Demands Of Justice Research Articles

Why Migration Justice Still Requires Open Borders

ABSTRACTI revisit themes from Against Borders: Why the World Needs Free Movement of People (2020) in dialogue with Gillian Brock's Justice of People on the Move (2020) and Sarah Song's Immigration and Democracy (2019). We share the conviction that current border regimes are deeply unjust but differ in what migration justice requires. Brock and Song continue to give states significant discretion to exclude people from entering and settling in their territories, whereas I contend that migration justice demands open borders. I reject the claim that state self‐determination justifies migration restrictions. Central arguments for open borders highlight the role that restrictive border controls and the state category of ‘immigrant’ play in upholding racialised hierarchies and exploitative economic relations, as well as in inflicting violence against mobile people.

Ethics, Personal Responsibility and the Pandemic: A New Triage Paradigm

Background: How much of a role should personal responsibility play in triage criteria? Because voluntarily unvaccinated people are not fulfilling their societal obligations during a pandemic, the ethical principle of justice demands that they reap the egalitarian consequences. These consequences could include lower priority for care, an increasing number of employer and government mandates, and restrictions to entering many entertainment venues. Discussion: Voluntarily unvaccinated individuals increase the chance that the COVID-19 virus will mutate and spread, endangering the entire population, but especially those who cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons, children for whom vaccines have yet to be approved, and older adult and immunocompromised people for whom the vaccine is less effective. When voluntarily unvaccinated individuals seek medical treatment for COVID-19 (94% of patients with COVID-19 in U.S. intensive care units), they use resources needed for those with non–COVID-related illnesses. Conclusions: A method to balance resource allocation between those patients who refuse vaccination and patients who need the same health care resources is necessary. An ethical solution is to give those who are voluntarily unvaccinated a lower priority for admission and for the use of other health care resources. Current in-hospital triage models can easily be modified to accomplish this. This substantive change in practice may encourage more people to get vaccinated.

Causation and Injustice: Locating the injustice of racial and ethnic health disparities.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on the health of Black Americans, Latinx or Hispanic Americans, and American Indians. These disparities are deeply unjust, in part, because they are the causal result of racism at both the interpersonal and structural levels. This paper argues, however, that establishing a causal connection between racism and health disparities is not the only way to explain the injustice of these disparities. The COVID-19 health disparities are arguably unjust because health equity is a "free-standing" demand of justice, an obligation of reparative justice, a remedy to structural injustice, and part of dismantling pernicious racial concepts. Identifying multiple accounts of injustice may lower the evidentiary bar for our normative claims and help us to identify alternative policy pathways for ending health inequity.

Economic Balance of The Contract

Legal principles play a critical role in the contract's economic balance and the financial cost's stability by respecting the contractors' well as the basis of the contract's binding force, which is essential for the economic balance of the agreement and strength of the economic cost. Nonetheless, this will stand in the way of the involvement of the legislator and the judiciary in the economic imbalance of the contract, which would otherwise interfere in favor of the weak party under the principles of fairness required by the warranty. Moreover, if the economic equilibrium is out of balance, it affects whether or not the contract is carried out. Therefore, the attainment of justice demands compliance with economic balance and compliance with the contractual legal balance under this principle.

World Christianity and Global Justice

AbstractThis article raises the question of whether increasing emphasis on the reconfiguration of World Christianity hinders or helps ecumenical convivência. In doing this, it invites the reader to dive into contrasting views of World Christianity to find its potential to transform and even expand the notion of the oikoumene, especially through concerted attention to emerging demands of global justice – in particular, the demands of epistemic justice. Drawing on an intercultural dialogue involving a Candomblé practitioner and a Krenak Indigenous leader, the article advances the proposal of a liberative intercultural dialogue in response to lingering colonial disparities that continue to challenge Christians and non‐Christians today. It concludes that, if approached through proper lenses, World Christianity might point the way to ecumenical renewal and to the expansion of our understanding of the “ecumenical” in the coming decades.

