Children's Digital Privacy and the Case Against Parental Consent

Children's engagement with the internet has exploded. From education to social media, companies have offered products and services that-far from being mere distractions for children-have increasingly become necessities. These necessities are most keenly felt in the EdTech world. As companies in the United States rely on the verifiable parental consent required by the Children 's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) to collect and use minors' data, reviewing boilerplate waivers of liability and consent forms for children's online activities has thus become part of parenting. This piece argues that under the common law tradition of protecting the best interests of the child, when it comes to protecting children's digital privacy, relying solely on parental consent is insufficient and ill-suited. This work compares parental consent forms for children's online activities to parental waivers for tort liability for physical injuries suffered by children. In the latter, courts have not reached a consensus on whether such contracts are enforceable or altogether void. However, most courts have struck down such waivers as against public policy in commercial settings. By relying on courts ' decisions regarding the role of parents in protecting the best interests of the child when faced with a child's physical injury, this piece argues that public policy should have to force to override parental consent as it pertains to the protection of a minor's digital privacy and their use of EdTech tools. It thus encourages lawmakers at the federal and state levels to move away from a parental consent apparatus and instead put forward new measures for the protection of children's digital privacy. It further illustrates that, despite COPPA, common law privacy torts are not fully preempted. Adopting the approach proposed in this work will also motivate companies to be more vigilant towards handling minors' data to avoid potential lawsuits. It will further encourage a market for competition between socially responsible companies that would prioritize children's privacy over an endless list of corporate interests.

EU MAKES MORE VACCINE DEALS AS QUESTIONS MOUNT OVER TERMS

The allegations from many health activists of drug industry profiteering from blank checks in emergency procurement programs has also been given a new twist by controversy over AstraZeneca's reported request for protection from liability in the event of late-discovered side effects of its vaccine. Thierry Vansweevelt, professor of medical law at the University of Antwerp, was quoted in Belgian media as calling the request "very exceptional" and even "slightly shocking," in light of existing EU regulations on companies' liability for what they put on the market. Yannis Natsis of the European Public Health Alliance, who is also a member of the management board of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), has accused companies of "pushing for unprecedented liability exemption for COVID-19 vaccines."

COVID-Related Changes Have Implications for Public Acceptance of Innovation

In Europe, deep concerns have been raised about the arrangements granting immunity from liability for the half-dozen manufacturers that have forged supply deals with the European Union for vaccines they have in development, and the still-confidential aspects of these deals leave many unresolved questions for the coming months and years. [...]a wider range of trained personnel will be authorized to administer COVID-19 or flu vaccines, with a view of ensuring that vaccines and treatments for specific types of public health threat, such as a COVID-19 vaccine, can be promoted as part of national vaccination or treatment campaigns. "The existing Human Medicines Regulations contain a provision (regulation 174) that enables the temporary authorization of the supply of an unlicensed medicine (including vaccines) in response to a public health emergency," it says.

Mitochondrial Neurogastrointestinal Encephalopathy (MNGIE) Disease

Does mens rea matter to the criminal legal system? Our study addresses this question by performing the first-ever empirical analysis of a culpable mental state's impact on administration of a criminal statute. We focus on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Rehaif v. United States, which applied a culpable knowledge requirement to the federal felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. 922(g). Prior to Rehaif, federal courts viewed 922(g)'s critical legal status element-whether a firearm or ammunition possessor meets the conditions for one of nine prohibited categories-as being subject to strict liability. After Rehaif, the government must now prove that the target of a 922(g) prosecution was aware of their prohibited legal status to secure a conviction. Our study provides reason to believe that this new mens rea requirement significantly reduced the number of defendants charged with 922(g) per month, the number of 922(g) charges filed each month, the number of 922(g) charges per defendant, and the likelihood that any individual charge of 922(g) would be adjudicated guilty. We estimate these charging reductions prevented 2,365.32 convictions and eliminated 8,419.06 years of prison sentences for 922(g) violations during the eight-month period between the issuance of the Rehaifopinion and the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which severely disrupted federal criminal prosecutions. At the same time, we also find that the government's 922(g) conviction rate-the likelihood that someone charged by federal prosecutors with violating 922(g) will ultimately be found guilty-did not change after Rehaif. All told, our study indicates that mens rea can constrain prosecutorial discretion, lower convictions, and reduce punishment without bringing criminal administration to a halt.

