Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present the views of people living with dementia in extra care housing (ECH). This is a model of housing with care and support aiming to support older people, including those with dementia, to live independently. Previous research identifies benefits but is predominantly derived from third-party accounts, with the voices of those living with dementia in ECH significantly absent.

This study adopted a qualitative approach conducting 100 interviews across 8 ECH schemes in England. Over half of the interviews were conducted with people living with dementia and their families with the remainder involving staff and commissioners.

Findings suggest there are a range of benefits including owning your own home, having a safe, age friendly location with flexible support, social interaction and continuing to live as a couple. Challenges included availability of staff, flexible resourcing, loneliness and the advancing symptoms of dementia.

Despite efforts to create an inclusive, diverse sample, the participants were all White British. Participants involved were identified by gatekeepers, which may present some bias in the selection.

Whilst ECH offers benefits to people living with dementia, addressing the challenges is essential for effective dementia care. Improving staff training, promoting person-centred care and fostering an inclusive community are critical for enhancing residents’ well-being and quality of life.

This paper explored the lived experiences of residents and family members, providing new insight into the advantages and disadvantages of ECH for people living with dementia.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union (EU) was passed to protect data privacy. Though the GDPR intended to address issues related to data privacy in the EU, it created an extra-territorial effect through Articles 3, 45 and 46. Extra-territorial effect refers to the application or the effect of local laws and regulations in another country. Lawmakers around the globe passed or intensified their efforts to pass laws to have personal data privacy covered so that they meet the adequacy requirement under Articles 45–46 of GDPR while providing comprehensive legislation locally. This study aims to analyze the Malaysian and Saudi Arabian legislation on health data privacy and their adequacy in meeting GDPR data privacy protection requirements.

The research used a systematic literature review, legal content analysis and comparative analysis to critically analyze the health data protection in Malaysia and Saudi Arabia in comparison with GDPR and to see the adequacy of health data protection that could meet the requirement of EU data transfer requirement.

The finding suggested that the private sector is better regulated in Malaysia than the public sector. Saudi Arabia has some general laws to cover health data privacy in both public and private sector organizations until the newly passed data protection law is implemented in 2024. The finding also suggested that the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 of Malaysia and the Personal Data Protection Law 2022 of Saudi Arabia could be considered “adequate” under GDPR.

The research would be able to identify the key principles that could identify the adequacy of the laws about health data in Malaysia and Saudi Arabia as there is a dearth of literature in this area. This will help to propose suggestions to improve the laws concerning health data protection so that various stakeholders can benefit from it.

This article aims to address the response from the higher education (HE) sector in the United Kingdom (UK) to the full-scale war in Ukraine which started in 2022.

Relying on theoretical ideas of neoliberalism and the collection and thematic analysis of relevant official communications from six UK universities, the article uncovers three major ways in which these universities have been responding to the war.

They include (1) altruistic responses, (2) the promotion of equal treatment of all people and (3) the condemnation of the invasion and its implications for UK’s international cooperation in HE. These responses suggest the strengthening of the liberal ideals in the UK HE sector, heavily dominated by marketisation.

This analysis is significant not only for advancing a very limited scholarship on the topic of HE in the context of this war but also for understanding the development of the neoliberal landscape of UK HE and neoliberalism as a phenomenon in times of crises.

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.