Identifying competencies for Australian health professionals working in international health

A profile of the roles performed by Australian health professionals working in international health was constructed to identify the core competencies they require, and the implications for education and training of international health practitioners. The methods used included: literature review and document analysis of available training and education; an analysis of competencies required in job descriptions for international health positions; and consultations with key informants. The international health roles identified were classified in four main groups: Program Directors, Program Managers, Team Leaders and Health Specialists. Thirteen 'core' competencies were identified from the job analysis and key informant/group interviews. Contributing to international health development in resource poor countries requires high level cultural, interpersonal and team-work competencies. Technical expertise in health disciplines is required, with flexibility to adapt to new situations. International health professionals need to combine public health competencies with high level personal maturity to respond to emerging challenges.

Emergency powers and pandemics : federalism and the management of public health emergencies in Australia

Under the International Health Regulations 2005 Australia is obliged to develop a domestic framework designed to equip it to respond to public health emergencies. The legislative arrangements for the declaration of a public health emergency in Australia are complex, vary across state jurisdictions and intersect with other emergency powers. The task of harmonising laws and other arrangements within a federal system poses both challenges and opportunities for flexibility and choice. This article argues that Australia's current multi-strand and multi-level response provides a coordinated framework which also accommodates desirable levels of flexibility and choice.

The IHR (2005), disease surveillance, and the individual in global health politics

Since the revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005, much attention has turned to two concerns relating to infectious disease control. The first is how to assist states to strengthen their capacity to identify and verify public health emergencies of international concern (PHEIC). The second is the question of how the World Health Organization (WHO) will operate its expanded mandate under the revised IHR. Very little attention has been paid to the potential individual power that has been afforded under the IHR revisions – primarily through the first inclusion of human rights principles into the instrument and the allowance for the WHO to receive non-state surveillance intelligence and informal reports of health emergencies. These inclusions mark the individual as a powerful actor, but also recognise the vulnerability of the individual to the whim of the state in outbreak response and containment. In this paper we examine why these changes to the IHR occurred and explore the consequence of expanding the sovereignty-as-responsibility concept to disease outbreak response. To this end our paper considers both the strengths and weaknesses of incorporating reports from non-official sources and including human rights principles in the IHR framework.

Is there an international duty to protect persons in the event of an epidemic?

In 2006, the International Law Commission began a study into the role of states and international organizations in protecting persons in the event of a disaster. Special Rapporteur Mr. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina was appointed to head the study, and in 2011 the findings of the study will be presented to the United Nations General Assembly. Of interest to this paper has been the inclusion of “epidemics” under the natural disaster category in all of the reports detailing the Commission’s program of work on the protection of persons. This paper seeks to examine the legal and political ramifications involved in including “epidemic” into the concept of protection by exploring where sovereign responsibility for epidemic control begins and ends, particularly in light of the revisions to the International Health Regulations by the World Health Assembly in 2005. The paper will first analyze the findings already presented by the Special Rapporteur, examining the existing “responsibilities” of both states and international organizations. Then, the paper will consider to what extent the concept of protection entails the duty to assist individuals when an affected state proves unwilling or unable to assist their own population in the event of a disease outbreak. In an attempt to answer this question, the third part of the paper will examine the recent cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe.

Policy as a struggle for meaning: disentangling knowledge translation across international health contexts

Over the last decade, research in medical science has focused on knowledge translation and diffusion of best practices to enable improved health outcomes. However, there has been less attention given to the role of policy in influencing the translation of best practice across different national contexts. This paper argues that the underlying set of public discourses of healthcare policy significantly influences its development with implications for the dissemination of best practices. Our research uses Critical Discourse Analysis to examine the policy discourses surrounding the treatment of stroke across Canada and the U.K. It focuses in specific on how concepts of knowledge translation, user empowerment, and service innovation construct different accounts of the health service in the two countries. These findings provide an important yet overlooked starting point for understanding the role of policy development in knowledge transfer and the translation of science into health practice. © 2011 Operational Research Society. All rights reserved.

Occupational health regulations and health workers: protection or vulnerability?

Several trade agreements include occupational health and safety regulations but there are many barriers to implementation. Mechanisms for sanctions are often weak but the lack of political will is the biggest barrier.

