation are unfounded and it will argue for a compensation covering both patrimonial and non-patrimonial damages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under Chinese law, the juridical status of the embryo and the foetus is unclear, mainly because the existing legislation can be subject to diverse interpretations due to its ambiguous language. Lack of clarity with the law has led to different understandings amongst Chinese legal scholars. However, although there has been no consensus, there has been a clear tendency to deprive embryos and foetuses of legal status or personhood, thereby excluding them from entitlement to fundamental rights, an understanding reinforced by the Confucian view of the beginning of life. It is expected that in the near future the Chinese courts will face issues involving embryos and foetuses more often, such as disputes over in vitro embryos. The lack of legal precedent could result in contradictory resolutions, therefore, the law should clarify the legal status of embryos and foetuses and accord to prenatal life special respect and treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Defensive medicine" refers to the practice of medicine guided by the intention to avoid litigation, either by excluding scenarios with potential risks (negative defensive medicine) or by providing additional health care (positive defensive medicine). Positive defensive medicine is the topic of this article. Despite the criticism surrounding it, positive defensive medicine is increasing because doctors feel that they will be better protected from litigation if they provide more medical care. Courts, patients, and the community in general never seem to have enough medical care and are even willing to accept some negative outcomes if they feel that the doctor is doing a lot. There are, however, several negative consequences engendered by positive defensive medicine. This article focuses on a particularly pernicious one: the consolidation of an extremely demanding standard of care. If a significant number of doctors starts acting as imposed by defensive medicine, the rest will feel pressured to follow that behavior. Customary conduct will prevail over reasonable conduct. This article demonstrates that this new standard of care leads to bad medicine and eventually to medical malpractice, because it postpones necessary treatments, exposes patients to unnecessary risks, and results in ineffective medical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Direito GV is the property of Fundacao Getulio Vargas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Complying with the requirements of informed consent for medical procedures can sometimes be problematic, even when the hospitals are located in countries that are uniform in their language and cultural values. However, when hospitals are located in countries with diverse linguistic and ethnic communities, it becomes particularly challenging. This article examines how Macao, with four predominant languages—Mandarin, Portuguese, Cantonese and English—and two very strong cultures, Western and Chinese, strives to meet the challenges of informed consent. The situation is made even more complicated by a healthcare delivery in Macao that is mostly guided by Chinese ethical and cultural perspectives, whereas its law is inspired by the Western model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Off-label prescription--the use of a drug outside the scope of its marketing authorization (MA) and the content of its summary of product characteristics (SmPC)--is a medical practice spread all around the world, China being no exception. Several reasons, mostly related to financial strategies from pharmaceutical companies, can justify the decision of not requiring an MA for a certain drug use. The main reason is the purpose of having a profit without taking excessive risks, either economic or legal. This paper will define off-label prescription, discuss the various reasons leading to it, describe the general framework of this practice in Europe and in the United States and analyze off-label prescription in China, describe its regulation (actually, the lack of it) in the Chinese legal system and comment on the actual practice by Chinese health care providers. To conclude, the paper will sustain that a regulation for off-label prescription is essential to clarify for doctors the requirements of lawful off-label uses, and thus protect patients from injuries resulting from risky of-label prescriptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho y Genoma Humano is the property of Dykinson SL and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The European Convention of Human Rights and Biomedicine is the first binding international document that provides a general juridical and ethical framework on medicine and scientific investigation. In this sense, it represents a major effort from the Council of Europe member states, which has proved to be a daunting task to achieve. Nevertheless, this convention leaves many empty spaces and gives rise to some discrepancies. Probably it could not have been in any other way. After all, medical law and bioethics configure an enormous vast domain and it is difficult to create a broad and harmonised regulation for these fields, especially when facing so many different legal orders and divergent ethical and juridical values. The aim of the present study is to offer a critical perspective on the European Convention of Human Rights and Biomedicine with the objectivity gained from having a 15-year gap after its entry into force. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Saúde e Sociedade is the property of Universidade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Saude Publica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Equitable and efficient distribution of COVID-19 vaccines continues to be a key issue in global health, and a targeted approach is needed to meet the World Health Organization's world vaccination targets. Although some low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are developing their own vaccines to address the distribution problem, legal and technical challenges have had a negative impact on productivity. This article explores relevant international legal instruments that can enable faster research and development of COVID-19 vaccines in LMICs, focusing on the role of biosafety standards, biological materials transfer, and key knowledge sharing. Our analysis has established that the potential of existing global health legal instruments has yet to be realized in order to close the productivity gap in LMICs and strengthen their vaccine manufacturing capacity. Additionally, mutual recognition of vaccine efficacy has become a new challenge for achieving global vaccination targets. We argue that the World Health Organization should continue its leading position by developing a more practical and targeted framework to help LMICs overcome challenges arising from technology transfer, knowledge sharing, and politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]