The Museum Of All: Institutional Communication Practices in a Participatory Networked World

The Museum Of All: Institutional Communication Practices in a Participatory Networked World

The ICT use in the implementation of Directive 2011/24/EU

This article has as main objective to evaluate the role of information and communication technologies (ICTs), in particular the eHealth (electronic health), in the implementation of the directive 2011/24/EU, of the European Parliament and of the Council of March 9th, on the exercise of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare within Member States of European Union. Being currently underway the deadline for transposition of the Directive, it is important to analyze the probable results for national health systems. Innovatively, the Directive specifically proposes the implementation of a European network of eHealth in the provision of cross-border healthcare. Within ICT, we focus on telemedicine as a key tool for the implementation, on a context of public budgets constrains. In this context, it is assumed that the EU will support and promote cooperation and the exchange of scientific information between member states within the framework of a voluntary network composed by the national authorities responsible for health (or eHealth). We apply the S.W.O.T. (strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis to forecast the main points that should be focused on deeper research. We discuss the technological, economic and social aspects of the use of ICT on the implementation of the directive. It is thus important to evaluate the context of ICT by S.W.O.T. tool to define strategies to sensitize policy-makers, health managers, and citizens, in order to be able to turn threats into opportunities and mitigating the weaknesses in the implementation of the Directive and to promote a better healthcare access for citizens, ensuring safe, effective healthcare and with different quality.

Do we need a “new” international convention that helps to avoid trafficking in organs? Some “criminal (and civil) law aspects” - Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine – updated or outdated?

Abstract: § 1 «Do we need a “new” international convention that helps to avoid trafficking in organs? Some criminal (and civil) law aspects”» - «Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine – updated or outdated?». § 2 Some important connections: on the one hand, between the 1997 Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine; the 2002 Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine concerning Transplantation of Organs and Tissues of Human Origin; and, on the other hand, the problem of trafficking in organs, tissues and cells and trafficking in human beings for the purpose of the removal organs. Some connections. § 3 The «international undisputed principle». § 4 Trafficking in organs, tissues and cells; and trafficking in human beings for the purpose of the removal organs. Criminal Law and Civil Law. § 5 Promote organ donation. § 6 The necessity to collect reliable data on both trafficking cases. § 7 The necessity for an internationally agreed definition of trafficking in OTC: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine – updated or outdated? § 8 The (inter)national and (il)legal organ («tissue and cell») trade: some cases and some conclusions. § 9 Do we need a new international convention to prevent trafficking in organs, tissues and cells (OTC)? § 10 Of course we need a «new» international convention to prevent trafficking in organs, tissues and cells (OTC). § 11 At the present moment, we do not need a «new» international convention to prevent trafficking in human beings for the purpose of the removal organs. § 12 The Portuguese case. § 13 «Final conclusions.» § Resumo: § 1 «Precisamos de uma "nova" convenção internacional que ajude a evitar o tráfico de órgãos? Alguns aspectos de lei criminal (e civil)» - «Convenção sobre Direitos Humanos e Biomedicina - Actualizada ou desactualizada?». § 2 Algumas conexões importantes: por um lado, entre a Convenção do Conselho da Europa de 1997 sobre Direitos Humanos e Biomedicina; o Protocolo Adicional de 2002 à Convenção sobre os Direitos do Homem e da Biomedicina relativo ao transplante de órgãos e tecidos de origem humana, e, por outro lado, o problema do tráfico de órgãos, tecidos e células e tráfico de seres humanos para fins de remoção dos órgãos. § 3 O «indiscutível princípio internacional». § 4 O Tráfico de órgãos, tecidos e células; e o tráfico de seres humanos para fins de remoção dos órgãos. Direito Penal e Direito Civil. § 5 Promover a doação de órgãos. § 6 A necessidade de colectar dados fidedignos sobre os dois casos de tráfico. § 7 A necessidade de uma definição internacionalmente acordada de tráfico de OTC: Convenção sobre Direitos Humanos e Biomedicina - actualizada ou desactualizada? § 8 A (inter)nacional e (il)legal comercialização de órgãos («de tecidos e de células»): alguns casos e algumas conclusões. § 9 Será que precisamos de uma nova convenção internacional para prevenir o tráfico de órgãos, tecidos e células (OTC)? § 10 É claro que precisamos de uma «nova» convenção internacional para prevenir o tráfico de órgãos, tecidos e células (OTC). § 11 No presente momento, não precisamos de uma «nova» convenção internacional para impedir o tráfico de seres humanos para fins de remoção dos órgãos. § 12 O caso Português. § 13 «As conclusões finais.»

Liberdade de expressão, imprensa e comunicação social, oh zote!

Aos direitos fundamentais não basta a letra da lei. É preciso praticá-los a todo o momento: Canotilho e Vital. Respeito à Constituição da informação! É fundamental o direito à expressão e informação, seja ou não seja por meio da comunicação social dirigida às massas. § Os direitos fundamentais das liberdades de expressão e de imprensa compreendem dentro de si o direito de expressão do pensamento e o direito de informação. Abstract: Fundamental rights not just the letter of the law. You need to practice them all the time: Canotilho and Vital. Respect for the Constitution of information! It is essential the right to expression and information, whether or not it is through social communication to the masses. § The fundamental rights of expression and press freedoms include within itself the right of expression of thought and the right to information.

Direct communication versus virtual communication in virtual teams

Several studies suggest that computer-mediated communication can lead to decreases in group effectiveness and reduce satisfaction levels in terms of trust and comfort of its users. Supported by an experiment, where the emotional or affective aspects of communication were tested with the experimentation of two architectures, Direct Communication Architecture (DCA) and the Virtual Communication Architecture (VCA) this paper validates the thesis that, from the users’ perspective, there is no opposition to the acceptance of virtual environments and interfaces for communication, and that these environments are able to cope with the reconfiguration dynamics requirements of virtual teams or client-server relations in a virtual enterprise operation.

“Enriquecimento Injustificado”: simples ignorância ou disparatada incompetência?

Pelos fundamentos expostos no Acórdão nº 377/2015, de 27/7, o T.C. decidiu pronunciar-se pela inconstitucionalidade das normas constantes do n.º 1 do artigo 1º e do artigo 2º do Decreto da Assembleia da República nº 369/XII, por violação dos artigos 18º/2 (necessidade, adequação, proporcionalidade e intervenção mínima do Direito Criminal/Penal), 29º/1 (Princípio da Legalidade Criminal) e 32º/2 (Presunção da Inocência) da Constituição. Imagine-se que depois de se ser condenado pela Comunicação Social, ainda temos que provar a nossa inocência! § On those grounds in Judgment No 377/2015 of 27/7, the Constitutional Court decided to rule the unconstitutionality of the rules in paragraph 1 of Article 1 and Article 2 of Decree of the National Assembly No. 369 / XII, for violation of articles 18/2 (necessity, appropriateness, proportionality and minimum intervention of Criminal Law / Criminal), 29/1 (Principle of Criminal Legality) and 32/2 (Presumption of Innocence) of the Constitution. Imagine that after being convicted by the Social Communication, we still have to prove our innocence!