Analyze

“...Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty (Bullard et al., 2007) revealed that communities of colour and poor communities were still being used as dumping grounds for all kinds of toxic contaminants. The authors discovered evidence that the clustering of environmental hazards, in addition to single sources of pollution, presented significant threats to communities of colour. Furthermore, the research showed that polluting industries frequently singled out communities of colour in siting decisions, countering the “minority move-in hypothesis”: the claim that people of colour voluntarily move into contaminated communities rather than being targeted in situ by dirty industries.” (122)

“Bullard (1990) has highlighted the problem of “Black Love Canals” throughout the United States, where issues of environmental injustice are deeply connected with environ- mental racism. For example, Bullard highlights the case of toxic DDT water contamination in the African American community of Triana, Alabama. In 1978, in the midst of the national media attention focused on Love Canal, residents in Triana raised complaints over ill-health effects and contaminated fish and waterfowl. Lawsuits in Triana against the Olin Corporation continued throughout the 1980s. Although the case is noted within environ- mental justice histories (see Taylor, 2014), it is not widely recognized or commemorated.” (126)

“Underpinning the slow, structural violence (see Galtung, 1969; Davies, 2019) of unequal and unjust toxic exposures is the problem of “expendability” … Pellow (2018) proposes that indispensability is a key pillar of critical environmental justice studies (alongside intersectionality, scale, and state power). This idea builds on the work of critical race and ethnic studies scholar John Marquez (2014) on “racial expendability” to argue that, within a white-dominated society, people of colour are typically viewed as expendable.” (127)

“National and international media headlines followed the Flint water crisis story as it unfolded, but, after the initial shock, Flint faded from media attention. It shifted from being a spectacular disaster to a case of slow violence. This paral- lels the dynamics of public memory surrounding many toxic disasters, struggles, and legacies.” (128)

The author’s main argument is two-fold. Acute environmental disasters (e.g., Chernobyl, BP Horizon Spill, Hurricane Katrina) that garnered public attention leave behind legacies of increased support for environmental action and legislation, although the public attention span is often too short for lasting change. At the same time, these disasters have received a disproportionate amount of public attention compared to the many more slow-moving toxicity disasters that affect people in more systematic but often less visible ways. Examples of this disparity include the contrast between the 1984 Bhopal disaster coverage, and the persistent toxicity in the area in the time since then in the form of industrial waste and infrastructure that is not maintained. It is additionally important to note that the cases that don’t receive much attention often affect marginalized groups (by race, socioeconomics) disproportionately.

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.