Analyze

Adrian Martin is a professor of Environment and Development at the School of International Development, University of East Anglia, UK. His prior publication, Just Conservation: Biodiversity, Wellbeing and Sustainability, calls for reassessing conservation from the viewpoint of social justice. He describes the goals of his research as being centered on informing “the management of natural resources in developing countries, particularly in relation to governance of protected areas, integrated conservation and development, participatory forestry and agricultural intensification.”

“The ‘new conservation’ camp has the advantage of rejecting segregationist and elitist approaches, but it fails to challenge the inequalities or unsustainability of current economic systems and priorities. The ‘protectionist’ camp does challenge current economic systems, but it is essentially an upscaling of a segregationist model of protected-area conservation that is unlikely to be effective and would fail to recognise other ways of knowing and living with nature. “ (Martin 142)

“First, we need to break free from some of the mental dispositions that we are currently conditioned to think with. First and foremost, this means ceasing to think with the dominant economic ideology that makes a goal of economic growth, consumerism and individualism. It is this way of thinking that now threatens the destruction of humans and the rest of nature. Second, we need to understand and embrace the many past and current cultures ‘that promote harmonious forms of co-inhabitation among communities of diverse human and other-than-human beings’”. (Martin 143)

• “Rozzi looks at the 2009 constitution of the plurinational state of Bolivia, including the phrase ‘Suma Qamaña’. This translates as ‘living well together’. In the Aymara language, it means to inhabit, in the sense of both living in and living with, and it emphasizes the relational value of co-habitation” (Martin 143)

• “An example of a protectionist position is the ‘Half-Earth’ call for a massive expansion of protected areas (Wilson, 2016)” (Martin 142)

• “In the last twenty years, there has been a major scientific effort to quantify the benefits that humans derive from biodiversity and ecosystem services, including the influential report on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB, 2010).” (Martin 142) 

• “The need for transformative societal change that addresses such root causes is now making it into globally agreed reports such as the UN’s 2019 Global Sustainable Development Report.” (Martin 135)

• A key point of the UN’s 2019 Global Sustainable Development Report emphasizes the necessity for “sustainable and just economies” and the safeguard of food systems as a whole. Recovery of Vietnam’s Central Provinces will require joint commitments between Vietnam and Taiwan to prioritize the preservation of environmental resources over GDP growth. Such commitments will need to incorporate more stringent regulations for manufacturing infrastructure, greater funding for supporting recovery efforts both on the part of affected ecosystems as well as fisherman communities whose operations have been suspended, and stipulations for community consultation processes in all future related manufacturing processes. 

• “A collaborative process led by the International Institute for Environment and Development has employed the environmental justice typology of distribution, procedure and recognition to develop an equity framework for assessment in protected and conserved areas (Schreckenberg et al., 2016; Franks et al., 2018). Use of this framework has now been adopted as voluntary guidance by the Convention on Biological Diversity and is being promoted by IUCN.” (Martin 142) 

Martin’s main argument centers on the importance of moving beyond the dichotomy of  anthropogenic and ecocentric framings to conceptualize methods of addressing biodiversity loss. The future of conservation, as noted by Martin, will need to embrace alternative framings of natural diversity which “deliberately integrates human and biological values into a holistic expression” (Martin 143). The importance of emphasizing “biocultural diversity”, argues Martin, serves to “decolonize” conservation via centering indigenous valuations of  “living in nature or as nature” (Martin 144) and rejecting dominant emphasis on upholding current economic systems and extreme segregationist views. While Martin does not provide an example of what a conservation scheme based on biocultural diversity could look like, he does use ideas presented in the 2009 constitution of the plurinational state of Bolivia to show that such ideas have in fact been gaining traction as an alternative means to framing conservation. 

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act is a law requiring that anyone coming into the emergency department will be stabilized and treated no matter what their insurance situation is. In terms of women's health, it is important to note that this means for active labors, medical treatment is necessary and required, no matter the health insurance of the patient. The purpose of this law to prevent certain patients from being turned away in an emergency situation or refused medical treatments if they are unable to pay, putting their health at risk.

EMTALA was enacted by Congress in 1986 and was part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Acts of 1985. Congress saw different cases around America where doctors were refusing medical care to patients who could not make a deposit at the time of their admittance to the ER. An example of this is a patient Eugene Barnes, who in 1985 suffered a stab wound and ultimately ended up dying because 6+ doctors refused to help him without payment or some form of compensation. This made national news and other cases began to come to light, such as at Baptist Hospital in Miami and many other areas. News outlets began to follow these cases and this caught attention of government officials. Shortly after, EMTALA was enacted.

http://www.pitt.edu/~kconover/ftp/emtala-draft.pdf

This policy applies to American law and patients who are in need of emergency medical treatment and is to be followed by all emergency departments and personnel alike. 

This was touched upon a little in a previous question. Many cases of patient dumping were popping up around America. Patients in need  of emergency medical care were being cast aside, ignored and delayed due to their inability to pay. In addition to the stab patient, Eugene Barnes that sparked this law, there were dozens of other cases where patients needed to be transferred to larger hospitals but the hospital refused to take patients without insurance, so the patients died. There were cases of people being asked right before surgery for a deposit, and being unable to pay were discharged with no surgery. There was also a very high rate of dead babies that were arising due to the fact that mothers in labor were being turned away because the patient was uninsured. It was then realized by the government that there were no legal duties for a hospital to treat people who are in emergency situations but cannot pay, only ethical and moral duties, which apparently weren't enough in some cases. This led to the birth of the EMTALA, requiring medical attention to all ED patients as well as transfers if needed to stabilize, including mothers in labor.

This policy greatly helped sculpt emergency medicine and public health. By giving the right to the patient to have emergency medical treatment required without proof of insurance or payment, astronomically influenced the amount of patients being turned away and their possibilty of developing worse illnesses or dying. In a paper I read, a young doctor in the late 70s and early 80s remembers watching a woman in labor give birth in the doorway of the hospital and proceed to borht her child in the parking lot after being turned away for not having insurance. By requiring hospitals and doctors to see that all ED patients get care, no patient was at risk of dying or complicating their baby's health and birth due to a lack of insurance, ultimately increasing public health efforts. Not all hospitals turned away their patients, but enough did to make it a public health concern and get Congress involved. EMTALA changed emergency medicine protocols but also public health expectations and actions.

http://www.hhnmag.com/articles/5010-the-law-that-changed-everything-and…

This policy was explicitly made for vulnerable populations who couldn't afford or for whatever reason did not have health insurance. The vulnerable parties that did not have health insurance were at risk of being turned away at hospitals during crucial times of need and emergency situations. This act completely absolved the worries and fears of this vulnerable population without health insurance by making it a law that these ED patients were to receive care and stabilization. This act was made for this specific vulnerable population, to prevent discrimination.