Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 879
BMJ ; 381: 1232, 2023 05 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20232056
Cien Saude Colet ; 28(5): 1287-1296, 2023 May.
Article in Portuguese, English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2326057


The aim of this study is to analyze the political action of the Brazilian Health Care Reform Movement (MRSB, Movimento da Reforma Sanitária Brasileira), particularly Cebes and Abrasco, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The data were obtained through the documental review of publications from the abovementioned entities, which describe their positions on government actions implemented between January 2020 and June 2021. The results show that the performance of these entities included several actions, most of them reactive and critical of the Federal Government's role in the pandemic. Moreover, they led the creation of "Frente pela Vida", an organization that brought together several scientific entities and civil society organizations, whose highlight was the preparation and dissemination of the "Frente pela Vida Plan", a document that contains a comprehensive analysis of the pandemic and its social determinants, as well as a set of proposals to face the pandemic and its effects on the population's living and health conditions. It is concluded that the performance of the MRSB entities reveals alignment with the original project of the Brazilian Health Care Reform (RSB, Reforma Sanitária Brasileira), emphasizing the relationship between health and democracy, the defense of the universal right to health and the expansion and strengthening of the Brazilian Unified Health System - SUS (Sistema Único de Saúde).

O objetivo deste trabalho é analisar a ação política do Movimento da Reforma Sanitária Brasileira (MRSB), notadamente Cebes e Abrasco, face à pandemia de COVID-19. As informações foram obtidas por meio de revisão documental de publicações das referidas entidades, que apresentam seus posicionamentos diante das ações governamentais implementadas entre janeiro de 2020 e junho de 2021. Os resultados evidenciam que a atuação dessas entidades incluiu ações diversas, em sua maioria reativas e críticas à atuação do governo federal na pandemia. Além disso, protagonizaram a criação da Frente pela Vida, organização que reuniu várias entidades científicas e organizações da sociedade civil, e cujo destaque foi a elaboração e difusão do "Plano Nacional de Enfrentamento à Pandemia de Covid-19", documento que contém uma análise abrangente da pandemia e suas determinações sociais, bem como um conjunto de proposições para o enfrentamento da pandemia e dos seus efeitos sobre as condições de vida e saúde da população. Conclui-se que a atuação das entidades do MRSB revela alinhamento com o projeto original da RSB, enfatizando as relações entre saúde e democracia, a defesa do direito universal à saúde e a expansão e fortalecimento do SUS.

COVID-19 , Health Care Reform , Humans , Pandemics , Brazil , Politics
Prev Med ; 172: 107525, 2023 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2314203


While recent scholarship suggests that political affiliation is a robust predictor of pandemic behaviors and COVID-19 vaccination status, research has yet to examine whether the impact of political affiliation on these outcomes vary by age. Drawing on health lifestyles theory, we contribute to the social epidemiology of infectious disease behaviors by testing whether the impact of political affiliation on risky pandemic health lifestyles and COVID vaccination varies by age cohort. We employ data collected from the 2021 Crime, Health, and Politics Survey (CHAPS), a national study of adults from the United States, to formally assess this understudied association. In all models, Democrats reported less risky pandemic lifestyles compared to their Republican counterparts. Moreover, Democrats displayed greater odds of being vaccinated than Republicans or Independents. Further, the impact of political affiliation on vaccination status varied by age cohort, such that the impact of political affiliation was stronger among the oldest adults in our sample. Our analyses contribute to the growing study of politics and health lifestyles by challenging theoretical perspectives and cultural narratives that claim that older adults are less swayed by political influence when it comes to healthcare decisions. Our results help better our understanding of the ways in which political discourse shapes adopting public health recommendations.

COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , United States/epidemiology , Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Life Style , Vaccination , Politics
Pediatr Infect Dis J ; 42(5): e138-e139, 2023 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2318874

Politics , Vaccines , Humans
BMJ ; 381: 1075, 2023 05 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2318443
Am J Public Health ; 111(4): 582-583, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2289313
J Law Med Ethics ; 50(4): 682-686, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2289293


A health justice approach requires a progressive critique of expertise. This article considers two recent high-profile cases - the mask mandate and medication abortion -- to understand how we should think the mobilization of expertise in the context of public health law. Following from this, the article offers news ways to better understand how to think of the relationship between health law, expertise, and politics.

Abortion, Induced , Female , Pregnancy , Humans , Politics , Public Health
Aten Primaria ; 55(5): 102618, 2023 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2299312

Politics , Public Health , Humans
Health Econ Policy Law ; 18(3): 329-340, 2023 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2305631


The World Health Organization (WHO) is tasked with the 'attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health', yet, it is widely struggling to meet this mandate, and COVID-19 has revealed significant limitations of the organisation. Despite clear guidance provided by the institution as to how best to respond to the pathogen, many governments departed from WHO's guidance in their response efforts. Is this a new crisis for WHO? Does WHO need to restore its legitimacy in the eyes of the global community? As renewed calls for changes to WHO emerge, in this perspective we lay out the obstacles WHO face to become the WHO 'we' need. The assumption is that UN member states need an empowered and well-funded organisation. Yet, many years of discussion of reform of WHO have failed to lead to meaningful change, and glaring challenges remain in its financing, governance and politics, which are considered in turn. The reality may be that we have the WHO that UN member states need - one that can provide guidance and advice, but also take criticism for health governance failures when states want to avoid blame or responsibility. We discuss this, by analysing three key areas of WHO'S challenges: mandate and scope; structure, governance and money and domestic vs international.

COVID-19 , Global Health , Humans , World Health Organization , Politics , Government
J Law Med Ethics ; 50(S2): 26-33, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2305614


Global antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is currently governed by a decentralized regime complex composed of multiple institutions with overlapping and sometimes conflicting principles, norms, rules, and procedures. Such a decentralized regime complex provides certain advantages and disadvantages when compared to a centralized regime. A pandemic instrument can optimize the regime complex for AMR by leveraging the strengths of both centralization and decentralization. Existing climate treaties under the UNFCCC offer lessons for achieving this hybrid approach.

Pandemics , Politics , Humans
Health Econ Policy Law ; 18(3): 274-288, 2023 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2305578


In August 2020 the UK government announced without warning the abolition of Public Health England (PHE), the principal UK agency for the promotion and protection of public health. We undertook a research programme seeking to understand the factors surrounding this decision. While the underlying issues are complex two competing interpretations have emerged: an 'official' explanation, which highlights the failure of PHE to scale up its testing capacity in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic as the fundamental reason for closing it down and a 'sceptical' interpretation, which ascribes the decision to blame-avoidance behaviour on the part of leading government figures. This paper reviews crucial claims in these two competing explanations exploring the arguments for and against each proposition. It concludes that neither is adequate and that the inability adequately to address the problem of testing (which triggered the decision to close PHE) lies deeper in the absence of the norms of responsible government in UK politics and the state. However our findings do provide some guidance to the two new organizations established to replace PHE to maximize their impact on public health. We hope that this information will contribute to the independent national COVID inquiry.

COVID-19 , Public Health , Humans , Pandemics , Government , Politics