This policy applies to any persons who are considered refugees. Because this was after the Second World War, it was at first limited to people fleeing within Europe. Since then, its scope has widened and applies to people fleeing persecution and can be used today with respect to the current refugee problem.
This policy was drafted by the United Nations. 26 countries and/or states were represented during this convention, including: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, US, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia. Cuba and Iran were also represented. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees participated, but was not given the right to vote on the matter. The International Labor Organization and the International Refugee Organization were also represented. Other NGOs were present as well.
This policy is in reference to refugees seeking political asylum. Its initial aim was to define what a refugee is and outline how they should be treated and accepted. They acknowledge the problems relating to refugee travels and documents needed, problems regarding keeping family units together, as this is an essential right of a refugee. They also mention that refugees are a vulnerable group, and as such, require some degree of welfare services. They stress the importance of international cooperation and understanding that refugees need protection. Finally, they outline the treatment of refugees. This is an extensive document and policy, containing 46 Articles.
The convention in 1951 was a response to WW2 and the vast amounts of refugees that existed as a result. States involved in the convention and the UN could decide to apply it to refugees not necessarily from WW2, but in 1967, the limits were removed and made it so that it could apply to any refugees, not just those from WW2. It has since been used during major refugee crises in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
While this policy doesn't directly address public health, it does concern the rights and protection of displaced persons. They recognize the stressful situations that refugees are in and that welfare resources will be needed to help them. They discuss housing rights and rights to public education. While these might not be medical treatments, they would help with public health and are associated with overall well-being of these refugees.
The entirety of this document illustrates how vulnerable refugees are. They define refugee to be someone who has been persecuted for reasons of "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." They discuss the fear that refugees feel and that they should be treated favorably, sympathetically, and like other citizens of the contracting state.
I can't find anything about how it was received back in the day, but with the current refugee problem facing the world, there is dispute about how to treat refugees and other immigration issues. Rhetoric used to describe refugees - especially those from Syria - has caused a lot of xenophobia around the world and various problems regarding immigration.
I think the main takeaway for first responders would be to treat these refugees as if they were anyone else. They should be treated fairly and favorably and should not be discriminated against when it comes to emergency care.
The authors all work at University of California San Francisco. Their names are Vicanne Adams, Taslim Van Hattum, and Diana English. Adams works at USCF and was the former director and vice-chair in the department of anthropology, history, and social medicine. She focuses her research in Global Health, Asian Medical Systems, Social Theory, Critical Medical Anthropology, Sexuality and Gender, Safe Motherhood, Disaster Recovery, Tibet, Nepal, China and the US. She has been involved in various publications and has received numerous grants from the NIH. Van Hattum and English are also within the department for Anthropology, History, and Social Medicine.
The main argument made in this article is that the term "chronic disaster syndrome" can be used as a diagnosis of Katrina survivors as opposed to PTSD. They use this term on the basis of factors including: individual suffering (trauma), the workings of disaster capitalism tied to the undermining of public infrastructures of social welfare and their replacement with private-sector service provision through contracts with for-profit corporations, and the ways that displacement functions within disaster capitalism. They make the point that this term can be used in link with disasters. In this case, Katrina caused "chronic disaster syndrome" to most survivors in that they were affected (and still are) socially, politically, and individually. The trauma experienced and the lack of leadership and governmental response created stressful situations for all residents of New Orleans pre-Katrina.