A Legal Framework for Reducing Violence in Healthcare Institutions: A Comparative Study and Policy Recommendations

Abstract Violence against healthcare workers poses a serious global threat to both individual safety and institutional integrity. Yet, many legal systems still rely on general criminal statutes that fail to address the specific vulnerabilities of healthcare settings. This study employs a comparative legal analysis, integrating normative philosophical frameworks—specifically consequentialism and retributivism—to evaluate how seven jurisdictions (Canada, India, Oklahoma–USA, England, Thailand, Bangladesh, and China) respond to healthcare violence. Findings show that jurisdictions with healthcare-specific legislation, such as Canada, China, and England, more effectively align legal sanctions with deterrence, institutional resilience, and moral accountability. In contrast, countries relying solely on general criminal law, such as Thailand and Bangladesh, provide limited normative clarity and protection. Intermediate models, such as India and Oklahoma, offer context-specific responses but lack comprehensive continuity. Synthesizing these insights, the study proposes a unified legal framework grounded in legal specificity, proportionality, and a balanced normative rationale. The model contributes to ethical discourse, informs legal reform, and supports Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3, 8, and 16. By bridging comparative law and moral philosophy, this study provides actionable strategies to safeguard healthcare workers and strengthen justice within health systems.