Personalised medicine, digital innovations, and neuro-technologies all offer significant potential benefit for human health and welfare, but also raise complex governance challenges. A variety of approaches have been adopted in the governance of innovative medicines and health technologies, including risk assessment, ethics and self-governance. Recently anticipatory or 'upstream' modes of governance have garnered favour. Anticipatory regulation demands a closer relationship between regulators and innovators, to shape the trajectories of the technology. In the EU context, responsible research and innovation has emerged as a key mechanism of governance. This is linked but distinct from a human rights governance which has the advantage of exerting both legal and moral force. What is needed in the healthcare context are governance models which ensure human rights considerations are taken into account from the earliest stages of innovation, to maximise the likelihood that developments are from the outset beneficial and oriented towards protecting ethical values.Research has evidenced the various aims of patient-plaintiffs and/or their families in medical negligence litigation, with emphasis frequently placed on the importance of an apology. Drawing on the findings of an empirical study conducted in Ireland, this article contributes to the discourse on apologies in medical negligence disputes. In particular, with reference to the findings of the research and the literature, it discusses components of apologies deemed to be important by patient-plaintiffs and/or their families. The article concludes by arguing that legislative protection for apologies in isolation will not necessarily increase the use or effectiveness of apologies in medical negligence disputes, and a combination of measures is required.COVID-19 became a stress-test for many legal systems because it required that a balance be found between rapid action to prevent the spread of the disease, and continued respect for human rights. Many states in Europe, including Ukraine, chose to enforce an obligation to self-isolate. In this article we review what the obligation to self-isolate entails in the case of Ukraine. We also analyse whether such an obligation should be viewed as a deprivation or a mere restriction of liberty, and if it is permissible under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.If globalisation has led to a greater mobility of people specific issues have emerged with the current coronavirus pandemic. Consequently, extreme measures have been taken worldwide to flatten the curb of the virus. From lockdowns to several levels of isolation these measures have worked undoubtedly for some situations. Nonetheless, these same measures have sown chaos in other situations.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/bromodeoxyuridine-brdu.html  One good example is surrogacy especially when this practice is undergone overseas, revealing the legal insecurity of the use of surrogacy whether for the intended parents, the surrogate born child or the surrogate mother for whom the risks have heightened.Recently, the Dutch Medical Doctors Association (Federatie Medisch Specialisten en de Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst) drafted the 'Covid-19 triage guideline ICU admission' that has age cut-offs that deprioritise or exclude the elderly. Such an age limit for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in case of a national emergency seems discriminatory, and thus, is it inappropriate to use, or not? The question is whether age in itself can be considered as an acceptable selection criterion.Covid-19 continues to alter our way of living and dying. Much attention has focused on how to resolve pressing issues surrounding resource allocation and competing public health ethics. While these are important discussions, the legal and ethical dilemmas of treatment decisions remain highly critical. The urgency to ensure that life and death affairs are in order is magnified due to the possibility of becoming infected with Covid-19. However, many people continue to face challenges in organising their future medical care and treatment. This article explores how the pandemic affects advance care planning through the lenses of law and ethics. The range of Covid-19 implications on advance care planning demonstrates a paradigm shift from a primarily elective function to an essential role in healthcare delivery. This renewed appreciation to advance care planning offers the opportunity to support and sustain the important role that it could play during ordinary and extraordinary times.As vaccine hesitancy is on the rise around the world, apex courts in some countries have confronted the difficult task of striking a fair balance between individual rights and the common good. Against this background, the article discusses the compulsory vaccination cases heard by the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC). The TCC's case law illustrates that any interference with bodily integrity must first comply with the principle of lawfulness and its rulings addressed an important shortage of the current Turkish compulsory childhood vaccination policy. The article suggests that the principle of lawfulness in compulsory vaccination cases should not be taken lightly, even if it serves compelling public interests.The COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted non-coronavirus clinical trials. In the case of life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, this is particularly dangerous, as treatment cannot simply be stopped. In the EU, guidelines for the management of ongoing studies were issued; however, national coordination is still lacking. This article aims to raise awareness on the struggle of managing ongoing clinical trials in the EU during the pandemic. The goals are to bring attention, from a legal and regulatory point of view to the difficulties faced by those involved in clinical research, and to critically position the current hurdles against the backdrop of the existing legal and ethical framework. We investigated the EU guidance and the national approaches of all EU/EEA Member States, and critically discussed selected issues. We argue that the crisis may be an opportunity to foresee meaningful changes in the EU clinical trials framework post-COVID-19.