Legal imperatives of medical negligence and medical malpractice

Medical negligence and malpractice are becoming a growing concern in Nigeria; even though many victims do not know how to go about seeking redress or demand justice, medical practitioners, too, do not understand the legal implications of their actions. Medical negligence and malpractice are tortious liabilities that can also result in criminal liabilities. It is a fact that health-care practice will occasionally result in circumstances where health seekers suffer some distress or permanent injury in the course of handling by medical practitioners. This distress or injury can be a result of either commission or omission due to the actions or inactions of the medical practitioner. This review was embarked upon using thoroughly studied recent and older literature concentrating on research indications resulting from the fields of medicine and law within and without Nigeria. Common acts that could give rise to lawsuits on medical negligence and medical malpractice include doctor's illegible handwriting, prescription and medication errors, misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose, improper medical treatment, leaving surgical instruments in patients after surgery, lack of informed consent, failure to refer a patient to a specialist, breach of confidentiality, extortion, and deception among others. For liability to come up in negligence, it is imperative that the three main fundamentals of negligence, which include that a duty of care is owed, there was a breach of the duty of care, and injury or permanent disability suffered as a direct consequence of a breach of the duty of care must be well established and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The inability of a victim to successfully prove a case of negligence against a medical practitioner does not totally absolve a practitioner from charges related to other offences under other aspects of the law, hence the fact that negligence is difficult to prove does not leave a patient deprived of other legal opportunities as may be considered appropriate. Even though the law protects the medical practitioner to the level that liability for medical negligence and medical malpractice has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, much more legal protection is needed to allow medical practitioners to discharge their duties of saving lives. Medical practitioners need to be aware of their limits as well as the legal implications of their work; this can be achieved by incorporating medicolegal principles into medical education for medical students, as well as periodic medicolegal lectures for medical practitioners.

Can fashion ever be fair?

The recent global economic crisis has highlighted the vulnerability of millions of women in apparel supply chains worldwide. Despite decades of activism and a plethora of corporate social responsibility and ethical labelling initiatives, there has been little evidence of progress toward greater equity in the fashion sector. Why can’t we make fashion more fair? This article explains historically rooted causes of inequity for Black and Brown women in apparel supply chains and details the rise of Fair Trade initiatives intended to use market forces to improve existing practices and support alternatives. Attempts to use consumerism and market forces to drive social change raised deep questions for social movement actors regarding first principles. Notwithstanding years of effort, Fair Trade apparel has failed to achieve any significant market penetration. Yet the sector as a whole is experiencing overlapping shocks of digitisation, climate change and pandemic-exacerbated disruptions to supply chains. Social movement actors are also targeting the sector with new demands for social and economic justice. This may provide opportunities to redesign our thinking around Fair Trade and what constitutes fairness in fashion.

The Black Librarian in America: Reflections, Resistance, and Reawakening. Shauntee Burns-Simpson, Nichelle M. Hayes, Ana Ndumu, and Shaundra Walker, eds. Washington, DC: Rowman & Littlefield, 2022. 288p. Hardback, $105 (ISBN: 978-1-5381-5266-9).

It was with delight that I accepted the offer to write a review for the latest iteration of The Black Librarian in America . As a proud Black librarian in America and a lifetime member of the Black Caucus of the American Library Association (BCALA), I have read the previous versions of this collection hungrily, inspired by the stories of other librarians whose experiences overlap, differ, and connect in power to my own. This latest edition of the collection marks the 50th anniversary of both the first edition, edited by the renowned Dr. E.J. Josey, cofounder and first chair of BCALA, and of BCALA itself. This reflective and celebratory edition comes at yet another pivotal moment in Black history and life (among so many), when the last few years have seen a global pandemic that disproportionately affects Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities and demands for racial justice have reached interesting new plateaus. In many ways, the world for Black Americans in 2020–2022 is very similar to the world faced by Black Americans, and Black librarians, in the 1970s. Yet, as this edition of The Black Librarian in America can attest, there are important changes and new challenges, yes, but also new opportunities to move the work of the ancestors forward in service for the generations to come.

