|
" A case of harlequin ichthyosis treated with isotretinoin "
Chang, Laura M; Reyes, Melissa
| Document Type
|
:
|
AL
|
| Record Number
|
:
|
1072521
|
| Doc. No
|
:
|
LA116150
|
| Call No
|
:
|
10.1163/22124810-2020008
|
| Language of Document
|
:
|
English
|
| Main Entry
|
:
|
Danielle N. Boaz J.D., Ph.D.
|
| Title & Author
|
:
|
Between “Essential Services” and Culpable Homicide [Article]\ Danielle N. Boaz J.D., Ph.D.
|
| Publication Statement
|
:
|
Leiden: Brill | Nijhoff
|
| Title of Periodical
|
:
|
Journal of Law, Religion and State
|
| Date
|
:
|
2020
|
| Volume/ Issue Number
|
:
|
8/2-3
|
| Page No
|
:
|
129–151
|
| Abstract
|
:
|
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared covid-19—the disease caused by the novel coronavirus—a global pandemic. As this coronavirus spread throughout the world, most countries implemented restrictions on public gatherings that greatly limited religious communities’ ability to engage in collective worship. Some religious leaders objected to these regulations, opining that faith would spare their congregants from illness or that their religious freedom is paramount to public health. Meanwhile, growing numbers of covid-19 infections were being traced back to religious leaders or gatherings. This article explores how governments have balanced freedom of worship and public health during the 2020 pandemic. Through the comparison of controversies in South Korea, India, Brazil and the United States, it highlights the paradoxes in debates about whether to hold religious communities accountable for the spread of this highly contagious and deadly disease. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared covid-19—the disease caused by the novel coronavirus—a global pandemic. As this coronavirus spread throughout the world, most countries implemented restrictions on public gatherings that greatly limited religious communities’ ability to engage in collective worship. Some religious leaders objected to these regulations, opining that faith would spare their congregants from illness or that their religious freedom is paramount to public health. Meanwhile, growing numbers of covid-19 infections were being traced back to religious leaders or gatherings. This article explores how governments have balanced freedom of worship and public health during the 2020 pandemic. Through the comparison of controversies in South Korea, India, Brazil and the United States, it highlights the paradoxes in debates about whether to hold religious communities accountable for the spread of this highly contagious and deadly disease.
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
Brazil
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
Comparative Law
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
Comparative Religion Religious Studies
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
coronavirus
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
essential services
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
India
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
International Law
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
Islamic Law
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
Middle East and Islamic Studies
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
Religion Society
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
religious freedom
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
Religious Studies
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
Social Sciences
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
South Korea
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
United States
|
| Location & Call number
|
:
|
10.1163/22124810-2020008
|
| |