Analyze

 In 1991, the Public Health Service articulated a vision for primary prevention in Strategic Plan for the Elimination of Childhood Lead Poisoning, a departure from previous federal policy focused on finding and treating lead-poisoned children. This publication detailed a 15-year strategy for primary prevention and offered a cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate the monetized benefits of this approach. A strong national effort to follow this strategy developed but was eventually abandoned.

The organized campaign against universal screening began in California, where letters questioning the reported prevalence of elevated BLL began appearing in pediatric journals and newspapers. These letters acknowledged receiving editorial assistance from Kaiser Permanente Foundation Hospitals and argued that money spent on screening, treatment and abatement would be harmful to more worthy public health efforts. The AAP president took up this attack on universal screening as well, and efforts for universal screening were gradually eroded. 

Needleman identifies racism and the belief that lead poisoning “is a product of poor mothering, not of environmental pollution” as a driving factor shaping lead detection and prevention efforts (or the lack thereof) … “this weighting of personal choice or behavior over environment is a tool used to shift responsibility away from health authorities or polluters and onto the victim” (1875).

The Weldon Spring Interpretive Center was a discursive jamboree for those of us curious about how anthropocenics are narrated. This particular display at the center stood out to me becuase of its resemblance to other interpretive center or science museum displays representing the "life cycle" of an organism or of cycles of ecosystem conditions (e.g. forest succession). One of the first displays visitors see upon entering the center, the display's format and captions read to me as a clear attempt to control the discourse about nuclear contamination and remediation in the area. The image--or its creator--wants to do the work of suggesting that the clean up process has brought the place "back to how it was," cycling back to a good beginning. The text used in this display is exclusively neutral or positive. The arrows moving from each circle to the next purports to display how "this area has served many purposes over the years." It states "these exhibits are designed to educate you on the history, science, and efforts of many to bring the Weldon Spring site full circle." In this cycle, Weldon Spring is not a hazardouse waste site or contaminated site but rather "a site for remedial action." Thus we are to see the space as a "home to many people," then "a TNT and DNT plant," then "a uranium feed and matierals plant," then "a site for remedial action," "an extensive cleanup effort," "a successful solution," and, finally, "a place to enjoy and learn." In this emphasis on a "return" to good conditions, the displacement of residents, health issues plant workers and others' faced, and the uncertainties or messiness of what adequate clean up is are omitted. In this image, and in much of the interpretive center, the discourse around nuclear materials, its effects and cleanup, is neatened, simplified, into a narrative that de-emphasizes the actual health impacts of these processes and of the political wherewithall that was required to make that remediation happen.

The notion of cycling back to something is a particularly intriguing move

The mission statement summarizes the aim of the Partners in Health as "to bring the benefits of modern medical science to those most in need of them and to serve as an antidote to despair". They are available to many of the suffering third-world countries that lack modern medicine. They are aided by the most prominent health care leaders in the world. They want to treat those in need of medical care like family, not just giving, but making them feel like they belong and are deserving of the same level of care.

Anyone can join, according to the website form. They are partnered with many large foundations and relief funds.

The organization saw cholera cases pop up and immediately opened clinics in those areas to try to reduce the impact and spread of cholera, as well as mental health services for families that lost loved ones. They vaccinated for cholera, and improved the infrastructure in the areas to reduce the spread of all waterborne diseases.

They do not seem to be very unique in any way, just the fact that they respond quickly, with plenty of resources, and the desire to do good with the resources they have, makes them a good organization. Their nurses and workers are highly trained but also have compassion, so they do not come off as trying to take over, but rather as trying to help the community from the bottom up.

They started in 1987, and since then have been helping with one crisis after the other. Tuberculosis in 1989, womens health, HIV, and many others. They expanded and learned with each project.

They are partnered with some of the largest and most prestigious health care companies and institutes in the world, so that helps them to have cutting edge technology and as many resources as possible, given their budget. Those partners may encourage them to use their resources in particular ways, but overall, healthcare is the basis of each partner's goals, so they shouldn't be swayed in unethical ways.

They have lots of data on the diseases and causes of death in children, since children die at an alarming rate from preventable causes. The Partners in Health uses this data to channel their resources to help the most children. They provide hot lunches to help kids focus in school, Toms helps them give closed-toe shoes required for schools, they give hens to families to produce eggs for a higher-protein diet and to increase the family's income. These solutions, among others, are fueled by data and are now trying to help keep more kids alive.

The Partners in Health are working on expanding surgery centers across the world, as described on their website: "'Essential surgical procedures rank among the most cost-effective of all health interventions,' finds the World Bank.". They have surgical centers, clinics, and other facilities for healthcare, but also help to better all of the infrastructure in the communities they aid, to reduce the spread of diseases.