Recent decades have witnessed the appearance of multiple grounds for vaccine hesitancy. One of the options to deal with this phenomenon is legislative. Given that vaccination enforcement through law raises allegations of infringement of constitutional rights, interventions seeking to promote vaccination compliance should rather address the factors that influence vaccine hesitancy, which are – by and large – related to trust in health authorities. Trust in health authorities may be promoted by a procedure for compensating the comparatively few vaccination victims reflecting a willingness to acknowledge liability and commitment to social justice.
A qualitative study of the Israeli Vaccination Victim Insurance Law was conducted by the author. The study involved document content analysis (legislative protocols, Court judgments) and semi-structured in-depth interviews with informants representing different legal, medical and ethical perspectives. The thematic analysis found that the Israeli Vaccination Victim Insurance Law and its implementation in Court do not attain their therapeutic potential with respect to the promotion of trust. Barriers to claim submissions and the denial of all claims submitted according to the law do not permit the acknowledgement of liability or the demonstration of the authorities’ commitment to social justice.
Recognizing the therapeutic power of the Law may lead to adaptations or amendments promoting trust in the health authorities and subsequently fostering vaccine compliance.

The issue of apology and disclosure of medical errors in the context of the physician- patient relationship has attracted increasing attention in recent years. On the other hand, it has received little attention in the context of public health activities, thus missing the collective healing potential of apologizing and providing information to the public.
The purpose of this paper is to enrich the discussion regarding apologies and disclosure errors in the context of public health. To fulfil this purpose, the paper addresses the ringworm case, which is a well- known episode in the history of Israeli public health policy. More specifically, the paper focuses on a decision handed by the Israeli Supreme Court in the Eibi Case (2015), which recognized a duty to inform ringworm patients about the medical error involved in their treatment and its results. The paper seeks to examine whether this decision succeeded where other legal means failed, in the construction of a collective healing process. The paper concludes that although the Eibi Case provided the court an opportunity to contribute to the creation of a collective healing process of ringworms patients, the decision didn’t fully realize this potential.

The Israeli health system consists of approximately 200,000 employees in a variety of positions, such as: doctors, nurses, pharmacists, psychologies, physical therapists, lab workers, speech therapists, occupational therapists, dieticians, orderlies, administrators and housekeeping workers and many more. (Ministry of Health, 2016). The system has gone through long-lasting struggles, conflicts and crises initiated by power groups and various functional representations and unions. This article will focus on conflicts occurring between doctors, in their professional occupation, and the governmental ministries (Health and Treasury). In addition, it will examine the processes that encourage the occurrence of conflicts in the health system. Even though doctors do not represent the entire health system, it is important to emphasize that they are its beating heart. Their weight in the general health system is extremely high, much higher than their relative part therein.
In addition, this article will examine a struggle by doctors to shorten their long shift hours, by exposing the root causes and the reasons that led to the struggle’s demise, without the achievement of their declared goals. This article will suggest that tools appropriate for a true resolution of conflicts in the health system should be tailored and specific to the complexity of the system (as in a delicate surgery), as opposed to more general tools such as mediation, and certain “copy-paste” tools used for conflict resolution in other disciplines.

Authorship is a feature of career success and is relevant for practically all health science fields. Yet negotiating co-authorship is one of the most difficult processes academics encounter. The stakes are high, issues can be complex, and negotiators’ motivations are often multifaceted. The tools presented in this article – preparation, relationship development, and communication – can be used to increase the likelihood of a successful negotiation. Through the use of a case study, this article illustrates how a typical junior colleague can negotiate with their mentor. Additionally, this article outlines various standards of co-authorship to ensure that published authorship reflects appropriate standards of the field. The goal is for academics to be able to negotiate not only effectively, but also ethically.

This paper examines the intersection between the two professions – law and medicine – with reference to systematic transformations that have characterized their development in the past century. In particular, the paper examines the co-emergence of the new public health and health promotion scholarship along with the development of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) movement in the second half of the 20th century. The two movements, with their later developments, have aspired to change the focus of professionals in the field, and both have been tremendously successful on the one hand, and on the other have remained marginal to mainstream training and identity building of contemporary lawyers and doctors.