The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic constitutes not only a danger for public health, but may also threaten civil liberties. Looking at the examples of recent events in Poland and Hungary, the authors argue that governments may misuse pandemic for their political advantage, thus endangering public health. Political decisions taken to stem the spread of pandemics should be limited and strictly proportionate to the situation.

Purpose: The method of diagnosing diabetic retinopathy (DR) through artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems has been commercially available since 2018. This introduces new ethical challenges with regard to obtaining informed consent from patients. The purpose of this work is to develop a checklist of items to be disclosed when diagnosing DR with AI systems in a primary care setting.Methods: Two systematic literature searches were conducted in PubMed and Web of Science databases: a narrow search focusing on DR and a broad search on general issues of AI-based diagnosis. An ethics content analysis was conducted inductively to extract two features of included publications: (1) novel information content for AI-aided diagnosis and (2) the ethical justification for its disclosure.Results: The narrow search yielded n = 537 records of which n = 4 met the inclusion criteria. The information process was scarcely addressed for primary care setting. The broad search yielded n = 60 records of which n = 11 were included. In total, eight novel elements were identified to be included in the information process for ethical reasons, all of which stem from the technical specifics of medical AI.Conclusions: Implications for the general practitioner are two-fold: First, doctors need to be better informed about the ethical implications of novel technologies and must understand them to properly inform patients. Second, patient's overconfidence or fears can be countered by communicating the risks, limitations, and potential benefits of diagnostic AI systems. If patients accept and are aware of the limitations of AI-aided diagnosis, they increase their chances of being diagnosed and treated in time.

Background Social diversity can affect healthcare outcomes in situations when access to healthcare is limited for specific groups. Although the principle of equality is one of the central topics on the agenda of the European Union (EU), its scope in the field of healthcare, however, is relatively unexplored. The aim of this study is to identify and systematically analyze primary and secondary legislation of the EU Institutions that concern the issue of access to healthcare for various minority groups. In our research, we have concentrated on three features of diversity: a) gender identity and sexual orientation, b) race and ethnicity, and c) religion or belief. Method and materials For the purpose of this analysis, we conducted a search of database Eur-Lex, the official website of European Union law and other public documents of the European Union, based on specific keywords accompanied by review of secondary literature. Relevant documents were examined with regard to the research topic. Our search covered documents that were in force between 13 December 2007 and 31 July 2019. Results Generally, the EU legal system prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, racial or ethnic origin, sex, and sexual orientation. However, with regard to the issue of non-discrimination in access to healthcare EU secondary law provides protection against discrimination only on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin and sex. The issue of discrimination in healthcare on the grounds of religion or belief, gender identity and sexual orientation is not specifically addressed under EU secondary law. Discussion The absence of regulations regarding non-discrimination in the EU secondary law in the area of healthcare may result from the division of competences between the European Union and the Member States. Reluctance of the Member States to adopt comprehensive antidiscrimination regulations leads to a situation, in which protection in access to healthcare primarily depends on national regulations. Conclusions Our study shows that EU antidiscriminatory law with regard to access to healthcare is fragmentary. Prohibition of discrimination of the level of European binding law does not fully encompass all aspects of social diversity.

No abstract

Background: Persons with schizophrenia are vulnerable regarding human rights violations. Aims: The aim of this research is to systematically analyse judgements by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) involving persons with schizophrenia. Methods: A systematic search of judgements by the ECtHR, using the search term ‘schizophrenia’. Descriptive statistics and a qualitative thematic analysis were performed. Results: A total of n = 105 judgements were included, originating in n = 29 countries. Article 5 (Right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights was ruled by the ECtHR to have been violated in 45.7% of judgements, Article 3 (Prohibition of torture) in 20.0% and Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) in 19.0%. Relevant themes were inadequate access to mental health care, especially in prisons and during police operations, involuntary confinement, detention and ill-treatment as a risk factor for psychosis, the right to family life versus the rights of others, extradition/expulsion and protection of other persons’ human rights against violent behaviour by persons with schizophrenia. Discussion: Persons with schizophrenia often do not receive adequate treatment and are especially vulnerable in prisons, where ill-treatment can be an additional risk factor. They can have both offender and victim status. The judgements suggest that the ECtHR has a balanced view on involuntary confinement. National legislation and internal hospital guidelines should be written in a manner to help minimise human rights violations against persons with schizophrenia.