Search

Gene-editing technologies, ie those able to make changes in the DNA of an organism, are the object of global competition and a regulatory race between countries and regions. There is an attempt to craft legal frameworks protective enough for users, but flexible enough for developers of gene-editing technologies. This article examines the imaginary built into the framing of EU-level legal regulation of human gene-editing technologies and identifies its three key related facets: the tension around naturalness; safeguarding morality and ethics; and the pursuit of medical objectives for the protection of human health. Concerns around the use of gene-editing technologies in relation to eugenics and human enhancement have produced a multifaceted imaginary. We argue that this imaginary not only places a limit on EU-level regulation, despite a strong EU competence in respect of the internal market, but also seeks to ensure its legitimation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I argue that expectations or strong beliefs about what can occur, and the imaginaries they construct, can be shaped by organizations and used by them as techniques for public legitimation of their governance and regulatory activities. I advance this argument by reference to the International Council on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The expectations and imaginary flowing from the ICH's mission and framing, 'harmonisation for better health', support a focus on technological development for the production of safe, quality, and effective pharmaceuticals and individual ethical conduct to achieve it. The expectations also marginalize wider systemic issues relating to social justice, particularly those affecting the global South. The central role of scientific-technical knowledge and expertise to harmonization abets the latter by minimizing the value to governance of public knowledges on systemic issues. Instead of ensuring the contribution of these knowledges to governance through public participation, there is an attempt to bolster legitimation through communication of expectations and transparency to show practices are in accordance with them (ie expectations are met). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The principal effects of Brexit on health and health care will fall within the United Kingdom, and all forms of Brexit have overwhelmingly negative implications for health care and health within the UK. This article focuses on the external effects of Brexit ("Brexternalities") for health and health care. The EU is a particularly powerful institutional and legal arrangement for managing economic and political externalities in health policy as in any other policy. Equally, when a state leaves the EU, the manner of leaving will result in better or worse management of relevant externalities. Brexternalities thus involve questions about policy legitimacy and accountability. Health Brexternalities do not fall equally in all EU countries. They are felt more distinctly in the context of those elements of health policy that are most closely entwined with the UK's health policy (e.g., on the island of Ireland, certain areas of Spain, and other parts of southern Europe). Some health Brexternalities, such as in medicine safety, will be imposed on the whole population of the EU. And some health Brexternalities, such as communicable disease control, will be felt globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I use the examples of medical devices, clinical trials and health data, to look at the framing of harm through the language of technological risk and failure. Across the examples, there is little or no suggestion of failure by those formally responsible. Failure is seen as arising when harm becomes refracted through calculative techniques and judgments, and reaches a point where the expectations of safety built into technological framings of regulation are thwarted. Technological framings may marginalise the contribution patients, research participants and others can make to regulation, which may in turn underlie harm and lead to the construction of failure. This marginalisation may amount to epistemic injustice. Epistemic injustice and its link to failure, which has normative weight over and above harm, can present a risk to organisational standing and reputation. This risk can be used to improve the knowledge base to include stakeholder knowledges of harm, and to widen responsibilities and accountabilities. This promises to allow regulation to better anticipate and prevent harm and failure, and improve the efficacy and legitimacy of the health research enterprise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article we argue that the impact of Brexit on the law schools in Northern Ireland is tied to the "unique circumstances" of legal education in this part of the world. Legal education in Northern Ireland is likely to develop to become even more distinctive than that in other parts of the UK. Although there are two distinct jurisdictions on the island, they are deeply entangled by shared history and geographical proximity that make cross-border practice a daily reality. These circumstances seem likely to drive the trajectory of the development of legal education in Northern Ireland. Indeed, EU law is likely to remain a component of the Northern Irish qualifying law degree. The potential for the development of law specific to Northern Ireland under backstop arrangements is another significant driver for the future orientation of legal education in this jurisdiction. Legal education in Northern Ireland is, therefore, likely to become noticeably more "European" than that in other parts of the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers the EU’s approach to citizen participation in the governance of new technologies from a human rights perspective. Noting that there is a dearth of insight on the interplay between citizen participation and human rights, the article sketches the essence of its own human rights perspective as being about empowerment. This perspective is brought to bear on EU discourse on citizen participation in the governance of new technologies. Analysis of the discourse—comprising law, citizen participation in EU governance and citizen/science relations, the ‘public understanding of science and technology’, risk and bioethics—reveals a disempowering ‘deficit model’ of citizens in need of education through their participation in governance. The analysis thus suggests that citizen participation in EU governance of new technologies is not truly informed by human rights, but is instead used as a legitimating technique. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article analyzes the Open Method of Coordination on health care (OMC/HC) to find the relatedness of equity and solidarity with optimization and the effect of neoliberalism on health care in Euorpe. It cites negative effects of a neoliberal reframing including legitimacy in European Union (EU) governance, the reduction in space for oppositional formations and limited citizenship. It concludes that the OMC/HC is unable to buttress health care systems against neoliberalism.