Search results

The Covid-19 pandemic has persisted for almost three years. States have since then enforced laws, policies and measures believed to be the most effective to handle the global pandemic. Along this line, the Indonesian Government opted to implement mandatory vaccination and refusal of which entails monetary penalties. Hence, this study aims to analyze two legal issues that touch upon the realm of International Human Rights Law: first, whether state has the authority to implement the said mandatory vaccine program to those who refuse to be vaccinated, and second, how is the more appropriate legal policy to obligate vaccination but without coercive sanction.

This is a normative legal research that uses a qualitative method with case studies, conceptual, historical and comparative approaches. A descriptive-analytical deduction process was used in analyzing the issue.

The results present, as part of state’s right to regulate, it has the authority to enact mandatory vaccination with monetary penalties to fulfil its obligation to protect public health in times of emergency; this is legal and constitutional but only if it satisfies the requirements under the International Human Rights Law: public health necessity, reasonableness, proportionality and harm avoidance. Alternatively, herd immunity is achievable without deploying unnecessary coercive sanctions, such as improving public channels of communication and information, adopting legal policies that incentivize people’s compliance like exclusion from public services, subsidies revocation, employment restrictions, higher health insurance premiums, etc.

This study analyzes in depth the following issues: of whether the government has the authority to apply mandatory vaccination laws enforced through monetary penalties for those who refused to be vaccinated and how does the government implement the appropriate legal policy to enforce mandatory vaccination without imposing penalties for non-compliance while maintaining a balance between the interests of protecting public health and the human rights of individuals to choose medical treatment for themselves, including whether they are willing to be vaccinated. Hence, the political affairs, economic matters and other non-legal related issues are excluded from this study.

This paper hence offers a suggestive insight for state in formulating a policy relating to the mandatory vaccination program. Although the monetary penalties do not directly violate the rule of law, a more non-coercive approach to the society would be more favorable.

Objectives: To discuss whether, during an influenza pandemic, public health authorities could be ethically justified in implementing a mandatory vaccination program directed at health care professionals.

Methods: Ethical analysis is carried out by examining arguments that can be made in favor or against such a mandatory measure and by seeking a reasonably balanced position between them. Arguments under consideration are based on the duties of health professionals and public health authorities, the consequences of their actions and on other ethical principles. The importance of relevant empirical data is stressed without any attempt to review or analyze them systematically.

Results: Mandatory vaccination of some health care professionals during a serious pandemic of influenza can be justified, but only under certain limited conditions.

Conclusions: In the throes of an influenza pandemic, health care professionals (and to a variable degree, other health care workers) have an ethical obligation to accept influenza vaccination if it is reasonably safe and effective. The ethical responsibility of public health authorities is to limit the impact of a pandemic on the population by all reasonable means, which clearly includes the appropriate use of vaccine. Consequently, the vaccination of health care staff can be made mandatory under certain conditions. However, a critical objection to this conclusion, which upholds that a voluntary vaccination program (an ethically much less problematic intervention) is just as effective, needs to be addressed.

Payment for healthcare services in the USA has shifted from fee for service to compensation based on value and quality. The indicators used for payments are a variety of clinical measures, including administration of vaccines to patients. The purpose of this paper is to describe the implementation of programs in health systems to improve vaccination rates and patient outcomes.

A search of the literature was conducted to find examples of vaccine programs in US health systems, and also to identify policies to improve immunization rates.

Successful programs for improving vaccination rates require advocacy and support of leadership, a systematic and multidisciplinary approach, and an evaluation of local resources and capacity. Numerous examples exist of medical, nursing, and pharmacy led programs that improve vaccination rates. The department in charge has relied on the support of other groups to ensure the success.

Mandatory vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) in the health system has been a growing trend in the USA. Although there has been some resistance to mandatory vaccinations for HCP, the standards and requirements have resulted in improved rates in health systems, which ultimately improve efficiency and protects patients.

This review describes considerations for implementing a successful vaccination program in a health system and provides examples of specific strategies. An overview of mandatory vaccinations for HCP is also described.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the close relationship between the disciplines of law and health-care studies. This interrelation has become particularly evident during the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, when restrictive human rights provisions have been initiated by many states for the sake of public health. Research focuses on the notional proximity of the principle of proportionality and its health-care correlative: effectiveness. It also goes through the influence of acceptance rates for the application of restrictive measures.

Research focuses on interdisciplinary literature review, taking into consideration judicial decisions and data on acceptance rates of restrictive human rights measures in particular. Analysis goes in depth when two categories of restrictive human rights measures against the spread of the pandemic are examined in depth: restrictive measures to achieve social distancing and mandatory vaccination of professional groups.