Critical Phenomenology, Racial Justice, and Radical Imagination: An Introduction

Starting with the acknowledgment of the necessity of radical imagination for social change, and with the threat that neoliberal capitalism poses to radical imagination, our hope is that this themed issue offers the time and space to cultivate radical imagination as it takes up questions of racial justice. Moreover, our intent is to solicit critical phenomenology toward robust investigations of radical imagination, what it makes possible, and the ways in which current social, economic, and political arrangements sustain or foreclose the space and time for its cultivation. What the past few years have made clear is that individuals and institutions continue to be complicit in the perpetuation of structural inequality and racial violence in our society. For us, the editors of Puncta, acknowledging this complicity means at a minimum to use our platform to amplify the voices of scholars of color and establish a forum devoted to critical conversations about racial justice. In sum, we hope we can create a space-time for the cultivation of radical imagination. This themed issue strives to be such a venue; the ten articles featured in this issue explore the intersections of race/racialization with methodological concerns within the field of critical phenomenology, theoretical understandings of the notion of race itself, and demands for racial justice on scholarly, activist, and imaginary grounds.

The Paris Agreement Revisited: Diplomatic Triumphalism or Denial of Climate Justice?

The 2015 Paris COP 21, after the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen COP, raised many expectations regarding the elaboration of the post-Kyoto legal instrument to lead the global fight against climate change. At the sunset of the summit, world leaders and climate negotiators, relayed by mainstream Medias, presented the results of the Paris climate discussions as an important success for the global climate community. A success contested by climate justice and just transition defenders. Given the foundation role the Paris agreement plays for subsequent global, national and sub-national climate policies on one side and, on the other side, the continuous growing global demands for climate justice and just transition, this article investigates the conciliatory possibilities put in place by the agreement to advance those demands. To reach such goals, the article focuses on the retrospective critical reading of the agreement in the light of human-centered climate perspectives such as climate justice and just transition, without neglecting other aspects related to the very nature of the agreement, and the enhanced commodification of nature and resulting carbon trading. This analysis of the agreement through climate justice lenses will be instrumental in confirming or disproving the following hypothesis: From the climate justice and just transition perspectives, the success of the Paris regime will not pass through the implementation of the Paris agreement itself, but thought corrective mechanisms that could be put in place to correct the loopholes of the agreement. The initiative of putting such post-Paris corrective mechanisms in place is expected to be one of the key priorities of the international community.

