Professional Discipline for Vaccine Misinformation Posts on Social Media: Issues and Controversies for the Legal Profession.

Misinformation has challenged the rollout of COVID-19 vaccination around the world. In 2021, professional bodies for several regulated occupations (including doctors and lawyers) initiated investigations into the conduct of members who engaged in vaccine misinformation, including on social media. This commentary discusses key controversies surrounding this novel disciplinary issue, with the focus on the legal profession in New Zealand and Australia. We consider the difficulties of defining "vaccine misinformation", differentiating between public and private social media use, giving proper scope to rights of free speech, and challenges in identifying financial conflicts of interest and unethical client solicitation practices (eg, profiting from spreading vaccine misinformation). The chilling effect upon freedom of expression when lawyers are disciplined for their social media posts that are deemed unscientific is discussed.

Vaccinating Children: The COVID-19 Family Law Jurisprudence.

Australian, New Zealand, English and Canadian courts have made a number of orders, often in the context of parenting disputes, requiring children to be vaccinated. Complementary therapy options have generally not been permitted as an alternative to mainstream vaccination. Debates about parental entitlements to make decisions about such matters have taken place in the context of contested family law litigation during the COVID-19 era. However, by contrast with Ontario Superior Court of Justice decisions in 2022, a series of Australian decisions, including the judgment of Sutherland CJ in Clay & Dallas [2022] FCWA 18, have developed the law further, having regard to both the capacity of a minor to consent to vaccination and reviewing a variety of factors going to children's best interests at different junctures during the pandemic, finding it generally to be in the best interests of children to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. This is likely to flow back into curial decision-making about vaccinations more broadly, as well as cognate matters.

Compassion, Law and COVID-19

Levels of personal anxiety are inevitably escalating in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including individual fear of infection, grief at the loss of loved ones and reactive depression related to loss of employment and livelihood. This article considers the importance of compassion in a range of contemporary and emerging contexts during a time of pandemic. These include: exposure of medical and care professionals to the acute demands of overstretched institutions resulting in adverse mental health outcomes and compassion fatigue;attitudes towards the burgeoning cohort of welfare recipients;and particularly vulnerable groups such as the elderly, and those who are homeless. The article considers how we ought to conceive of compassion in these contexts and makes some suggestions for building future compassion interventions and training.

The Rights to Life, Dignity and the Highest Attainable Standard of Health: Internationally Influential African Jurisprudence.

The right to the highest attainable standard of health, existing under a number of international human rights instruments, including Art 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, has been incorporated in local law and in the constitutions of many countries. An important body of jurisprudence interpreting such rights and applying them in particular factual health scenarios is developing. Against the background of the South African Constitutional Court's 2002 landmark decision in Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign (No 2) (2002) 5 SA 721 in relation to access to HIV medications, this editorial reviews significant decisions in 2012 by Ngugi J of the Kenya High Court in PAO v Attorney General [2012] eKLR and by the Uganda Constitutional Court in 2020 in Center for Health, Human Rights and Development v Attorney General [2020] UGCC 12. It contends that this combination of high-profile judgments has breathed substance and significance into the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the entitlement to be treated with dignity and the right to life at a time when these rights may assume additional importance in the context of the availability and accessibility of vaccines for the COVID-19 virus.

Compassion, Law and COVID-19.

Levels of personal anxiety are inevitably escalating in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including individual fear of infection, grief at the loss of loved ones and reactive depression related to loss of employment and livelihood. This article considers the importance of compassion in a range of contemporary and emerging contexts during a time of pandemic. These include: exposure of medical and care professionals to the acute demands of overstretched institutions resulting in adverse mental health outcomes and compassion fatigue; attitudes towards the burgeoning cohort of welfare recipients; and particularly vulnerable groups such as the elderly, and those who are homeless. The article considers how we ought to conceive of compassion in these contexts and makes some suggestions for building future compassion interventions and training.

International Access to Public Health Data: An Important Brazilian Legal Precedent.

Accurate, up-to-date data are the bedrock of effective public health responses, including in the context of the suffering caused by COVID-19. Any action to inhibit the compilation of such data has ramifications locally, nationally and internationally, and risks impairing the global capacity to respond to the virus. This article contextualises the decision of the government of President Bolsonaro of Brazil to reduce the accessibility of contemporary data about COVID-19 infections in Brazil within his views about, and responses to, the virus. It identifies the nature of actions taken to suppress such data by the Brazilian Ministry of Health and then scrutinises a decision by De Moraes J of Brazil's High Court in Sustainability Network v The President of the Republic of Brazil (ADPF 690 MC/DF, 8 June 2020), which quashed the attempted suppression of public health data. The article hails the decision as an important public health law precedent.

COVID-19 and Family Law Decision-Making.

All aspects of family law have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. It has posed challenges for the operation of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court, the obtaining of expert reports, the conduct of hearings, the functioning of contact centres, and the mode of delivery of children's schooling. In Australia and in Ontario an attempt has been made to be clear about what is expected of parents during the period of crisis. An Australian innovation has been the establishment of a COVID-19 List and communication by the Chief Justice of the Family Court about what is expected of parents by way of compliance with orders from chief health officers and safe practices to protect children against infection, especially those with particular health vulnerabilities. This column reviews such initiatives and a number of the significant family law decisions during the early phase of Australia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19: Criminal Law, Public Assemblies and Human Rights Litigation.

Australia's criminal law was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic from the outset and then progressively as statutory measures and judicial rulings on matters such as bail entitlements, judge-alone trials, sentences and applications for demonstrations and public assemblies were made by courts. This column identifies some of the major decisions made during the period of the lockdown measures between March and July 2020, and reviews significant New South Wales judgments in relation to the lawfulness of mass gatherings during the period of lockdown as expert assessments of risks of community transmission of the virus waxed and waned. It explores the importation into Australia's criminal law of public health principles for the protection of the community, and its compatibility with traditional principles of criminal justice.

Perils of Precipitate Publication: Fraudulent and Substandard COVID-19 Research.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created an environment highly conducive to substandard and fraudulent research. The incentives and temptations for the unethical are substantial. The articles published during 2020 in The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine that were based on spurious datasets, allegedly hosted by a cloud-based health care analytics platform, are deeply confronting for research integrity. They illustrate the perils of precipitate publication, inadequate peer-reviewing and co-authorship without proper assumption of responsibility. A period of crisis such as that in existence during the COVID-19 pandemic calls for high-quality research that is robustly evaluated. It is not a time for panic to propel premature publication or for relaxation in scholarly standards. Any other approach will replicate errors of the past and result in illusory research breakthroughs to global detriment.

COVID-19, Negligence and Occupational Health and Safety: Ethical and Legal Issues for Hospitals and Health Centres.

The international incidence of health workers being infected with COVID-19 is deeply troubling. Until a vaccine is developed, they are the community's bulwark against the pandemic. It is vital that they be protected to the maximum extent possible. This entails the need for implementation of effective and compassionate protocols to keep their workplace as safe as possible for them, their colleagues and their patients in a context of much as yet not being known about the virus and awareness that some persons infected by it are for a time at least asymptomatic and that others test negative for it when they are prodromal or even already displaying some symptomatology. This has repercussions both for the liability of hospitals and multi-practitioner centres for negligence and also under occupational health and safety legislation. With the commencement of the roll out of biosecurity and disaster/emergency measures by government and escalating levels of anxiety in the general population, it is important to reflect upon the measures that most effectively can be adopted practically and ethically to protect the health and safety of those whose task it is to care for us if we become infected by COVID-19.