Search

INTRODUCTION 265 I THE FACTUAL CONTEXT: INFODEMICS ARE AN ENDURING PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE 267 II THE INTERESTS AT PLAY: BODILY INTEGRITY VERSUS MEDICAL AUTONOMY 271 A. The Right to Medical [...], The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about a misinformation crisis which many public health experts have deemed an "infodemic". The putative result of the infodemic has been a widespread crisis of faith in medical science, with large swaths of the public refusing to seek effective treatment and observe public health protocols. This problem demands comprehensive political, legal, and scientific interventions. This article contributes to the discussion on legal interventions by asking the following question: who, if anyone, should be liable in private law for the dissemination of medical misinformation? This article contends that any remedy for medical misinformation must strike a fine balance between the right to bodily integrity and the pressing and substantial public interest in medical dialogue. The existing proposals of platform liability and the current negligent misrepresentation framework fail to strike such a balance. This article instead proposes the creation of a new tort termed "reckless dissemination of medical misinformation", which would target subjectively irresponsible medical misstatements. The tort would combine the structure of the negligent misrepresentation tort with defenses from defamation law in order to create a remedy which combats medical misinformation without unduly curbing medical dialogue. KEYWORDS COVID-19; Infodemic; Medical Misinformation; Reckless Dissemination; Defamation; Negligent Misrepresentation

This article compares the competing canons of equality law in different countries, specifically focusing on the categorical canons and the difference canons. It argues that the difference canons, which emphasize individual and group differences, provide broader protection and address the actual experience of discrimination more effectively. The article provides an overview of how these canons are applied in Canada, the United States, South Africa, and Latin America. It suggests that courts in categorical countries could improve their jurisprudence by adopting principles of difference reasoning. The article concludes by proposing alternative tests that courts could use to promote a more principled conception of equality. [Extracted from the article]