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.

O papel das IPSS's - o exemplo da justiça social prática da Obra de Nossa Senhora das Candeias

As IPSS’s visam dar uma estrutura organizada ao dever ético de solidariedade e justiça – valores incalculáveis – entre os indivíduos. Não são administradas pelo Estado, nem por corpos autárquicos. E têm por objectivo, como informa a Segurança Social também, o apoio a crianças e jovens, o apoio à família, a protecção dos cidadãos na velhice e invalidez e nas situações de diminuição de meios de subsistência ou de capacidade para o trabalho, promoção e proteção da saúde designadamente por meio da prestação de cuidados de medicina preventiva, curativa e de reabilitação, educação e formação profissional dos cidadãos, resolução dos problemas habitacionais das populações.; Abstract: The IPSS's aim to give an organized structure to the ethical duty of solidarity and justice - incalculable values - between individuals. Are not run by the state or by municipal bodies. And aim, as reported by the Social Security also, support for children and youth, family support, the protection of citizens in old age, disability and decrease in situations of subsistence or capacity for work, promotion and health protection including through the provision of care preventive medicine, curative and rehabilitation, education and vocational training of citizens, solving the housing problems of the people.

Anotação, numa perspectiva de Direito Penal Constitucional, de Criminologia e de Política Criminal, de alguns dos aspectos do Acórdão do Tribunal Constitucional (português) n.º 353/2012, de 5 de Julho de 2012 - o problema da legítima defesa de bens jurídicos individuais e bens jurídicos colectivos, bens jurídicos supra-individuais e/ou bens jurídicos comunitários no meio do Estado de Direito e do Estado Social

o Acórdão do Tribunal Constitucional português n.º 353/2012, de 5 de Julho de 2012, ao declarar a respectiva inconstitucionalidade com força obrigatória geral, colocou em evidência a existência de bens jurídicos individuais e bens jurídicos colectivos, bens jurídicos supra-individuais, bens jurídicos comunitários. Bens jurídicos estes que devem e têm que ser tutelados e protegidos. A legítima defesa pode existir quer em relação à agressão actual e ilícita de bens jurídicos individuais, quer em relação à agressão actual e ilícita de bens jurídicos colectivos, bens jurídicos supra-individuais e/ou bens jurídicos comunitários? Parte muito substancial e importante da Doutrina indica que sim. Mas, então, como reagir, no contexto da hipotética legítima defesa, face à eventual agressão actual e ilícita dos bens jurídicos tutelados, agora com valor reforçado, pelo próprio Tribunal Constitucional? E qual o papel do direito constitucional de resistência? Este artigo pretende fornecer um muito breve contributo para a solução das correspondentes questões. A questão dos Direitos Fundamentais, o Desenvolvimento e a modernidade. § the Sentence of the (Portuguese) Constitutional Court n. 353/2012 of July 5, 2012, declaring its generally binding unconstitutionality, has highlighted the existence of individual legal goods and collective legal goods, supra-individual legal goods, community legal goods. These legal goods, that should and must be defended and protected. Legitimate defense can be either relative to the current and illicit aggression to individual legal goods, whether in relation to the current and illicit aggression to collective legal goods, supra-individual legal goods or community legal goods? Very substantial and important part of the Doctrine would appear so. But then how to respond, in the context of hypothetical self-defense, in the face of possible current and illicit aggression of the protected legal goods, now with enhanced value, by the Constitutional Court? And what is the role of the constitutional right of resistance? This article is intended to provide a very brief contribution to the solution of the corresponding questions. The question of Fundamental Rights, Development and modernity.