Explore the vast range of titles available.

Research on familialism in Europe usually focuses on family policies, pointing out how female reproductive and work rights are often contrasted with the interest of the family, as shown by the individualism vs. familism understanding of familism (familialism). Here, however, I focus on another understanding of familism that sees the family as the model for other social institutions. This novel angle on the European context enables research on a scarcely researched aspect: how familism is used to render non‐heterosexual rights illegitimate. Turning to Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s rhetorical understanding of politics, I show how the rhetorical use of the family legitimizes anti‐LGBTQ+ sentiments. I focus on the Hungarian “Child Protective Law,” passed by the illiberal Fidesz‐KDNP government in 2021. The content analysis of the material shows how the Hungarian government’s aspiration to protect children, both as crucial members of heterosexual nuclear families as well as symbols of the illiberalist future of the country, legitimizes anti‐LGBTQ+ stances. This happens, first, through a discursive link between LGBTQ+ people and child abuse. Second, it occurs through the government´s familistic ideal of the Christian heterosexual family, which also constitutes its antagonistic frontier as the LGBTQ+ community. I argue for a new articulation of the illiberal “us” and its liberal frontier, where the ideal family, and in particular heterosexuality, function as a means of exclusion. This article contributes to existing literature on gender and illiberalism as well as to current discussions on the limits of the theoretical concepts of familism.

American feminism has always been about more than the struggle for individual rights and equal treatment with men. There's also a vital and continuing tradition of women's reform that sought social as well as individual rights and argued for the dismantling of the masculine standard. In this much anticipated book, Dorothy Sue Cobble retrieves the forgotten feminism of the previous generations of working women, illuminating the ideas that inspired them and the reforms they secured from employers and the state.

What difference does a written constitution make to public policy? How have women workers fared in a nation bound by constitutional principles, compared with those not covered by formal, written guarantees of fair procedure or equitable outcome? To investigate these questions, Vivien Hart traces the evolution of minimum wage policies in the United States and Britain from their common origins in women's politics around 1900 to their divergent outcomes in our day. She argues, contrary to common wisdom, that the advantage has been with the American constitutional system rather than the British. Basing her analysis on primary research, Hart reconstructs legal strategies and policy decisions that revolved around the recognition of women as workers and the public definition of gender roles. Contrasting seismic shifts and expansion in American minimum wage policy with indifference and eventual abolition in Britain, she challenges preconceptions about the constraints of American constitutionalism versus British flexibility. Though constitutional requirements did block and frustrate women's attempts to gain fair wages, they also, as Hart demonstrates, created a terrain in the United States for principled debate about women, work, and the state--and a momentum for public policy--unparalleled in Britain. Hart's book should be of interest to policy, labor, women's, and legal historians, to political scientists, and to students of gender issues, law, and social policy.

Background The world is facing an unprecedented outbreak affecting all aspects of human lives which is caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the virus novelty, healthcare systems are challenged by a high rate of patients and the shortage of medical products. To address an increased need for essential medical products, national authorities, worldwide, made various legislative concessions. This has led to essential medical products being produced by automotive, textile and other companies from various industries and approved under the emergency use authorizations or legal concessions of national regulatory bodies. This paper presents a narrative commentary of the available documentation on emergency use authorizations and legal concessions for medical products during COVID-19 pandemic. Methodology The basis for narrative commentary includes scientific articles published in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Embase databases, official publications of international organizations: Food and Drug Agency (FDA), World Health Organisation (WHO), World Bank and United Nations (UN), and national regulatory agency reports in native languages (English, German, Bosnian, and Croatian) published from November 1, 2019 to May 1, 2020. This paper focuses on three types of essential medical products: mechanical ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE) and diagnostic tests. Evidence-informed commentary of available data and potential identified risks of emergency use authorizations and legal concessions is presented. Discussion It is recognized that now more than ever, raising global awareness and knowledge about the importance of respecting the essential requirements is needed to guarantee the appropriate quality, performance and safety of medical products, especially during outbreak situation, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Emergency use authorizations for production, import and approval of medical products should be strictly specified and clearly targeted from case to case and should not be general or universal for all medical products, because all of them are associated with different risk level. Conclusion Presented considerations and experiences should be taken as a guide for all possible future outbreak situations to prevent improvised reactions of national regulatory bodies.

