Pandemic emergency responses often lead to limitations of fundamental human rights in favour of the safety of public health. How do we justify lawful limitations on human rights?  QUB Researcher and Marie Curie Fellow, Dr Dabrowska,  joins LawPod to discuss her research on the judicial approaches to emergency preparedness and what this means for the future. Within the episode, the team considers the case of Kaci Hickox and the court's decision, a recent widely publicised Ebola case when quarantine procedures were legally questioned. For information on Dr Dabrowska’s current research and her contact information: THEMIS ‘Protecting Human Rights and Public Health in Global Pandemics: A Map of the Standards Applied by EU and US Courts’ This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 746014 ORCID iD https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3581-3226 http://law.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofLaw/Research/projects/themis-project/ https://pure.qub.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/patrycja-dabrowskaklosinska(c4fc82e3-3c8c-4216-8909-3b3c83b40cf0).html For more information on the subject and episode citations: Annas, G. J. and Mariner, W. K. (2016) ‘(Public) Health and Human Rights in Practice’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law, 41(1), pp. 129–139. doi: 10.1215/03616878-3445659. Hickox, K. (2015) ‘Caught between Civil Liberties and Public Safety Fears: Personal Reflections from a Healthcare Provider Treating Ebola [article]’, Journal of Health & Biomedical Law, (Issue 1), p. 9. You can follow the contributors to this week’s episode on Twitter: @qublawpod