Editor's Note re: Additional Reflections from Health Law Celebration.

This symposium, The Intersection of Immigration Law and Health Policy, could not be timelier. Almost every day since President Trump’s inauguration, the news has brought yet another story about immigration and health: we hear about children dying while in the custody of the border patrol and about the long-term health effects of children who were separated from their parents at the border. We read about immigrant minors being denied access to reproductive health services, and about children being stopped by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on their way for emergency surgery. Physicians report that fearful patients are failing to show up for their medical appointments, and researchers report that immigrants have refused to enroll their infants in child nutrition programs for fear that doing so could lead to their own deportation. Hospitals and other health care providers worry about workers, whose ability to remain employed may be threatened by the possible termination of DACA, or who may be unable to come to this country and provide care because of the travel ban or cut backs on visas. Meanwhile the Administration has proposed new proposed public charge regulations, which if promulgated, may cause millions of lawfully present immigrants to forego a broad array of programs that support health, including Medicaid and food stamps. All of these incidents, and many more, illustrate that when nativist immigration policy meets health law, health policy and public health tend to suffer. The health care system covers fewer people, while becoming costlier and less efficient. Public health is also jeopardized as punitive and futile efforts to keep diseases out by excluding or punishing newcomers replace evidence-based public health solutions. More subtly, when immigration and health policy meet, we lose sight of why the health policy exists in the first place is lost. This essay explores these issues, examining why and how laws and policies at the intersection of health and immigration are frequently problematic for both health policy and public health. Part I begins by noting that the troubling relationship between immigration and health law is both longstanding and international in scope. Parts II and III explore the impact of the interjection of immigration policy into health law, discussing in Part II how it adds to the complexity and inefficiency of the health care system and in Part III, how it harms public health. Part IV elucidates those claims further by exploring the potential health impact of the proposed public charge regulations. Part V concludes by arguing that the battles over immigration and health both reflect and shed light on deeply-seated divisions over the nature of community, the scope of solidarity, and the underlying rationale for health policy and law. I also argue that health laws’ treatment of immigrants forces us to consider the basic rationales for health law. That inquiry offers the possibility of a richer and deeper appreciation of the ethical foundations for health law.

What is the relationship between the role of the EU and the values central in the field of human health? By such ‘health values’, I mean the guiding principles whereby a society in general ensures the merit of a health policy or law. When a topic goes to the core of the manner in which humans shape mutual relationships and obligations (in the current case with respect to human health), there is a good argument to make that we need more justification than law, or a democratic rule, may be able to provide. Health values are often articulated through law, but they are self-standing. In the context of bioethics, they are understood as having an intrinsic importance that gives expression to standards for conduct in individual cases and in the organisation of public health and healthcare. Yet, the focus here is not on bioethics specifically, nor the particular ethical questions on the basis of health values as they emerge in the EU. Rather, to achieve the objective of navigating the intricacies of ‘European Union Health Law’ and related policies, in their constitutional setting, the focus of this chapter is the relationship between health values, fundamental rights and health law and policy. The paper argues that due to the EU’s current constitutional setting – which refers generally to the legislative limitations on the exercise of EU public authority of its institutions for adopting health law, including the protection and promotion of fundamental rights in that respect – EU health law and policy is not able to promote and protect the values that are embedded in Member States’ national health law and policy fully.

Therapeutic jurisprudence's future in health law: Bringing the patient back into the picture

