46622 research outputs found
Sort by
Concerning Increasing Access to Assistance for Victims by Providing Immunity From Prosecution for the Offense of Prostitution in Specific Circumstances
No full texthttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/session-laws-2001-2050/10489/thumbnail.jp
Concerning the Colorado DRIVES Vehicle Services Account of the Highway Users Tax Fund, and, in Connection Therewith, Merging the Licensing Services Cash Fund Into the Account and Requiring Account Investment Earnings to Be Credited to the Account
No full texthttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/session-laws-2001-2050/10477/thumbnail.jp
Concerning the Collection of an Administrative Fee From an Agency That Receives Commodities Through a Food Distribution Program
No full texthttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/session-laws-2001-2050/10472/thumbnail.jp
Concerning Supplemental Funding for Facility Schools, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation
No full texthttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/session-laws-2001-2050/10470/thumbnail.jp
Errors in Converting Principles to Protocols: Where the Bioethics of US Covid‐19 Vaccine Allocation Went Wrong
No full textFor much of 2021, allocating the scarce supply of Covid-19 vaccines was the world\u27s most pressing bioethical challenge, and similar challenges may recur for novel therapies and future vaccines. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\u27s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) identified three fundamental ethical principles to guide the process: maximize benefits, promote justice, and mitigate health inequities. We argue that critical components of the recommended protocol were internally inconsistent with these principles. Specifically, the ACIP violated its principles by recommending overly broad health care worker priority in phase 1a, using being at least seventy-five years of age as the only criterion to identify individuals at high risk of death from Covid-19 during phase 1b, failing to recommend place-based vaccine distribution, and implicitly endorsing first-come, first-served allocation. More rigorous empirical work and the development of a complete ethical framework that recognizes trade-offs between principles may have prevented these mistakes and saved lives
Minimum Age Cutoffs and the Fair Allocation of Benefits
No full textThe COVID-19 pandemic brought debates over the use of age in scarce resource allocation to the fore once again. Initially, particularly in developed countries, debates surrounded the use of older age as an exclusion or lower-priority criterion for receipt of scarce medical interventions such as ICU beds and ventilator therapy. Many advocacy groups for older adults argued that age should not be used as a criterion for access to such interventions.[1] In developed countries and in particular the United States, they were largely successful, at least with respect to formal policy, ensuring that resource allocation policies excluded or minimized the role of age-based prioritization that might work to the disadvantage of older adults. Some of these groups argued that the use of age would constitute “unlawful age discrimination
Concerning A Transfer From The General Fund To The Payment Cash Fund
No full texthttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/session-laws-2001-2050/10514/thumbnail.jp
Concerning A Requirement That Transportation Network Companies Provide Insurance To Protect Individuals From Damages Caused By Uninsured Motorists
No full texthttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/session-laws-2001-2050/10515/thumbnail.jp
Concerning Increasing Access To Postsecondary Workforce Readiness With Financial Aid Information And In Connection Therewith
No full texthttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/session-laws-2001-2050/10569/thumbnail.jp
Concerning Measures To Improve The Educational Attainment Of Students In Out Of Home Placement
No full texthttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/session-laws-2001-2050/10597/thumbnail.jp