Should age matter in COVID-19 triage? A deliberative study

The COVID-19 pandemic put a large burden on many healthcare systems, causing fears about resource scarcity and triage. Several COVID-19 guidelines included age as an explicit factor and practices of both triage and 'anticipatory triage' likely limited access to hospital care for elderly patients, especially those in care homes. To ensure the legitimacy of triage guidelines, which affect the public, it is important to engage the public's moral intuitions. Our study aimed to explore general public views in the UK on the role of age, and related factors like frailty and quality of life, in triage during the COVID-19 pandemic. We held online deliberative workshops with members of the general public (n = 22). Participants were guided through a deliberative process to maximise eliciting informed and considered preferences. Participants generally accepted the need for triage but strongly rejected 'fair innings' and 'life projects' principles as justifications for age-based allocation. They were also wary of the 'maximise life-years' principle, preferring to maximise the number of lives rather than life years saved. Although they did not arrive at a unified recommendation of one principle, a concern for three core principles and values eventually emerged: equality, efficiency and vulnerability. While these remain difficult to fully respect at once, they captured a considered, multifaceted consensus: utilitarian considerations of efficiency should be tempered with a concern for equality and vulnerability. This 'triad' of ethical principles may be a useful structure to guide ethical deliberation as societies negotiate the conflicting ethical demands of triage. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Vaccine ethics: An ethical framework for global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines

This paper addresses the just distribution of vaccines against the SARS-CoV- 2 virus and sets forth an ethical framework that prioritises frontline and essential workers, people at high risk of severe disease or death, and people at high risk of infection. Section I makes the case that vaccine distribution should occur at a global level in order to accelerate development and fair, efficient vaccine allocation. Section II puts forth ethical values to guide vaccine distribution including helping people with the greatest need, reducing health disparity, saving the most lives and promoting narrow social utility. It also responds to objections which claim that earlier years have more value than later years. Section III puts forth a practical ethical framework to aid decision-makers and compares it with alternatives. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Preparedness and coping with the COVID-19 pandemic

Health disasters have affected humanity since its dawn. In other epidemics, the casualties caused number in the hundreds of thousands. The preparation for confronting the COVID-19 epidemic at the Military Hospital of Matanzas, "Dr. Mario Muñoz Monroy”, began early. In order to analyze this experience, we reflect on the results of the confrontation in 2020, based on the main aspects, the coordination with other organizations, the decisions made, structural changes and modifications of institutional processes. Consolidating scientific improvement has been a permanent pillar, along with discipline, personal and social responsibility of the members of the collective. © 2023, Editorial Ciencias Medicas. All rights reserved.

Ethical considerations for protecting the options of subjects in primary epidemic vaccine trials

Comments on an article by J. T. Monrad (see record 2020-61038-012). Monrad presented several issues about secondary vaccine trials. It lays out the case in which a vaccine has been tested through phases I-III and is being deployed. Subsequently, consideration is being given to conducting 'trials for another vaccine for the pathogen'. Monrad stated: 'In summary, we may say that researchers have strong prima facie reasons not to conduct a secondary vaccine trial.' Monrad discusses several factors meriting careful consideration about the need for developing and testing more than one vaccine: relative efficacy, length of immunity, adverse reactions (reactogenicity), ease of storage and administration, economic and logistical factors. What is not addressed are the ethical duties that exist when there are competing phase III vaccine candidates for COVID- 19. Ethically, a subject is allowed to quit a trial at any time. But how might this work in a vaccine trial with multiple candidates? If someone has received an experimental vaccine, they need to be informed of what to do should they wish to subsequently try an approved vaccine. But will companies and researchers with financial stakes in one vaccine readily disclose other options either initially or mid-trial? If a subject got experimental vaccine, there may be more of a chance of having an adverse immune reaction to an additional vaccine that is approved. So they may not wish to do anything. Thus, as part of all informed consents for phase three trials, participants need to be told that at the time some vaccine is approved, they will be told whether or not they received the test vaccine or the placebo so as to help participants make their decision as to whether to get another approved vaccine or not. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Therapist Feedback and Implications on Adoption of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Co-Facilitator for Online Cancer Support Groups: Mixed Methods Single-Arm Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: The recent onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the social distancing requirement have created an increased demand for virtual support programs. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) may offer novel solutions to management challenges such as the lack of emotional connections within virtual group interventions. Using typed text from online support groups, AI can help identify the potential risk of mental health concerns, alert group facilitator(s), and automatically recommend tailored resources while monitoring patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this mixed methods, single-arm study was to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, validity, and reliability of an AI-based co-facilitator (AICF) among CancerChatCanada therapists and participants to monitor online support group participants' distress through a real-time analysis of texts posted during the support group sessions. Specifically, AICF (1) generated participant profiles with discussion topic summaries and emotion trajectories for each session, (2) identified participant(s) at risk for increased emotional distress and alerted the therapist for follow-up, and (3) automatically suggested tailored recommendations based on participant needs. Online support group participants consisted of patients with various types of cancer, and the therapists were clinically trained social workers. METHODS: Our study reports on the mixed methods evaluation of AICF, including therapists' opinions as well as quantitative measures. AICF's ability to detect distress was evaluated by the patient's real-time emoji check-in, the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software, and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised. RESULTS: Although quantitative results showed only some validity of AICF's ability in detecting distress, the qualitative results showed that AICF was able to detect real-time issues that are amenable to treatment, thus allowing therapists to be more proactive in supporting every group member on an individual basis. However, therapists are concerned about the ethical liability of AICF's distress detection function. CONCLUSIONS: Future works will look into wearable sensors and facial cues by using videoconferencing to overcome the barriers associated with text-based online support groups. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/21453.

