MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W269720028

Legal Issues in Disease Outbreaks: Judicial Review of Public Health Powers

2007· article· en· W269720028 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePublic Health Policies and Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPublic healthHealth lawStatuteHarmContext (archaeology)Public health lawPolitical scienceLawHealth policyInternational healthMedicineHealth care
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction The outbreak of serious, infectious disease like severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS] or pandemic influenza demands public health action to contain the spread of contagion and limit the magnitude of individual and social harm. Public health actions during an acute outbreak situation will likely involve interferences with or restrictions on individual liberty, including isolation from contact with others and, if resources are available, mandatory testing and treatment. While public health officials typically will seek voluntary compliance before resorting to compulsory measures, the latter may be considered necessary to manage recalcitrant individuals whose behaviour creates or heightens risk for others. Public health statutes generally confer wide authority on health officials to take action--including coercive measures--to protect and promote health. While much public health action is well-intentioned, exercise of restrictive powers raises concerns about excessive interference with personal liberties. Legal review serves an important function in testing the justifiability of public health measures. Concerns also arise when public health officials are perceived as doing too little to protect the public from infectious disease threats and individuals may seek to compel action on the part of health officials. This paper provides an overview of public and private law mechanisms--including constitutional challenges, administrative law review, and private law claims of negligence--to explicate their use in reviewing actions of public health actors. Illustrative court decisions are summarized to demonstrate how courts apply Canadian legal doctrines to the public health context. Legal Mechanisms for Review of Public Health Powers In Canada, both public and private law provide grounds for seeking review of public health action (or inaction). Public law includes constitutional and administrative doctrines, which are concerned, in part, with ensuring government powers are exercised in a manner that respects fundamental rights and freedoms and are within the bounds of legitimate authority. Private law concerns other duties that government authorities have in relation to citizens, including obligations to ensure effective implementation of public health initiatives. Constitutional law Canadian constitutional law provides two key means for reviewing exercise of public health powers: first, the Constitution governs the division of powers between federal and provincial levels of government, including power to legislate in areas of public health; and second, the Constitution includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms. i. Division of Powers Public health is an area of overlapping constitutional jurisdiction and federal and provincial governments may legislate within their respective areas of constitutional authority. (1) For example, emergency management and quarantine powers are vital during a serious, infectious disease outbreak and federal and provincial laws exist in both these areas, but their provisions demonstrate the boundaries of jurisdictional authority. Provincial public health statutes authorize officials to compel quarantine of individuals within that jurisdiction, (2) while the federal Quarantine Act deals with screening of travelers entering and leaving the country for certain communicable diseases. (3) The recently revised federal quarantine statute has been criticized because it: neither applies to domestic travel nor compels provinces to share information about disease outbreaks within their borders. Nor does it give Ottawa the authority to declare or manage a public health emergency within a province. Given these limitations, critics fear the Act falls well short of oversight measures recommended in the aftermath of the SARS outbreak. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,541
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,003
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,360
Écart entre enseignants0,322 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle