Pandemic influenza control in Europe and the constraints resulting from incoherent public health laws.

Background With the emergence of influenza H1N1v the world is facing its first 21st century global pandemic. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and avian influenza H5N1 prompted development of pandemic preparedness plans. National systems of public health law are essential for public health stewardship and for the implementation of public health policy[1]. International coherence will contribute to effective regional and global responses. However little research has been undertaken on how law works as a tool for disease control in Europe. With co-funding from the European Union, we investigated the extent to which laws across Europe support or constrain pandemic preparedness planning, and whether national differences are likely to constrain control efforts. Methods We undertook a survey of national public health laws across 32 European states using a questionnaire designed around a disease scenario based on pandemic influenza. Questionnaire results were reviewed in workshops, analysing how differences between national laws might support or hinder regional responses to pandemic influenza. Respondents examined the impact of national laws on the movements of information, goods, services and people across borders in a time of pandemic, the capacity for surveillance, case detection, case management and community control, the deployment of strategies of prevention, containment, mitigation and recovery and the identification of commonalities and disconnects across states. Results Results of this study show differences across Europe in the extent to which national pandemic policy and pandemic plans have been integrated with public health laws. We found significant differences in legislation and in the legitimacy of strategic plans. States differ in the range and the nature of intervention measures authorized by law, the extent to which borders could be closed to movement of persons and goods during a pandemic, and access to healthcare of non-resident persons. Some states propose use of emergency powers that might potentially override human rights protections while other states propose to limit interventions to those authorized by public health laws. Conclusion These differences could create problems for European strategies if an evolving influenza pandemic results in more serious public health challenges or, indeed, if a novel disease other than influenza emerges with pandemic potential. There is insufficient understanding across Europe of the role and importance of law in pandemic planning. States need to build capacity in public health law to support disease prevention and control policies. Our research suggests that states would welcome further guidance from the EU on management of a pandemic, and guidance to assist in greater commonality of legal approaches across states.

Ética y muerte digna, historia de una ley : El proceso de regulación jurídica de la atención sanitaria al final de la vida en Andalucía (España)

End-of-life healthcare in any part of the world is always rife with ethical conflicts and legal challenges. In this matter, the opinions and preferences of patients, family members, healthcare professionals, society as a whole and politicians may differ or diverge entirely1. Nevertheless, death comes to all eventually; it is part of human life itself. The fact remains that we will all die. Therefore, it is natural for all societies to seek the necessary consensus for guaranteeing that individuals can live, and die, in a way befitting their nature, i.e., humanely and with full dignity. This article tells the story of how the citizens of Andalusia, in the south of Spain, reached this majority consensus during the process of drafting and approving a law regulating this issue: Law 2/2010, of 8 April, on personal rights and guarantees to die in dignity.