Conscientious objection to medical treatment in the NBA: the refusal to receive the covid-19 vaccine on religious grounds?

This paper tries to analyse the conscientious objection of two NBA basketball players to receiving the Covid-19 vaccine on religious grounds. Essentially, the aim is to examine in depth the reasons alleged by the athletes, in an attempt to determine whether they constitute sufficient grounds to support their refusal to be vaccinated, and thus to continue carrying out their work obligations in order to preserve their beliefs. To do so, it is necessary to review the NBA's own protocols and state and local public health provisions on mandatory vaccination, without forgetting the pronouncements on the subject issued by the Supreme Court of the United States. © 2022 Iuris Universal Ediciones. All rights reserved.

Conscientious Objection to Compulsory Vaccination? Lessons from the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights and a Test Employed by the Czech Constitutional Court

The paper aims to analyse several theoretical problems concerning the recognition of the right to conscientious objection to compulsory vaccination. Our interest in the matter has stemmed from our domestic experience in the Czech Republic, ie a country with a traditional, comprehensive system of compulsory vaccination, but also a country in which the Constitutional Court recognised that, under certain conditions, conscientious objections to compulsory vaccination may be successfully invoked. The Constitutional Court created a special four-prong test for public authorities to ascertain whether the conscientious objection is legitimate to the case at hand and compulsory vaccination should not be enforced. We believe that sharing the Czech experience and pinpointing its crucial, but also debatable, aspects (especially the legal basis for the recognition of conscientious objection and the test itself) may be a useful comparative material for other states with a system of compulsory vaccination, or states which contemplate its introduction, possibly even against Covid-19. However, to add a broader European perspective, the paper will also examine the context of the relationship between compulsory vaccination and conscientious objection in the light of the Convention and will analyse the relevant case-law of the Strasbourg Court. A definitive answer as to whether a conscientious objection to compulsory vaccination may entail the protection of Article 9 of the Convention has not yet been given by the Strasbourg Court. Nevertheless, we argue that the case-law indicates that, under certain conditions, conscientious objections could attract the guarantees of Article 9 in future cases.

COVID19, Abortion and Conscientious Objection in European Parliament Resolution 2020/2215(INI): Towards a New Framework of Rights?

This article discusses European Parliament Resolution 2020/2215(INI) on the situation of sexual and reproductive health and rights in the European Union in the context of COVID19. In particular, it focuses on issues such as abortion and conscientious objection. The normative text is studied, in particular regarding whether the Parliament's new resolution may imply a change of direction in European law and jurisprudence, as well as the influence that the definition of abortion as a fundamental right may entail in relation to the future jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, and the scope for action available to Member States. © 2022 Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra. All rights reserved.

Voluntary interruption of pregnancy (VIP) in Italy: interpretation of the current situation according to the report 2019-2020 of the Italian Ministry of Health.

Abstract: Voluntary interruption of pregnancy (VIP) in Italy is regulated by Law no. 194/1978. Its monitoring is carried out by the VIP Epidemio-logical Surveillance System, which periodically analyses the results of questionnaires compiled by the territorial healthcare structures and sent by each Region. The latest report, covering the years 2019 and 2020, highlights the adequacy of preventive and proactive strategies, an improvement in the quality and effectiveness of the service offered. Furthermore, considering the COVID-19 pandemic, the reorganization of the IVG application guidelines showed a considerable adaptation to the emergency context through measures such as the increase in pharmacological procedures compared to surgical procedures. The interpretation of the data shows that in Italy there is one of the lowest VIP rates in Europe, reflecting the effectiveness of campaigns that promote responsible procreation. Further implementations should be extended to the foreign population, which still shows a medium-high VIP rate. The efficiency of the service offered resulted to be high. The latter was assessed considering the waiting period required for the performance of the VIP procedure. Furthermore, the high percentage of conscientious objectors does not harm the healthcare service. The estimates show an adequate territorial coverage by the authorized structures compared to the female population of fertile age. In conclusion, the central action of planning, organization, and monitoring finds a valid ally in the territorial management entrusted to the Regions. The analyzed report reflects even more margins of efficiency and adequacy when considered within the particular historical context of the pandemic by COVID-19.