Nursing administrators contend with various legal problems involving patients, staff, and other hospital departments. Recognizing that you need up-to-date information on the ever-changing legal implications in health care delivery, we're pleased to present a new department that focuses on your important legal responsibilities. Law for Leaders will address the top nursing administrator's legal obligations to patients, staff, and employer. With the help of Maureen Cushing and William H. Roach, Jr., two highly qualified special consultants in health law, we will present articles by qualified professionals to help meet your needs in this area. Maureen Cushing, B.S.N., J.D., is both an attorney and a nurse with extensive knowledge in health law. She was employed in nursing practice for many years prior to establishing a private law practice in Boston. She received a B.S.N. from Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts and a Juris Doctor from New England School of Law, Boston, She is actively involved in the health law and disability law committees of the Massachusetts Bar Association and is a member of the Massachusetts Nurses' Association Council of Professional Practice. Ms. Cushing was a contributing editor to Introduction to Nursing Practice by Saperstein and Frazier(F.A. Davis) and is a legal contributor to two pending nursing texts. She is currently writing a book on nursing jurisprudence for Reston Publishing Company, due for publication in 1982. She has lectured extensively on nursing and health law, in both the United States and Germany. William H. Roach, Jr., M.S., J.D., is a partner in the Chicago law firm of Gardner, Carton & Douglas, specialists in health and hospital law. He is also assistant professor at Rush University, Chicago. Formerly vice president for legal affairs at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, Mr. Roach received his Juris Doctor from Vanderbilt University School of Law, and is a member of numerous Bar and professional associations, including the American Society of Hospital Attorneys and the American Society of Law and Medicine. He was president and founding director of the Illinois Association of Hospital Attorneys and for several years has conducted inservice training in hospital law for hospital nursing and medical staffs throughout the United States. His publications include “Medical and Nursing Staff Organization and By-Laws” in Hospital Law (Illinois Institute for Continuing Education), and “The Patient's Right to Know” in Practical Approaches to Patient Teaching, to be published by Little, Brown & Company in 1980. He is author of the first article in JONA's Law for Leaders department. In this article, Roach points out that, beyond their moral duty, nurses have a legal duty to take whatever reasonable action is necessary to safeguard the lives of their patients. He examines the legal implications of the nurse's failure to take appropriate action and presents some of the court decisions that have established what constitutes a nurse's legal duty. He then outlines systems that nursing administrators can establish to smooth the way for staff nurses in obtaining the responsible intervention they need to protect their patients.

Study ObjectiveThe purpose of the study is to assess the value of an internationalization of medical education (IoME) program between 11 Anatomy departments that aims to prepare preclinical medical and dental students for future healthcare leadership roles, by providing them with skills in Public Health awareness, cultural competency, reflection on the topic of body donation, early networking opportunities and basic sciences experiences.Statement of MethodsWe previously reported on our experience in IoME with 6 countries that was initiated through the Anatomy courses. The present study includes 11 Anatomy departments on 4 continents (Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Germany (2), Japan (2), Taiwan, UK and USA) with a total of 183 preclinical Anatomy participants (n=18 dental students, n=165 medical students). Students worked in smaller groups than in the previous years (n=3–4). Discussion topics i.e. differences in the Anatomy courses, international healthcare education and delivery, Global/Public Health, health ethics and health law were further refined. Students worked on a collaborative paper, created a video presentation and presented their work at a large virtual conference. Subsequently they traveled to the partner countries to perform basic sciences research. Questionnaires after the travels were analyzed and are now being presented.A new data point includes an international discussion on the topic of body donation. Students interviewed each other about their thoughts on body donation and their experience working with donated bodies in the different countries and submitted written statements. Comparison of these written statements are underway.Summary of ResultsResults indicate that students felt that they learned from each other during the small group sessions in regard to healthcare education and delivery, Global/Public Health, health ethics and health law. We observed a level of appreciation of what they have at home and cultural awareness. Results also demonstrate that the travels help with building research techniques skills, cultural competency and social connections.We expect differences in the reflection on the topic of body donation due to the differences in the body donation process in the different countries.ConclusionsWe here present our updated experience with a unique international student exchange program that is introduced via the Anatomy course. Anatomy departments can serve as an anchor for international student exchanges, contribute to studies of cultural differences in body donation practices and contribute to Global/Public Health awareness education.Support or Funding InformationNoneThis abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

What is the relationship between the role of the EU and the values central in the field of human health? By such ‘health values’, I mean the guiding principles whereby a society in general ensures the merit of a health policy or law. When a topic goes to the core of the manner in which humans shape mutual relationships and obligations (in the current case with respect to human health), there is a good argument to make that we need more justification than law or a democratic rule may be able to provide. Health values are often articulated through law, but they are self-standing. In the context of bioethics, they are understood as having an intrinsic importance that gives expression to standards for conduct in individual cases and in the organization of public health and health care. However, my focus here is not on bioethics specifically, nor the particular ethical questions on the basis of health values as they emerge in the EU. Rather, to achieve the objective of navigating the intricacies of ‘European Union Health Law’ and related policies, in their constitutional setting, the focus of this chapter is the relationship between health values, fundamental rights and health law and policy.

Drawing upon a range of disciplinary perspectives, Health Law: Frameworks and Context adopts a theoretically informed and principles-based approach to examining health law. Appealing to students and academic scholars alike, the text moves beyond traditional medical law frameworks to provide a broader contextual understanding of the way in which law intersects with health. A clear and accessible style of writing combined with a sophisticated and nuanced approach takes this rich and challenging field to a new level of analysis. Written by respected academics within the field, Health Law: Frameworks and Context is an essential text for scholars and students looking to grasp the fundamental concepts of this rapidly expanding area of law, as well as those who wish to deepen their knowledge and understanding of health law in Australia and internationally.

