COVID-19 Vaccination in Pediatric Population: A Necessity or Obstruction to the Protection of the Right to Health? Biojuridical Perspective.

One of the most recently debated topics worldwide is the mass vaccination of children against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Next, the risk/benefit ratio of COVID-19 vaccination and infection in children are compared. Nonetheless, the real question in this debate is as follows: Does the vaccine represent a necessary tool or is it an obstacle in protecting the right to health? From a public health point of view, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, in Canada, recommends COVID-19 vaccination in the pediatric population. Based on Article 25 of the Draft Articles on State responsibility, vaccination can be considered a social act necessary for protecting the individual's right to health. The 1989 New York Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Regulation number 219/1111 state that the opinion of a minor aged >12 years is considerable. However, this validity of opinion is related to age and degree of discernment. The onset of adverse events following the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine may lead to compensation in the near future. Recent studies have identified a new COVID-19-related pediatric pathology, known as multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Other studies have demonstrated that myocarditis in the pediatric population might occur following COVID-19 vaccine administration. In June 2021 in the USA, the Center for Control and Prevention of Infectious Diseases Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices declared that the benefits of vaccination against COVID-19 in the pediatric population outweighed the risks. In the meantime, whereas the bioethical debate remains open, monitoring the real risk/benefit ratio of vaccination in the pediatric population is crucial.

Centering the Right to Health of Childbearing People in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Childbearing people in the US have experienced the double burden of increased risks from infection and significant disruptions to access and quality of essential health care services during the COVID pandemic. A single person could face multiple impacts across the course of their reproductive trajectory. We highlight how failure to prioritize this population in the COVID-19 policy response have led to profound disruptions from contraception services to vaccination access, which violate foundational principles of public health, human rights and perpetuate inequities. These disruptions continued through the omicron surge, during which many health systems became overwhelmed and re-imposed earlier restrictions. We argue that an integrated pandemic response that prioritizes the healthcare needs and rights of childbearing people must be implemented to avoid deepening inequities in this and future pandemics.

Gender medicine as a tool for implementing the right to health.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the interest in the right to health, which represents a relatively new concept brought about by progress in medical science and the evolution of societies. The Italian Constitution, in article 32, states the right to health without specifications about the parameter of sex, assuming that this fundamental right is property of women and men indiscriminately. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the right to health has actually been achieved in an equal way from the standpoint of sex, and whether a hypothetically "neutral" approach is actually convincing and profitable in this context. METHODS: This paper analyzes the topic of gender medicine from a scientific and legal perspective, based on current medical literature and its implementation in the Italian and European legal systems. RESULTS: Gender medicine is the only credible response to sex- and gender-based inequalities affecting the right to health, as it provides tools to address persisting inequalities in prevention and treatment, thus pursuing health for all: women and men. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of this path was underlined also by the Summit and the Rome Declaration of 21 May 2021, acknowledging that the topic of sex and gender can no longer be overlooked in focusing a correct and equal healthcare approach.

Renu Khanna: giving women a voice in health and health care.

Renu Khanna talks to Andréia Azevedo Soares about implementing feminist-inspired health interventions and encouraging women to make themselves heard on matters of health policy.

THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON IMPROVING THE LEGAL REGULATION OF PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHT TO HEALTH.

OBJECTIVE: The aim: Theoretical and methodological substantiation of the impact of COVID-19 on the implementation of state policy on the protection of human right to health in terms of improving the legal framework in the field of demographic security. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: The main research materials are the norms of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Conventions for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the legal framework of the countries that have adopted temporary quarantine measures. This research is based on empiricaland analytical data from WHO, Bloomberg's financial information provider. During the research, the following methods have been used: statistical, system-structural analysis, content-analysis, comparison, grouping and forecasting. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: Under the conditions of pandemic, attention should be paid to strengthening both administrative and criminal liability for violating quarantine, which will serve as a prerequisite for improving the legal mechanism of combating threats to the country's demographic security. The protection of the right to health requires the state to create conditions to prevent the risk of occupational diseases among health care workers and others involved in the response to COVID-19.

Collision of Fundamental Human Rights and the Right to Health Access During the Novel Coronavirus Pandemic.