COVID-19 off-label uses of medicines: the role of civil liability and regulation.

Physicians can prescribe medicines for different indications than the tested and authorised ones. Such 'off-label' uses expand therapeutic options but also create uncertainties. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered new off-label uses and, despite issues being reported in the literature, these have not resulted in substantial personal injury litigation in the EU. Against this backdrop, this article argues that civil liability plays, in fact, a limited role in off-label uses. In particular, civil liability may incentivise health actors to follow and react to the development of the evidence basis for off-label uses. However, it is ultimately unable to incentivise the conduct of additional research on off-label uses. This is problematic, as off-label research is key to protecting patients and is recommended by international medical ethics. The article concludes by critically discussing proposed mechanisms to incentivise off-label research. It argues that extending civil liability for unknown risks may have undesired effects on insurability and innovation, and most regulatory proposals seem ineffective. Building on the 2014 Italian reform of off-label uses, the article proposes the establishment of a fund financed by mandatory contributions from the industry, which should be used by pharmaceutical regulators to promote off-label research and develop guidelines for prescribers.

Determining the 'Responsibility' Paradox- the Criminal Liability of Artificial Intelligence in the Healthcare Sector

People are becoming more advanced as technology develops. Nowadays, practically everything has been digitalized to the point where artificial intelligence is used in almost every industry. Al is now essential to many other industries and enterprises, not just those that provide medical services, including healthcare systems, economics, commerce, and industry. Using Al technology in hospital facilities seemed useful during the COVID-19 crisis. Even though surgical robots have several benefits, the rise in legal conflicts that use artificial intelligence to challenge them is concerning. By 2035, technology is expected to have changed significantly, but as with all improvements, there will also be problems. It appears that advances in artificial superintelligence are being made to compete with human intelligence. In the years to come, Al will probably have an increasing impact on healthcare expenditures. Medical malpractice lawsuits are already using AI enabled patient records more and more. This essay aims to look into the specific legal effects of artificial intelligence (Al) in medical services under tort, medical negligence, and other laws that are in place right now.

"Covid” Theft - A Solved Problem?

The article deals with criminal liability for the crime of theft during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Grand Chamber of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court unified the case law in its March 2021 decision. First of all, it rejected the automatic application of the state of emergency, declared to combat the pandemic, as fulfilling an element of the qualified offence of theft of "an event seriously endangering human life or health, public order or property” (Article 205(4)(b) of the Criminal Code), and instead set out the requirement of a factual link between the act and the pandemic. However, a deeper criminal law analysis of the meaning of the qualifying facts and consideration of the constitutional context casts some doubt on the correctness of the Grand Chamber's opinion and subsequent case law. The aforementioned characteristic of the qualified offence can only be fulfilled in the event of an increased threat (expressed in the law) to the protected object (property) in relation to the specific form of the offence of theft. In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, such a situation occurred during the application of certain emergency measures of the Government (based on a declared state of emergency), namely during a measure restricting movement between districts in relation to the offence of burglary (section 205(1)(b) of the Criminal Code) or during a measure ordering, in principle, a nationwide obligation to cover the respiratory tract in relation to the offence of pickpocketing (section 205(1)(d) of the Criminal Code). The conclusions of the article could also provide some stimulus for discussion on the interpretation of the bases of criminal liability and the drafting of the facts themselves. © 2023 Masaryk University. All rights reserved.

The Courts and effective judicial protection during the Covid-19 pandemic. A comparative analysis

What role have the courts played during the pandemic? How different has this role been across the globe? Can lessons for a better response to health crises and emergencies be learned from litigation? Starting from these questions, the authors present the main findings of an international project on Covid-19 litigation aimed at collecting and comparing caselaw, within an openly accessible database, from more than 80 countries on all continents, concerning the impact of public health measures upon fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens during the pandemic. This comparative analysis, based on a set of around 2000 decisions from 2020-2022, shows that, although courts have faced very similar challenges, distinct legal traditions have led judges to use different balancing techniques with different outcomes in terms of the control of public powers and available remedies. Actions and omissions have been differently addressed and the evolution of science has significantly impacted judicial review. Areas of litigation have changed overtime, mirroring the evolution of the pandemic and the modifications of governmental strategies. More recently, liability claims are emerging and will probably grow in the near future, offering courts from all over the world a further opportunity to learn from each other. Based on the experience of governments, revisited through the lenses of Covid-19 litigation, scholars, scientists, and policy makers have the opportunity to build on this heritage with the objective of building a better response to future health emergencies that fully respect fundamental rights and the rule of law © 2023, BioLaw Journal.All Rights Reserved.