Health law and policy in Nigeria is an evolving and complex field of law, spanning a broad legal landscape and drawn from various sources. In addressing and interacting with these sources the volume advances research on health care law and policy in Nigeria and spells the beginning of what may now be formally termed the ‘Nigerian health law and policy’ legal field. The collection provides a comparative analysis of relevant health policies and laws, such as reproductive and sexual health policy, organ donation and transplantation, abortion and assisted conception, with those in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada and South Africa. It critically examines the duties and rights of physicians, patients, health institutions and organizations, and government parastatals against the backdrop of increased awareness of rights among patient populations. The subjects, which are discussed from a legal, ethical and policy-reform perspective, critique current legislation and policies and make suggestions for reform.The volume presents a cohesive, comparative, and comprehensive analysis of the state of health law and policy in Nigeria with those in the US, Canada, South Africa, and the UK. As such, it provides a valuable comparison between Western and Non-Western countries.

Health care is one of the most important spheres of activities of the state and society. The functioning and development of health care require proper legal support that is possible if there are enough qualified lawyers equipped with profound knowledge and skills in the health law area. The paper discusses the concept of health law that is new for the Ukrainian legal science as well as its integral components – medical law, public health law, and pharmaceutical law. The experience of teaching courses pertaining to the realm of health law at the Taras Schevtchenko National University of Kyiv that is the leader of Ukrainian higher education, particularly the legal one, is examined. It is the law faculty (currently – the Institute of Law) of the said University whereat the innovative discipline "Legal regulation of public health" ("Public Health Law") started to be taught for the first time in Ukraine. In 2019, the LLM specialization (the elective block of courses) "Health Law" that was unique for Ukraine, was introduced. The article mentions the key goals at the attainment of which the courses studied within the framework of the "Health Law" LLM program (totally ISSN 1728-2195 ЮРИДИЧНІ НАУКИ. 3(118)/2021 ~ 21 ~ 12 disciplines), are targeted. It analyzes the list and content of the courses belonging to the said LLM specialization that can be conditionally divided into three blocks: the key disciplines covering the "components" of health law; the disciplines ensuring understanding of the peculiarities of activities in the sphere of health care and the legal tools used for the governance in health care and management of healthcare institutions; and the courses directed at covering the topical issues of law and ethics in health care and at acquiring practical skills of protection of rights of healthcare actors. The paper points out that while teaching courses falling within the "Health Law" LLM specialization, major stress was made on getting students acquainted with the realities of practice. It pays attention to the use of modern methods and approaches to teaching as well as education technologies that allowed ensuring high efficiency of education, particularly under the conditions of lockdown caused by the spread of coronavirus disease COVID-19. The article also outlines major components of the education and scientific activity carried out at the Taras Shevtchenko National University of Kyiv, including that of the Education and Research Center for Medical Law of the Institute of Law. The conclusion is made that а scientific school of health law has been established at the Taras Shevtchenko National University of Kyiv. Keywords: health law, medical law, pharmaceutical law, health care, public health, public health law, LLM specialization, education, science.

It is argued that a critical approach to health studies with an eye of social sciences, particularly benefited from the fields of economics, law, and politics, contributes to the literature on health studies. This edited book comprises seven parts which contain chapters on the field of health studies from the perspectives of economics, law, and politics in Turkey. In this said framework, chapters are organized under seven thematic parts as “economic and public policy perspective in the health sector”, “the impact of Europeanization in health law and policy”, “gender in health policies and law”, “legal and public policy perspective to vaccination application”, “reflections of covid-19 in law and economics”, “current thematic discussions in health studies”, and “noticeable issues in health law”. The book contributes to the literature by illustrating discussions and cases from Turkey.

Today, considerations of disability are a vital part of health law scholarship and teaching, but that was not always the case. This Essay traces how disability's role in health law has grown over the past three decades, alongside the author's own evolution as a health and disability law scholar. The recent official designation of disabled people as a health disparities population is encouraging, but much work remains to achieve health equity for disabled persons.