Factors influencing practitioners' who do not participate in ethically complex, legally available care: scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Evolving medical technology, advancing biomedical and drug research, and changing laws and legislation impact patients' healthcare options and influence healthcare practitioners' (HCPs') practices. Conscientious objection policy confusion and variability can arise as it may occasionally be unclear what underpins non-participation. Our objective was to identify, analyze, and synthesize the factors that influenced HCPs who did not participate in ethically complex, legally available healthcare. METHODS: We used Arksey and O'Malley's framework while considering Levac et al.'s enhancements, and qualitatively synthesized the evidence. We searched Medline, CINAHL, JSTOR, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global from January 1, 1998, to January 15, 2020, and reviewed the references of the final articles. We included articles written in English that discussed the factors that influenced physicians and registered nurses (RNs) who did not participate in end-of-life (EOL), reproductive technology and health, genetic testing, and organ or tissue donation healthcare areas. Using Covidence, we conducted title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening against our eligibility criteria. We extracted the article's data into a spreadsheet, analyzed the articles, and completed a qualitative content analysis using NVivo12. RESULTS: We identified 10,664 articles through the search, and after the screening, 16 articles were included. The articles sampled RNs (n = 5) and physicians (n = 11) and encompassed qualitative (n = 7), quantitative (n = 7), and mixed (n = 2) methodologies. The care areas included reproductive technology and health (n = 11), EOL (n = 3), organ procurement (n = 1), and genetic testing (n = 1). One article included two care areas; EOL and reproductive health. The themed factors that influenced HCPs who did not participate in healthcare were: (1) HCPs' characteristics, (2) personal beliefs, (3) professional ethos, 4) emotional labour considerations, and (5) system and clinical practice considerations. CONCLUSION: The factors that influenced HCPs' who did not participate in ethically complex, legally available care are diverse. There is a need to recognize conscientious objection to healthcare as a separate construct from non-participation in healthcare for reasons other than conscience. Understanding these separate constructs will support HCPs' specific to the underlying factors influencing their practice participation.

Ought Conscientious Refusals to Implement Reverse Triage Decisions be Accommodated?

Although one can argue that they do not represent a radical departure from existing practices, protocols for reverse triage certainly step beyond what is ordinarily done in medicine and healthcare. Nevertheless, there seems to be some degree of moral concern regarding the ethical legitimacy of practicing reverse triage in the context of a pandemic. Such concern can be taken as a reflection of the moral antipathy some exhibit towards current practices of withdrawing treatment-that is, when withdrawal of treatment is arguably in the best interests of patients-and a rejection of the purported normative insignificance of withholding and withdrawing. Given that the relevance of the psychological attitudes of some healthcare professionals to the moral assessment of withdrawing and withholding treatment continues to be debated, it would seem that some thought should be given to the introduction and implementation of reverse triage decisions in response to a pandemic. This brief paper will consider if provision should be made for healthcare professionals to conscientiously refuse to participate in reverse triage.

Vaccine passports and health disparities: a perilous journey.

This paper raises health equity concerns about the use of passports for domestic and international travel to certify COVID-19 vaccination. Part I argues that for international travel, health equity objections undercut arguments defending vaccine passports, which are based on tholding people responsible, protecting global health, safeguarding individual liberty and continuing current practice. Part II entertains a proposal for a scaled down vaccine passport for domestic use in countries where vaccines are widely and equitably available. It raises health equity concerns related to racial profiling and fairness to people who are vaccine cautious. Part III sets forth a proposal for a flexible pass that certifies people who have been vaccinated, tested, previously infected or granted a conscientious objection. It sets ethical guidelines for the timing and use of flexible passes that promote equity, public health education, antidiscrimination, privacy and flexibility.