Can Biolaw be a fairer and more realistic tool for interpretation?on the uncomfortable overlap of veterinary and pharmaceutical competencies in Costa Rica
Tallennettuna:
| Tekijät: | , |
|---|---|
| Aineistotyyppi: | artículo original |
| Tila: | Versión publicada |
| Julkaisupäivä: | 2026 |
| Kuvaus: | It is based on the critical analysis of a resolution issued by the Court of Administrative Cassation of Costa Rica when it concluded that the dispensing of veterinary medicines is the exclusive and personal responsibility of pharmacists, not veterinarians, even if they are prescribed by the latter and animal health may be compromised. Based on this precedent, we reflect on the ethical dilemmas that this entails and on the usefulness of biolaw as a tool for interpretation of the contentious administrative judge, by questioning the following questions: Can the hermeneutics used in biolaw be an adequate instrument to achieve fair interpretations?, Should the public interest be the most important north in animal health?, and Do normative interpretations solve controversies, even if they do not adhere to reality? It concludes with a proposal for interpretation that seeks a balance between legalism, interpretation and animal welfare. |
| Maa: | Portal de Revistas UCR |
| Organisaatio: | Universidad de Costa Rica |
| Repositorio: | Portal de Revistas UCR |
| Kieli: | Español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:portal.revistas.ucr.ac.cr:article/4115 |
| Linkit: | https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/rjuridicas/article/view/4115 |
| Sanahaku: | Biolaw Interpretation Animal health Public interest Bioderecho Interpretación Interés público Salud animal |