Occupational health and safety law is one of the most important developments in recent years in Turkish Industrial Relations System. The aim of this law is to introduce measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. Up to this law, there was no separate law on occupational health and safety. Occupational health and safety is being applied due to different laws. Therefore, it was not effective and led to confusion. Occupational health and safety law was established with the effect of the EU integration process in Turkey. There is a negative picture in terms of accidents at work and occupational diseases in Turkey. Therefore, whether the success or not of this law is an important issue. Although the law entered into force June 30 in 2012, it is difficult to say that businesses life prepared for this. In this context, the effects of the law are wondering what will happen. In this respect, it is important evaluation of the law. This study will consist of three main sections. The first section consists of occupational health and safety reasons. For this reason, the accidents at work and occupational disease rates will be examined in the world, EU and Turkey. Second, the arguments will be examined in the text of the law and parliamentary proceedings. Third, the effects of the law will be considered employees and employer in the Turkish Industrial Relations. DOI: 10.5901/ajis.2013.v2n8p703

This paper examines key contemporary policy and legal agendas regarding mental health, with a view to highlighting contributions that may be brought from new and emerging discourses in academic health law. In particular, it does so from the perspective of the related fields of public health law and human rights law. Whilst core definitions of public health speak to questions regarding mental health and well-being, recent reports from a range of professional and advocacy organisations urge the message that mental health remains a neglected area of concern. This has led to an emphasis on the field of public mental health as a discrete area of study, policy and practice. We argue and explain how the related field of public mental health law should be conceptualised and operationalised. This entails an examination of the fundamental requirement of law to support and promote good mental health, with a renewed focus on prevention and proactive intervention rather than reactive measures. We suggest that a framing made by reference to human rights models will support the combined ethical and practical commitments that must be met by public mental health law.

Health law education, an important part of global health education, is beneficial for both medical and law schools. This field can help lawyers and policy makers to develop their careers and equip traditional health professionals, such as doctors and nurses, with a basic knowledge of health law. However, unlike in western universities, health law education in China is still at its infant stage and, as such, lacks a systematic pedagogical approach among institutions of higher education in China. Considering the advancements in the field of health law education, this study systematically reviews the status of health law education in institutions of higher learning in China and suggests ways to make the pedagogical approach more consistent. This systematic review revealed that, between 2012 and 2021, major law schools and medical schools that have developed the subject of health law education in China lack consensus on the aim, scope, mode, and methods of health law education. The first problem is that Chinese universities are unable to agree on how to classify the subject of health law. Another set of problems relate to institutions themselves. Not only do universities lack qualified health law faculty, but they also rely on relatively uninspiring teaching materials. This leads to ineffective, generic pedagogical approaches in both medical and law schools. These problems leave future lawyers, future doctors and nurses unclear about their choices for health law study at the graduate level and their ultimate career development. We therefore propose four preliminary solutions to continue to develop this new interdisciplinary subject—health law education—in Chinese universities: clearly classify the subject of health law, equip the health law field with more professional textbooks, enact joint degree programs between medical schools and law schools, and establish a health law research center in either law schools or medical schools.

Modern bioethics and health law have been dominated by a certain method or paradigm. In bioethics, this has come to be known as principlism, deductive reasoning from a limited set of middle-level principles, albeit with some reciprocal attention to the implications of the case at hand for those principles. In health law, the approach has often been similar, the creation of middle-level rules (on informed consent, surrogate decision-making, and so on) and then their downward application with insufficient attention to the clinical context, the specific characteristics of the disputants (such as insurance status), and whether the rules will actually work in medical settings.These related paradigms are now under attack from a number of quarters. In bioethics, alternative methods are being advanced, a new empiricism challenges the content of previously accepted principles, and feminist and race-attentive work has rendered suspect bioethical appeal to the generic patient. Less recognized are the comparable challenges in health law. The bioethics shift has been variously diagnosed as inductivism or coherentism. However, seen in company with the health law shift, both appear linked to the rise of a new pragmatism. In shifting their approaches increasingly from something principle- or rule-driven to something more inductivist and empirical, their approach to the practical has become pragmatist.This article documents and analyzes the shift under way in both fields. The turn toward empiricism, rejection of theoretical elegance as the measure of good bioethics and health law, and insistence instead on evaluating what meets the needs of individuals in clinical settings is a diagnostically pragmatist move. To embrace this diagnosis allows debate of core, applicable issues in pragmatism, including whether it is anti-theory and incompatible with a strong concept of rights. The article spells out the implications of the pragmatist diagnosis for the method and substance of bioethics and health law. This breakthrough article, one of the first to argue for pragmatism as an approach to bioethics and health law, helped set the stage for much subsequent work elaborating a pragmatist approach to these fields.