Artisanal goldminers in Ghana are exposed to various levels and forms of health, safety and environmental threats. Without the required legislation and regulations, artisanal miners are responsible for their own health and safety at work. Consequently, understanding the probabilities of self-protection at work by artisanal goldminers is crucial. A cross-sectional survey of 500 artisanal goldminers was conducted to examine the probabilities of personal protective equipment use among artisanal goldminers in Ghana. The data was subjected to both descriptive and inferential statistics. Initial findings showed that personal protective equipment use among artisanal miners was 77.4%. Overall, higher probabilities of personal protective equipment use was observed among artisanal goldminers who work in good health and safety conditions as compared to artisanal miners who work in poor health and safety conditions. Also, personal protective equipment use was more probable among the highly educated artisanal goldminers, miners who regularly go for medical screening and the most experienced miners. Additionally, personal protective equipment use was more probable among artisanal miners who work in non-production departments and miners who work in the medium scale subsector. Inversely, personal protective equipment use was less probable among female artisanal miners and miners who earn more monthly income ($174 and above). To increase self-care and safety consciousness in artisanal mining, there is the need for a national occupational health and safety legislation in Ghana. Also, interventions and health promotion campaigns for better occupational conditions in artisanal mining should target and revise the health and safety related workplace programs and conditions.

Widespread shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic have placed health care workers at risk and threatened their ability to care for patients.1 Items in shortage include disposable filtering facepiece respirators (\"N95 masks\"), filter cartridges for powered airpurifying respirators, face shields, and surgical scrubs. Many of these shortages reflect fragile international supply chains based on just-in-time manufacturing and lean inventories. Ranney et al. recently identified several promising approaches to improving national coordination of PPE supply,2 but we believe that responses to health care emergencies must also be strengthened at the community level. This is a well-recognized concept in the setting of natural disasters,3 but to our knowledge the role of fabrication of medical products such as PPE by local companies and concerned citizens (including \"maker\" and 3D printing communities) has not been previously considered for disease pandemics. Local fabrication during the COVID-19 crisis has largely focused on face masks, respirators, and ventilator parts but could extend in future emergencies to stretchers, custom software, and transportation. For such solutions to be useful, they must be informed by regulatory and performance standards, and hospitals must have the data needed for adoption and deployment. Shifting regulatory guidance on PPE, the introduction of products from nontraditional suppliers, and an absence ofscientific data in many guidance documents have raised concerns among health care workers that evolving PPE standards may not be based on rigorous evidence.

Suicide remains the second most common cause of death in young people aged 10–24 years and is a growing concern globally. The literature reports a vast number of factors that can predispose an adolescent to suicidality at an individual, relational, community, or societal level. There is limited high-level research identifying and understanding these risk and protective factors of adolescent suicidality. The present study used an umbrella review and meta-analysis to synthesize evidence from the review literature in the past 20 years on risk and protective factors of self-harm and suicidality (behavior and ideation) in adolescents. The umbrella review included 33 quantitative reviews with 1149 individual studies on suicidality and self-harm. Based on the data synthesis, it compared the public health impact of exposure on the population of the identified exposure. Bullying victimization was the most attributed environmental exposure for suicidality. The other identified significant school and individual factors were sleeping disturbance, school absenteeism, and exposure to antidepressants. Several significant vulnerable young populations were identified with significantly higher prevalence of suicidality, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (or questioning) youth and those with mental health disorders, problem behaviors, previous suicidality, self-harm, and gender (female). A person-centered approach emphasizing connectedness and bully-free school environments should be a priority focus for schools, health professionals, and public health policymakers.

This article examines the science-of-science-communication measurement problem. In its simplest form, the problem reflects the use of externally invalid measures of the dynamics that generate cultural conflict over risk and other policy-relevant facts. But at a more fundamental level, the science-of-science-communication measurement problem inheres in the phenomena being measured themselves. The \"beliefs\" individuals form about a societal risk such as climate change are not of a piece; rather they reflect the distinct clusters of inferences that individuals draw as they engage information for two distinct ends: to gain access to the collective knowledge furnished by science and to enjoy the sense of identity enabled by membership in a community defined by particular cultural commitments. The article shows how appropriately designed \"science comprehension\" tests —one general and one specific to climate change—can be used to measure individuals reasoning proficiency as collective-knowledge acquirers independently of their reasoning proficiency as cultural-identity protectors. Doing so reveals that there is in fact little disagreement among culturally diverse citizens on what science knows about climate change. The source of the climate-change controversy and like disputes over societal risks is the contamination of the science-communication environment with forms of cultural status competition that make it impossible for diverse citizens to express their reason as both collective-knowledge acquirers and cultural-identity protectors at the same time.

The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Using a data set on the past and current status of brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo) in European countries, we show that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records. The reasons for this overall conservation success include protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and a variety of practices making coexistence between large carnivores and people possible. The European situation reveals that large carnivores and people can share the same landscape.