Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic brought about at least two normative challenges on unprecedented scale for liberal democracies. One concerned prioritization decisions when health care resources were constrained. The other, which arguably led to lasting damage to social cohesion and citizens' trust in government and government public health institutions, concerned policies introduced with the aim of reducing the spread of SARS-CoV2, some of which turned out to be mistaken. I discuss in this essay a few examples of misguided, liberty-limiting public health policies and describe how public health and public health ethics principlism provided cover for such policies. Citizens had reasons to be concerned about the duration of such liberty-infringing policies, the absence of predictable government policies, and the absence of transparent justifications for the policies that were implemented.

"For more than a century, the Public Health Laboratory System has been at the epicenter of the public health system, offering services essential to protecting the health of the public while providing the scientific expertise vital to making wise judgments and decisions concerning public health. As part of its mission, APHL works to support and strengthen State Public Health Laboratories (SPHL) and the State Public Health Laboratory System in the United States. Within the 50 SPHLs and the District of Columbia, there exists a wide variety in funding, infrastructure, operations, services, research initiatives, etc. APHL provides data and other information that both present an accurate image of SPHLs as well as describe the current state of our nation's SPHLs. In 2002, APHL developed the Core Survey to capture a snapshot of SPHLs' activities in seven categories that either describe or affect PHLs' abilities to operate. In 2007, the survey instrument changed, but some questions remained consistent to capture the core data. Furthermore, in 2011, APHL modified the survey and renamed it the Core Laboratory Profiles Survey to capture essential laboratory data for the calendar year 2010. A set of core questions remained consistent for 2002, 2007 and 2010 for data comparison purposes. This report provides detailed responses from the 2010 Core Laboratory Profiles Survey, which are complemented by responses to several questions posed in the 2010 Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey (CLSS), a longitudinal survey conducted every two years. This enabled APHL to utilize data already collected without duplicating efforts in the CLSS survey. By using data from two surveys instead of one, APHL has developed a clearer, more panoramic picture of SPHLs as they appeared in 2010. This data will be made available online as a project called the APHL Member Laboratory Profiles. This will allow SPHLs to view and update the profile of their laboratory as they adapt and evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The information in these profiles will have an important impact as APHL continues to provide support and advocate on behalf of public health laboratories across the country. This data summary report offers detailed analysis of the data collected in 2010 and makes comparisons to the 2007 data where available." - p. 5 ; Executive summary -- Introduction -- Methodology -- Section I: Funding -- Section II: Infrastructure -- Section III: Operations -- Section IV: Services -- Section V: Applied research -- Summary ; "August 2011." ; Mode of access: World Wide Web as an Acrobat .pdf file (1.48 MB, 28 p.). ; System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Text in PDF format. ; This report was supported 100% by Cooperative Agreement Number #U60/CD303019 from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ('CDC'). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC.

Der Beitrag präsentiert zentrale Ergebnisse der DFG Forschergruppe "International Public Administration" (IPA). Zentrale These ist, dass es sich bei internationalen Verwaltungen um einen eigenen Verwaltungstypus handelt. Dies gilt weniger im Hinblick auf Besonderheiten formeller Strukturen, sondern vielmehr in Bezug auf organisationsspezifische Verhaltensmuster, in denen sich internationale von nationalen Verwaltungen unterscheiden. Die in diesem Schwerpunktheft versammelten Beiträge fokussieren diese Unterschiedlichkeit und beschäftigen sich insbesondere mit der Frage, was die beobachtbaren Verhaltensmuster internationaler Bürokratien für den politikgestaltenden Einfluss von Verwaltungen jenseits des Nationalstaates bedeuten. Anschließend wird diskutiert, welche Implikationen sich aus der Beschäftigung mit internationalen Verwaltungen für die disziplinäre Verwaltungswissenschaft ergeben. Dabei vertreten wir die These, dass sich nationale Verwaltungen den hier untersuchten internationalen Bürokratiemustern umso stärker annähern, je mehr diese in einem Kontext transnationaler Einflüsse operieren. Daran knüpfen wir abschließend ein Plädoyer für die systematische Integration internationaler Bürokratieanalysen in eine Wissenschaft der Verwaltung als Teilbereich der Erforschung der Transformation von Staatlichkeit.

We reviewed Greek law (legislation, historic Royal Decrees, and modern Presidential ones, 1833–2010) pertinent to control of communicable diseases and compared this body of Greek law with the revised International Health Regulations. Greece authorizes and regulates communicable disease control commensurate with public health risks, and integrates the principles of equality, objectivity, and respect for human rights. Despite strength at the level of principles, Greek law lacks coherence, clarity, and systematization. An inadequate body of regulations means legislation falls short of adequate implementing authority and guidelines; public health authorities often cannot find or understand the laws, nor are they certain about allocation of jurisdictional authority. We identified areas for improvement.