Offline: The incontestable moral value of health

In March, 2020, chief science advisers from 12 countries, including the US, the UK, and Germany, issued a call to scholarly publishers “to voluntarily agree to make their COVID-19 and coronavirus-related publications, and the available data supporting them, immediately accessible in PubMed Central and other appropriate public repositories.” That same month, over 30 publishers, including The Lancet, signed up to this request. The call reflected the urgency of the pandemic and “the associated global health crisis.” We have made all of our coronavirus-related content freely available through a COVID-19 Resource Centre. But why stop with a pandemic? Are there not other global health crises that would benefit from immediate access to new scientific findings? Where should one draw the line in deciding what scientific information is instantly and freely available? And who should draw that line? The pandemic has accelerated massive change in scientific publishing. Preprints of COVID-19-related research papers are now routinely posted. On balance, preprints have been a positive step forward for science. Immediate access to new, although non-peer-reviewed, results has been helpful for policy makers, journalists, and a public eager to devour every new discovery. Occasionally, there has been unscrupulous behaviour. Some institutions have issued press releases publicising preprints in ways that have given too much credence to provisional findings. But my concern isn’t with preprints or even with this pandemic. My unease lies with the arbitrary criteria for defining a “global health crisis” and so the capricious justifications for denying immediate access to new research findings. Isn’t AIDS an urgent global health crisis? Or any one of an array of non-communicable diseases ravaging socially excluded and poor communities? Debates about access to scientific research usually and quickly devolve into disputes about the merits of open access mandates. Or the material contributions society publishers make to the disciplines they champion. Or the benefits commercial publishers bring to the wider economy. Sometimes, important principles are enunciated—publicly funded research must be publicly accessible. But none of these arguments cuts through to what I think is the crucial distinction this pandemic has revealed—that health and health research have a special moral importance to society, an importance that should demand zero tolerance to any barrier limiting access to healthcare and health information. The philosopher Norman Daniels put forward a compelling case for the special moral importance of health in his 2008 book, Just Health. The “fundamental question” he posed was, “As a matter of justice, what do we owe each other to promote and protect health in a population and to assist people when they are ill or disabled?” Part of his answer was to establish the obligations we have to promote and secure health, obligations that do not apply to other goods. Daniels’ claim is that health is of special moral importance because protecting health—keeping people functioning normally by meeting their health needs—protects the opportunities open to us. By opportunities, Daniels means “the array of life plans reasonable persons are likely to develop for themselves.” Poor health diminishes those fair opportunities. Daniels based his argument on John Rawls’ theory of justice. Rawls claimed there could be no justice without fair opportunities for all. Justice demands the protection of those fair opportunities. If, therefore, fair opportunity is a crucial dimension of justice, and if those opportunities depend on health, then justice must give a special moral place to health. Daniels defines health needs as adequate nutrition; sanitary, safe, unpolluted living and working conditions; healthy lifestyles; medical services; social care; and “an appropriate distribution of other social determinants of health”. To these, I would add reliable health information, which provides the basis for any high-quality health system. The post-COVID-19 challenge for scientific editors is to address the reasoned claims that health and health research are foundational components of a just society, that health and health research occupy positions of special moral importance to that society, and that journal editors have a responsibility to advocate for the removal of all access barriers to the results of scientific research. There is no logical or ethical basis for designating COVID-19 a special case. The argument for immediate access to new health research findings is a straightforward matter of justice, not expediency. It's time for editors to say so clearly and forcefully.

Screening for Substance Use Disorders during Pregnancy: A Decision at the Intersection of Racial and Reproductive Justice.

Improve racial equity with routine universal drug screening / Study Design: Commentary on the medicolegal and social history of the United States and the field of obstetrics and gynecology regarding drug screening policy / Results: Critical aspects to inform an equitable drug screening policy include (1) racial bias and stigma related to substance use, (2) the legislative history surrounding substance use during pregnancy, (3) the relationship between substance use and mass incarceration which disproportionately affects persons of color, (4) propensity toward punitive measures for Black mothers with substance use, including termination of parental rights, (5) the role of the medical field in fostering mistrust among our patients / Conclusion: new practices in screening for substance use during pregnancy are needed. · Increasing demand for racial justice warrants reframing the issue of urine drug screening.. · The current legal constructs continue to disproportionately impact women of color.. · Routine verbal screening can replace urine drug screening and diminish implicit biases..

Youth of Color Social Movements for Racial Justice: The Politics of Interrogating the School-to-Prison Pipeline

Youth social movements for racial justice, especially against police violence, are on the rise. And this broader policy landscape is reflective of how youth are addressing racism in policing in their local context. Therefore, by drawing upon scholarship related to Black Radicalism, activism, and social movements, this study examines how youth of color activists are fighting against the overpolicing of their schools and communities in two specific contexts: Wake County, North Carolina and Chicago, Illinois. This study demonstrates how context shapes youth of color social movement building, that youth are strategic in how they employ activism, and ultimately adults can either impede or help advance youth’s demands for justice.

“Human rights” in dispute: State violence and demands for justice in a comparative perspective

This paper proposes a reflection on the “human rights” category, as a native category, endowed with local and specific meanings. Therefore, it utilizes a comparative perspective by contrast on the uses and meanings of the “state violence” category and the building of processes demanding justice in Rio de Janeiro, in comparison to Buenos Aires. Specifically, it focuses on the ethnography produced after the murder of Rio's alderwoman Marielle Franco, to propose the notion of “attack on human rights”, showing how the category has been built through an antagonistic logic in Rio de Janeiro.