Legal Abortion: A Comparative Analysis of Health Regulations

This publication is the result of a comparative analysis of laws and health regulations governing access to legal abortion in 13 countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Guyana, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Panama, Peru, Puerto Rico, South Africa, and Spain. It seeks to promote access to safe and legal abortion services by developing health regulations and guidelines that are grounded in a human rights framework.

A catalogue with explanatory notes of the exhibits from the Department of Education, Empire of Japan, in the International Health and Education Exhibition, held in London, 1884.

Japanese at head of title.

Safety and health regulations for longshoring /

1961 supplement tipped in the back of book.

Law, ethics and pandemic preparedness : the importance of cross-jurisdictional and cross-cultural perspectives

OBJECTIVE To explore social equity, health planning, regulatory and ethical dilemmas in responding to a pandemic influenza (H5N1) outbreak, and the adequacy of protocols and standards such as the International Health Regulations (2005). APPROACH This paper analyses the role of legal and ethical considerations for pandemic preparedness, including an exploration of the relevance of cross-jurisdictional and cross-cultural perspectives in assessing the validity of goals for harmonisation of laws and policies both within and between nations. Australian and international experience is reviewed in various areas, including distribution of vaccines during a pandemic, the distribution of authority between national and local levels of government, and global and regional equity issues for poorer countries. CONCLUSION This paper finds that questions such as those of distributional justice (resource allocation) and regulatory frameworks raise important issues about the cultural and ethical acceptability of planning measures. Serious doubt is cast on a 'one size fits all' approach to international planning for managing a pandemic. It is concluded that a more nuanced approach than that contained in international guidelines may be required if an effective response is to be constructed internationally. IMPLICATIONS The paper commends the wisdom of reliance on 'soft law', international guidance that leaves plenty of room for each nation to construct its response in conformity with its own cultural and value requirements.

Trade, travel and disease : the role of law in pandemic preparedness

In 2009 the world experienced an influenza pandemic caused by the H1N1 virus. While the pandemic was milder then expected, it nonetheless provided the world with an opportunity to do real-time testing of pandemic preparedness. This paper examines the threats to human health posed by infectious diseases and the challenges for the global community in development of effective surveillance systems for emerging infectious diseases. In 2005 a new revised version of the International Health Regulations (IHR) was adopted. The requirements of the IHR (2005) are outlined and considered in light of the constraints facing resource-poor countries. Finally, the paper addresses the role of domestic law-making in supporting public health preparedness and articulates a number of ethical principles that should be considered when developing new public health laws.

Law, ethics and pandemic preparedness : the importance of cross-jurisdictional and cross-cultural perspectives

Objective To explore social equity, health planning, regulatory and ethical dilemmas in responding to a pandemic influenza (H5N1) outbreak, and the adequacy of protocols and standards such as the International Health Regulations (2005). Approach This paper analyses the role of legal and ethical considerations for pandemic preparedness, including an exploration of the relevance of cross-jurisdictional and cross-cultural perspectives in assessing the validity of goals for harmonisation of laws and policies both within and between nations. Australian and international experience is reviewed in various areas, including distribution of vaccines during a pandemic, the distribution of authority between national and local levels of government, and global and regional equity issues for poorer countries. Conclusion This paper finds that questions such as those of distributional justice (resource allocation) and regulatory frameworks raise important issues about the cultural and ethical acceptability of planning measures. Serious doubt is cast on a ‘one size fits all’ approach to international planning for managing a pandemic. It is concluded that a more nuanced approach than that contained in international guidelines may be required if an effective response is to be constructed internationally. Implications The paper commends the wisdom of reliance on ‘soft law’, international guidance that leaves plenty of room for each nation to construct its response in conformity with its own cultural and value requirements.

Nowhere to hide: informal disease surveillance networks tracing state behaviour

Since the revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005, much attention has turned to how states, particularly developing states, will address core capacity requirements attached to the revised IHR. Primarily, how will states strengthen their capacity to identify and verify public health emergencies of international concern (PHEIC)? Another important but under-examined aspect of the revised IHR is the empowerment of the World Health Organization (WHO) to act upon non-governmental reports of disease outbreaks. The revised IHR potentially marks a new chapter in the powers of ‘disease intelligence’ and how the WHO may press states to verify an outbreak event. This article seeks to understand whether internet surveillance response programs (ISRPs) are effective in ‘naming and shaming’ states into reporting disease outbreaks.