Law Commons^™

Developing Product Label Information To Support Evidence-Informed Use Of Vaccines In Pregnancy, Terra A. Manca, Janice E. Graham, Ève Dubé, Melissa Kervin, Eliana Castillo, Natasha S. Crowcroft, Deshayne B. Fell, Michael Hadskis, Jaelene M. Mannerfeldt, Devon Greyson, Noni E. Macdonald, Karina A. Top, On Behalf Of The Canadian Vaccine Product Monograph Working Group

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Background: Product labelling information describing the use of vaccines in pregnancy continues to contain cautionary language even after clinical and epidemiological evidence of safety becomes available. This language raises safety concerns among healthcare providers who may hesitate to recommend vaccines during pregnancy.

Purpose: To develop clear evidence-based language about vaccine safety and effectiveness in pregnancy for inclusion in vaccine product labels.

Methods: We conducted a three-stage consensus-methods project with stakeholders, including: healthcare providers, vaccine regulators, industry representatives, and experts in public health, communication, law, ethics, and social sciences. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, we held a nominal group technique (NGT) …

The Gender Injustice Of Abortion Laws, Joanna Erdman

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

This commentary is a response to Katarzyna Sękowska-Kozłowska’s article on the treatment of criminal abortion laws as a form of sex discrimination under international human rights law through a study of the communications, Mellet v. Ireland and Whelan v. Ireland. The commentary offers a reading of these communications, and specifically the sex discrimination analysis premised on inequalities of treatment among women, as an engagement with the structural discrimination that characterises abortion laws, and asa radical vision for gender justice under international human rights law.

No More Chances For Lost Chances: A Weinribian Response To Weinrib, Nayha Acharya

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Sometimes, patients who were negligently misdiagnosed by their doctors are unable to receive any compensation through tort litigation. This has led to a perception of unfairness, igniting arguments in favour of what is known as the “loss of chance” doctrine. Under this doctrine, patients would be able to claim damages for the lost chances of recovery that they suffered due to negligent misdiagnoses. British and Canadian courts have rejected this doctrine in the medical negligence context on the basis that it does not cohere with tort law principles of injury compensation. Professor Ernest Weinrib, in “Causal Uncertainty” (2016) 36:1 Oxford …