Exploring the inalienable rights of children: a case study of FGM to highlight gaps in safeguarding children in the United States

This research set out to explore the gaps between legislation and front-line interventions in relation to the rights of the child through a case study of female genital mutilation (FGM) in the United States and the United Kingdom. Prosecutions for FGM have been rare and not successful and child abuse cases in the United States continue to rise in spite of a raft of legislation designed to prevent it. It was the intention of the research to use the findings on FGM to illuminate ways to address the gaps between legislation and child protection practices generally in the United States thereby helping both survivors of FGM and of child abuse and supporting routes to prevention to protect all children from abuse. The participants were drawn from a range of professionals involved in child safeguarding legislation and from those engaged in health interventions including midwives, physicians, psychologists, social workers and advocates some of whom are survivors of the practice of FGM. Extensive legislation and survivor literature were examined as well as narratives of trauma. Participants were invited individually and in small groups to speak about their practices, perspectives, processes and thoughts for the future. This approach was informed by narrative discourses in research and the data thematically analysed. The findings highlight differences between the United States and the United Kingdom in terms of legislation and approach, identify a range of challenges to be overcome systematically and present a set of possibilities which can contribute to reducing the gap between legislation and what happens in reality so that children’s rights are protected and not subservient to the rights of parental authority

Ethical issues of electronic patient data and informatics in clinical trial settings

The field of cancer bio-informatics unites the disciplines of scientific and clinical research withclinical practice and the treatment of individual patients. There is a need to study patients andsometimes their families, over many decades, to follow disease progress and long-term outcomes.This may require research teams to access the routinely-collected health data from generalpractice and hospital health records, prior to and after the cancer diagnosis is made. This clinicalinformation will increasingly include data provided by patients or acquired from them throughwearable devices that can monitor or deliver treatment, and data acquired from genetic relativesof the patient.All of these data, whether explicitly collected for the purpose of a clinical study, or routinelycollected as part of a patient?s life-time healthcare journey, are personal health data. There areethical and legal requirements to manage these data with care. This chapter explores the ethicalrequirements for collecting, holding, analysing and sharing personal health data, and thelegislation covering such activities

East and Southeast Asia Regional Labor Research Report

CCC_East_and_South_East_Asia_Regional_Research_Rep.pdf: 2398 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

The Global Garment Industry and the Informal Economy:Critical Issues for Labor Rights Advocates

CCC_04_09_informal_labour_seminar_discussion_paper_CCC.pdf: 1679 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

The Gloves-off Economy: Workplace Standards at the Bottom of America\u27s Labor Market

[Excerpt] The goal of this volume is to map the landscape of gloves-off workplace strategies, to connect them to the erosion of norms farther up in the labor market, to identify the workers most vulnerable to these practices, and finally and perhaps most importantly, to identify the ways that the floor under job standards can be rebuilt. In what follows, we first explore conceptual tools for analyzing evasions and breaches of workplace standards and then briefly review evidence about the scope of the problem. We next trace the historical trajectory that first led to the upgrading of workplace protections, then to the partial undoing of the protective web of laws and standards—using this narrative as well to introduce the contents of the volume. We close by considering strategies to put the gloves back on in order to re-regulate work

\u3ci\u3eEldred\u3c/i\u3e and \u3ci\u3eLochner\u3c/i\u3e: Copyright Term Extension and Intellectual Property as Constitutional Property

Since the ratification of the constitution, intellectual property law in the United States has always been, in part, constitutional law. Among the enumerated powers that Article I of the Constitution vests in Congress is the power to create certain intellectual property rights. To a remarkable extent, scholars who have examined the Constitution\u27s Copyright Clause have reached a common position. With striking unanimity, these scholars have called for aggressive judicial review of the constitutionality of congressional legislation in this area. The champions of this position--we refer to them as the IP Restrictors--represent a remarkable array of constitutional and intellectual property scholars. In this terms\u27s Eldred v. Aschroft, leading IP Restrictor Lawrence Lessig, representing petitioner Eric Eldred, sought to convince the Supreme Court that the IP Restrictors\u27 view of the Copyright Clause was the correct one. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court rejected Eldred\u27s claim and upheld the statute. But while the Court rejected the IP Restrictors\u27 vision, it did not offer a satisfactory competing conception of the Copyright Clause and how the courts should construe it. Critically, even though the standard of review was of central significance, the Court applied a deferential form of rational basis scrutiny without explaining why this was the appropriate standard. This paper develops the case for deferential review of congressional legislation in the area of intellectual property and, at a deeper level, offers a new paradigm for understanding the Copyright Clause. We propose that from the vantage point of constitutional law, intellectual property should be treated as a form of constitutional property. Deference to congressional judgments is warranted because congressional legislation affecting intellectual property is analytically similar to congressional legislation affecting other forms of property. Courts subject congressional legislation affecting traditional forms of property to deferential review because of concerns about institutional competence and respect for majoritarian decisionmaking. These two concerns in conjunction with proper regard for holistic constitutional interpretation should also lead courts to deferential review of congressional legislation affecting intellectual property.In developing our position, we draw on constitutional history and, in particular, the lessons of Lochner v. New York. In defense of their vision of the Constitution, the IP Restrictors and the dissenters in Eldred make claims about the original understanding that, to an astonishing extent, echo those made by proponents of Lochner-era jurisprudence. We argue, however, that these claims fail for two reasons. First, the IP Restrictors and the dissenters disregard the limited scope of judicial review at the time of the Founding. Additionally, the IP Restrictors and dissenters disregard the range of views among the Founders about monopolies