This article provides a critical analysis of ‘the legal’ in the legal determinants of health, with reference to the Lancet–O’Neill report on that topic. The analysis shows how law is framed as a fluid and porous concept, with legal measures and instruments being conceived as sociopolitical phenomena. I argue that the way that laws are grounded practically as part of a broader concept of politics and evaluated normatively for their instrumental value has important implications for the study of law itself. (...) This, in turn, has implications for how we approach the transdisciplinary ambitions that form a key part of the report’s recommendations to enhance law’s capacity to promote better, more equitable population health at local, national, international and global levels. (shrink)

This paper presents a case for the decriminalisation of abortion in Britain in light of the increasing investigations into people experiencing pregnancy loss and prosecutions of those suspected of illegal abortion. This growing enforcement of the criminal abortion offences has coincided with the legal change to allow the home use of abortion pills through telemedicine, and comes in the context of global backlash against abortion rights. Framing abortion as a necessary healthcare service and human right, this paper demonstrates the harms (...) caused by criminalisation and highlights how the law exacerbates socio-economic and other vulnerabilities. It is later illegal abortions that tend to be prosecuted, and while there are complex reasons as to why someone might require an abortion, the law prohibits abortion beyond 24 weeks except for narrow medical reasons, creating crisis situations for those that find themselves without legal access. Decriminalisation is necessary to move away from this culture of suspicion, hostility, and stigma that has been built around abortion. (shrink)

Antimicrobial Resistance is a threat to individual and to population health and to future generations, requiring “collective sacrifices” in order to preserve antibiotic efficacy. ‘Who should make the sacrifices?’ and ‘Who will most likely make them?’ are ethical concerns posited as potentially manageable through Antimicrobial Stewardship. Antimicrobial stewardship almost inevitably involves a form of clinical cost-benefit analysis that assesses the possible effects of antibiotics to treat a diagnosed infection in a particular patient. However, this process rarely accounts properly for patients (...) – above and beyond assessments of potential (non)compliance or adherence to care regimes. Drawing on a vignette of a pregnant woman of colour and migrant diagnosed with Mycoplasma genitalium, a sexually transmissible bacterium, this article draws out some of the ethical, speculative, and practical tensions and complexities involved in Antimicrobial Stewardship. We argue that patients also engage in a form of cost-benefit analysis influenced by experiences of reproductive and social (in)justice and comprising speculative variables - to anticipate future possibilities. These processes have the potential to have effects above and beyond the specific infection antimicrobial stewardship was activated to address. We contend that efforts to practice and research antimicrobial stewardship should accommodate and incorporate these variables and acknowledge the structures they emerge with(in), even if their components remain unknown. This would involve recognising that antimicrobial stewardship is intricately connected to other social justice issues such as immigration policy, economic justice, access to appropriate medical care, racism, etc. (shrink)

This is a short postscript to the Public Health Ethics special issue on the legal determinants of health. We reflect briefly on emerging responses to COVID-19, and raise important questions of ethics and law that must be addressed; including through the lens of legal determinants, and with critical attention to what it means to protect health with justice.