Hernandez, Alex Eric. The Making of British Bourgeois Tragedy: Modernity and the Art of Ordinary Suffering.

Hernandez, Alex Eric. <i>The Making of British Bourgeois Tragedy: Modernity and the Art of Ordinary Suffering</i>.

Secondary research use of personal medical data: patient attitudes towards data donation

BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has highlighted once more the great need for comprehensive access to, and uncomplicated use of, pre-existing patient data for medical research. Enabling secondary research-use of patient-data is a prerequisite for the efficient and sustainable promotion of translation and personalisation in medicine, and for the advancement of public-health. However, balancing the legitimate interests of scientists in broad and unrestricted data-access and the demand for individual autonomy, privacy and social justice is a great challenge for patient-based medical research.MethodsWe therefore conducted two questionnaire-based surveys among North-German outpatients (n = 650) to determine their attitude towards data-donation for medical research, implemented as an opt-out-process.ResultsWe observed a high level of acceptance (75.0%), the most powerful predictor of a positive attitude towards data-donation was the conviction that every citizen has a duty to contribute to the improvement of medical research (> 80% of participants approving data-donation). Interestingly, patients distinguished sharply between research inside and outside the EU, despite a general awareness that universities and public research institutions cooperate with commercial companies, willingness to allow use of donated data by the latter was very low (7.1% to 29.1%, depending upon location of company). The most popular measures among interviewees to counteract reservations against commercial data-use were regulation by law (61.4%), stipulating in the process that data are not sold or resold (84.6%). A majority requested control of both the use (46.8%) and the protection (41.5%) of the data by independent bodies.ConclusionsIn conclusion, data-donation for medical research, implemented as a combination of legal entitlement and easy-to-exercise-right to opt-out, was found to be widely supported by German patients and therefore warrants further consideration for a transposition into national law.

Getting the Cosmology Right

Getting the Cosmology Right

Teachers' Irrational Belief Scale: Psychometric Properties of the Greek Version and Measurement Invariance across Genders.

Irrationality refers to human thoughts and beliefs that signify lack of rationality and entail erroneous perceptions about situational, personal, or collective idiosyncrasies, while it is independent of one’s intellectual ability. Irrational beliefs are ubiquitous in all social and cultural groups and attract a special interest in behavioral sciences, where the primary concern is the development of instruments for identifying and measuring them. The present study evaluates the psychometric properties of Greek version of Teachers’ Irrational Belief Scale (TIBS-G), a 25-item self-reported instrument using data collected from 835 participants. The exploratory procedure, implementing scree plot with parallel analysis, demonstrated the dimensionality of four factors, namely: Self-downing (SD), Authoritarianism (A), Demands for Justice (DJ), and Low Frustration Tolerance (LT). The corresponding reliability measures using Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega were ranged between 0.70 and 0.80. Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis showed an adequate fit of the measurement model [χ2 = 579.98, df = 183, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.960; TLI = 0.956; RMSEA = 0.051]. In addition, measurement invariance was performed, which demonstrated differences between genders. Finally, discussion on the importance of irrational beliefs and the possible implementation of the TIBS instrument in educational research is provided.

The Health Equity Impact Assessment: A Case Study in COVID-19 Visitor Policy.

The Health Equity Impact Assessment: A Case Study in COVID-19 Visitor Policy.

Justice and Doxastic Handicaps

ABSTRACTIt is tempting to suppose that the reason why the world remains profoundly unjust is that not enough of us hold the correct beliefs about the demands of justice and/or are motivated to bring it about. As Allen Buchanan shows, however, this is to miss a crucially important part of the picture: agents' mistaken beliefs about what it takes to achieve justice can seriously hamper prospects for such achievements. In this article, I expand on Buchanan's taxonomy of mistaken beliefs about what it takes to achieve justice, and I bring his account (so expanded) to bear on the notion of epistemic justice.