THE RETURN TO FAULT AS A FOUNDATION OF CIVIL LIABILITY FOR THE SUPREME COURT AND THE CASE OF PRIVATE RESIDENCES FOR THE ELDERLY IN WHICH THERE WERE OUTBREAKS OF COVID Actualidad Jurídica Iberoamericana Nº18, febrero 2023, ISSN: 2386-4567, pp. 536-577

Based on the latest Supreme Court sentences, we cannot rely on the objectification of civil liability to demand that the burden of proof falls on nursing homes in all those cases in wich there were covid outbreaks causing deaths and injuries among their vulnerable residents. However, there are other legal reasons and jurisprudential arguments that do allow us to consider such a possibility, and all this with the indredible advantage that it would entail for the victims and their families. © 2023 Ibero-American Law Institute. All rights reserved.

Organized Irresponsibility and Communities of Risk in a Pandemic The Case for Legal Metamorphosis

The paper examines challenges that the global COVID-19 pandemic has created for responsibility frameworks and practices in law. Building on Ulrich Beck's account of the risk society, it argues that the basic qualities of COVID-19 related risks, when juxtaposed with the standard legal framework for responsibility, result in organised irresponsibility in law (OI). Also the most common legal response to current problems, namely liability shields and waivers, contribute to OI. As a result, the paper presents the case for the metamorphosis of the current responsibility framework. Conceptually speaking, the metamorphosis should be based on the commonality of risk experience - on 'shared risk communities'. Possible normative ('common but differentiated responsibility' principle) and institutional consequences (alternative compensation programmes) are discussed in terms of their potential to contribute to metamorphosis. © Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2022.

Healthcare-acquired Sars-Cov-2 infection: A viable legal category?

In the context of the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic, according to the various periods of emergency and the rate of infections, hospitalized subjects also contracted the infection within the ward, sometimes with the development of disease (COVID-19) and sometimes with permanent damage. The authors wondered if Sars-Cov-2 infection should be considered on a par with other infections acquired in the healthcare setting. The non-diversified diffusion between the health and non-health sectors, the ubiquity of the virus and the high contagiousness, together with the factual inability to prevent it by the health structures, despite the adoption of entry control, practices of isolation of positive subjects, and staff surveillance, lead to consider COVID-19 in a different way, in order to otherwise burden health structures in the face of unmanageable risks, clearly also dependent on exogenous and uncontrollable factors. The guarantee of care safety must, in the pandemic, be able to compare with the real capacity for intervention according to the asset of the current health service, requesting State intervention with alternative instruments, such as una tantum compensation, for COVID-19 damage reparation occurred in the health sector.

Focus on Liability of Residences for Elderly and Sick People: A Case Series and Medico-Legal Issues.

Residences for elderly and sick people, self-sufficient or dependent, are varied. To date, the liability profiles of these structures are not clearly delineated, and increasingly often, their operating and organization criteria are entrusted to subnational, regional, or local regulations. Among the various deficits, there is the keeping of a complete and detailed documentation/diary of the patient, the lack of which can generate medico-legal problems. In this paper, we present three cases of guests in residences for a dependent person brought to the attention of the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the University Hospital of Palermo due to criminal proceedings, where the lack of existing documentation in the structure and, in some cases, the behavior of the professionals working there, led the evaluator to deduce the organization's culpability.

Negative Sentiment Modeling and Public Legal Liability from Urban Green Space: A Framework for Policy Action in China

This paper intends to optimize the urban green space (UGS) management and implementation strategies by analyzing climate change models and reviewing economic, energy, and public health policies. This paper studies the public perception of climate change-induced public health emergency (PHE) in China by surveying online public comments. Specifically, it looks into public health perception, anxiety perception, relative deprivation, and emotional polarity from public online comments. The following conclusions are drawn through the empirical test of 179 questionnaires. The findings revealed that health risk perception has a positive predictive effect on relative deprivation and anxiety perception. The higher the health risk perception, the stronger the relative deprivation and anxiety are. Anxiety perception and relative deprivation have mediating effects in the model. In addition, the main research method adopts a questionnaire survey. The mediating effect between each variable is further studied. This paper analyzes the citizens' right to health and public health protection under climate change, and explains public risk perception and anxiety perception. Meanwhile, the evaluation cases are used to analyze the public health and UGS construction strategies to suggest climate compensation laws and improve the urban greening rate. This finding has practical reference value for promoting the deep integration of UGS and public health. It can promote the development and planning of UGS under climate change and biodiversity loss and has significant reference value for improving negative emotions and the public legal liability system.