Suchergebnisse

A maioria dos países integrantes do Fórum das Ilhas do Pacífico(1) foi colônia ou protetorado britânico. Essa condição resultou na transposição de leis britânicas relativas à saúde pública que necessitam de revisão e reforma. Estes países também contam com uma rica tradição de direito consuetudinário e métodos de organização social anteriores à experiência colonial(2). Acrescente-se a esse ambiente legal pluralista, o fato de que todos os países do Pacífico ratificaram tratados de direitos humanos internacionais ou tratados que criam obrigações no direito internacional em relação à saúde. ; Most Pacific Island countries which are members of the Pacific Islands Forum have a history as British colonies or protectorates. This delivers a legacy of transplanted British style public health laws from the first half of the twentieth century, which are out of date and in need of review and reform. Pacific Island countries also have a rich tradition of customary laws and methods of social organisation predating their colonial experience. Added to this pluralist legal environment, all Pacific countries have ratified some international human rights treaties or treaties creating obligations at international law in relation to health.

Objectives: The need to improve access to good health care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people has been the subject of policy debate for decades, but progress is hampered by complex policy and administrative arrangements and lack of clarity about the responsibilities of governments. This study aimed to identify the current legal basis of those responsibilities and define options available to Australian governments to enact enduring responsibility for Aboriginal health care.

© 2015 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivatives License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. ; Objectives: The need to improve access to good health care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people has been the subject of policy debate for decades, but progress is hampered by complex policy and administrative arrangements and lack of clarity about the responsibilities of governments. This study aimed to identify the current legal basis of those responsibilities and define options available to Australian governments to enact enduring responsibility for Aboriginal health care. Methods: This study used a framework for public health law research and conducted a mapping study to examine the current legal underpinnings for stewardship and governance for Aboriginal health and health care. More than 200 pieces of health legislation were analysed in the context of the common and statutory law and health policy goals. Results: Very little specific recognition of the needs of Aboriginal people was found, and nothing that creates responsibility for stewardship and governance. The continuing absence of a legislative framework to address and protect Aboriginal health can be traced back to the founding doctrine of terra nullius (unoccupied land). Conclusions: We considered the results applying both a human rights perspective and the perspective of therapeutic jurisprudence. We suggest that national law for health stewardship would provide a strong foundation for progress, and should itself be based on recognition of Australia's First Peoples in the Australian Constitution, as is currently proposed.

Vivian Lin1, Pauline McCabe1, Alan Bensoussan3,4, Stephen Myers5, Marc Cohen6, et al1School of Public Health; 2Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group, Australian Institute for Primary Care, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia; 3National Institute for Complementary Medicine; 4University of Western Sydney, Bankstown, New South Wales, Australia; 5NatMed-Research, Department of Natural and Complementary Medicine, Southern Cross University, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia; 6Department of Complementary Medicine, RMIT University, Bundoora West, Victoria, Australia; La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, AustraliaAbstract: Australian health workforce regulation is premised on the need to protect public health and safety. Specific criteria are set out by governments to ascertain the degree of risk and the need for government intervention. A study was undertaken to understand the current state of usage and the practice of naturopathy and western herbal medicine, and to ascertain whether statutory regulation was warranted. We found increased use of these complementary therapies in the community, with risks arising from both the specific practices as well as consumers negotiating a parallel primary health care system. We also found highly variable standards of training, a myriad of professional associations, and a general failure of current systems of self-regulation to protect public health and safety. Statutory regulation was the preferred policy response for consumers, insurers, general practitioners, and most of the complementary therapists. While we found a case for statutory registration, we also argue that a minimalist regulatory response needs to be accompanied by other measures to educate the public, to improve the standards of practice, and to enhance our understanding of the interaction between complementary and mainstream health care.Keywords: health workforce regulation, complementary health care, protection of public health and safety, health care policy