Introduction: COVID-19 requires governmental measures to protect healthcare system access for people. In this process, the collision of fundamental rights emerges as a crucial challenge for decision-making. Policy Options and Implications: This policy review analyzes selected articles by the PubMed searcher about extreme measures taken in several countries during precedent pandemics and the current pandemic, and selects hard decisions relating to the exceptional measures taken by judicial departments in Brazil, connecting them to the "collision of fundamental rights and law principles." The collision of rights and principles imposed on decision makers a duty to provide balanced rights, and to adopt the enforcement of some rights prioritization. Ethical concerns were also verified in this field involving rights limitations. During a pandemic, the importance of extreme measures to protect health rights and healthcare systems is instrumental for focused, fast, and correct decision making to avoid loss of life and the collapse of healthcare systems. The main goals of this research are to discuss the implications and guidelines for public health decision making, the indispensable ethical and legal aspects for safeguarding health systems and the lives of people, and the respect of the Justice principle and of fundamental health and dignity rights. We conclude that COVID-19 justifies the prioritization of collective and individual health access rights. Acceptable standards of fundamental rights restrictions are established at the constitutional and international levels and must be enforced by rules and governmental action, to ensure fast and accurate decision making during a pandemic. Freedom rights exercises must be linked to solidarity for the realization of social welfare, for the health rights of all individuals and for health systems to function well during a pandemic. Actionable Recommendations: All individuals are free and equal, therefore social exclusion is prohibited. Institutions must consider social inequalities when discussing public health measures and be guided by ethical standards, by law principles, and rules recognized by constitutional and international law for the benefit of all during a health pandemic. Conclusions: Collective and individual health rights prevail over the collision of rights when facing pandemic occurrences, case by case, in health systems protection, based on the literature, on precedent pandemics and on legitimate Public Health efforts.

Toward Human Rights-Consistent Responses to Health Emergencies: What Is the Overlap between Core Right to Health Obligations and Core International Health Regulation Capacities?

COVID-19 has highlighted the responsibilities of states under the International Health Regulations (IHR), as well as state accountability in case of a breach. These approaches and dimensions are valuable, as many COVID responses have breached human rights. We should also look beyond this crisis and address country preparedness for effective and equitable responses to future infectious disease outbreaks. This paper assesses countries' international legal obligations to be prepared to respond to this and future public health emergencies. It does so from the perspective of the right to health, in interaction with the IHR. We analyze the functional relationship between the right to health and the IHR, focusing in particular on "core obligations" under the right to health and "core capacities" under the IHR. We find considerable parallels between the two regimes and argue in favor of more cross-fertilization between them. This regime interaction may enrich both frameworks from a normative perspective while also enhancing accountability and public health and human rights outcomes.

The Right to Health in Times of Pandemic: What Can We Learn from the UK's Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak?

The UK's response to COVID-19 has been widely criticized by scientists and the public. According to EuroMOMO, a European mortality monitoring initiative, the excess mortality that may be attributable to COVID-19 in England is one of the highest in Europe, second only to Spain. While critiqued from a public health perspective, much less attention is given to the implications of the pandemic outbreak for the right to health as defined under international human rights law and ratified by member states. Using the UK as a case study, we examine critically the extent to which the government's response to COVID-19 complied with the legal framework of the right to health. We review further key states' obligations on the right to health and assess its suitability in times of pandemic. Finally, we offer some recommendations for an update of the right to health. This paper adds to the body of literature on the right to health and human rights based-approaches to health.

Health and human rights are inextricably linked in the COVID-19 response.

To mitigate the spread of COVID-19, governments throughout the world have introduced emergency measures that constrain individual freedoms, social and economic rights and global solidarity. These regulatory measures have closed schools, workplaces and transit systems, cancelled public gatherings, introduced mandatory home confinement and deployed large-scale electronic surveillance. In doing so, human rights obligations are rarely addressed, despite how significantly they are impacted by the pandemic response. The norms and principles of human rights should guide government responses to COVID-19, with these rights strengthening the public health response to COVID-19.

COVID-19 pandemic and the judicialization of health care: an explanatory case study.

Objective to identify the reasons that led to the judicialization of health care in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; describe the outcomes of lawsuits concerning health care involving the COVID-19; and analyze the cases of health care judicialization intended to ensure the population's right to health. Method qualitative, explanatory case study. Data were collected from the websites of the Federal Prosecution Service, Regional Labor Court (1st Region), and the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro. The inclusion criterion was public civil actions that concerned health care and situations involving the COVID-19 pandemic. Two categories emerged from data analysis. Results four cases were identified. Conclusion the judicialization of health care consists of obtaining assets and rights in the courts. These assets and rights are essential to ensure the health of citizens but have been denied in various instances, often due to the omission of the executive and legislative powers. Analyzing the judicialization of health care amidst the pandemic brings focus and highlights the importance of giving voice and visibility to the enormous contingent of the Brazilian society unassisted by public authorities.