Restrictive human rights measures for reasons of public health are strongly affected by the need for effective health-care systems. This argument is verified by judicial decision-making which relies to the necessity of health-care effectiveness to a great extent. The COVID-19 pandemic offers a laminate example of the two disciplines’ interrelation and how they infiltrate each other.

Further implications for research point at the need to institutionalize a cooperative scheme between legal and health-care decision-making, given that this interrelation is strong.

The originality of this paper lies on the interdisciplinary approach between law and health-care studies. It explains how state policies during the pandemic were shaped based on the concepts of effectiveness and proportionality.

Evaluating primary care for children has not before been undertaken on a national level, and only infrequently on an international level, an adult-focused perspective is the norm. The Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) project explored the evaluation of quality of primary care for children in a nationally comparable way, which recognises the influence of all components of child well-being and well-becoming. Using adult-focused metrics fails to account for children’s physical and psycho-social development at different ages, differences in health and non-health determinants, patterns of disease and risk factors and the stages of the life course. To do this, we attempted to identify comparable measures of child health in the European Union and European Economic Area countries, we aimed to perform a structural equation modelling technique to identify causal effects of certain policies or procedures in children’s primary care and we aimed to identify and interrogate large datasets for key tracer conditions. We found that the creation of comparative data for children and child health services remains a low priority in Europe, and the largely unmet need for indicators covering all the healthcare dimensions hampers development of evidence-based policy. In terms of the MOCHA project objective of appraising models of child primary health care, the results of this specific work show that the means of appraisal of system and service quality are not yet agreed or mature, as well as having inadequate data to fuel them.

The purpose of the study is to highlight the relevance of reactance theory for modeling consumer responses to COVID restrictions. The study also aims to critically evaluate the appropriateness of the most established reactance model (the intertwined model) for studying reactance specifically in relation to freedom threats arising from measures aimed at combatting the spread of the pandemic.

Following a conceptual analysis of the intertwined model of reactance, structural equation modeling is applied to Rain's (2013) meta-analytic data to compare the model to alternative model specifications.

The analysis reveals both conceptual and statistical shortcomings of the intertwined model of reactance in its current/traditional form. It also draws attention to other model specifications that provide just as good statistical fit and offer promising alternative ways of modeling reactance in a COVID context.

The study is the first attempt to explicitly discuss conceptual and statistical problems associated with the most widely accepted model of reactance, illustrate these issues with specific reference to consumer reactions to COVID restrictions, identify alternative promising model specifications and suggest a respecification of the intertwined model.

Misinformation surrounding the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has contributed to the formation of misbeliefs among the public. The purpose of this paper is to investigate public sentiment and misbeliefs about the SDGs on the YouTube platform.

The authors extracted 8,016 comments from YouTube videos associated with SDGs. The authors used a pre-trained Python library NRC lexicon for sentiment and emotion analysis, and to extract latent topics, the authors used BERTopic for topic modeling.

The authors found eight emotions, with negativity outweighing positivity, in the comment section. In addition, the authors identified the top 20 topics discussing various SDGs and SDG-related misbeliefs.

The authors reported topics related to public misbeliefs about SDGs and associated keywords. These keywords can be used to formulate social media content moderation strategies to screen out content that creates these misbeliefs. The result of hierarchical clustering can be used to devise and optimize response strategies by governments and policymakers to counter public misbeliefs.

This study represents an initial endeavor to gain a deeper understanding of the public’s misbeliefs regarding SDGs. The authors identified novel misbeliefs about SDGs that previous literature has not studied. Furthermore, the authors introduce an algorithm BERTopic for topic modeling that leverages transformer architecture for context-aware topic modeling.

Two important measures concerning the management of the workforce were introduced in Italy during the COVID-19–related health emergency: the regularization of irregular migrants working in the domestic and agro-industrial sector, and the introduction of the health-pass requirement to access all workplaces. This article analyses the impacts of such measures on a specific category of workers: migrant farmworkers, notably racially subaltern, marginalized and exploited. Implicit ideological and normative assumptions underlying Italian policies to address the health emergency and related labor shortages raise important questions about the meaning of “life” and whose lives matter in emergency contexts, which this article aims to address.

This paper is based on the case study of the informal settlements for seasonal migrant workers in the agro-industrial district of Capitanata (Apulia).

Based on the aforementioned case study, this article shows that Italian measurs concerning the management of the workforce during the COVID-19–related health emergency resulted in various forms of blackmail to which migrant farmworkers were especially subjected, and increased their exploitability and “expulsability” from the labor market. In particular, it argues that the aforementioned measures resulted in significant shifts in the relationship between migrant farmworkers and the state, on the one hand, and between migrant farmworkers and employers, on the other.

Rather than promoting migrant farmworkers' social, economic and health rights, this double shift turned into increased oppression, exploitability and dependency on the employer.