This map is a fascinating and important image as it does NOT show the many sites of (ongoing) nuclear radiation contamination in communities impacted by uranium extraction and processing. For example, the Navajo Nation has around 270 unreclaimed open pit tailings piles. This is not official "waste" but is quotidian waste that creates longstanding environmental harm.
This article are main to referre to the Haiti's government, United Nations and USAID. Haiti's government is continuing political turmoil, and it influenced the organisation for the rebuilding after the earthquake. The government exploits the donation for children vaccination rates and HIV treatment in post disaster. These actions and auttitudes break the deals between other organisations' supporting. Due to these reasons, U.N. persuade member nations to reduce the supporting. Therefore, the restore after the disaster and cholera are so slow. USAID is United States agency for international development, and it has donated Haiti $1.5 billion since earthquake, but Haiti's people are not really can get the support.
The artical shows the political and government really influence the people's health and emergency. Haiti's government disappointed all the other oganisations and it makes the restore difficult after the eaarthquake and cholera epidemic. The artical descrpites the situation and fact in the 5 years after the disaster. In addition, the reactions of the involved organisations such as United Nations are shows the problem and the result that where the money go. There are also applied examples to support why the donation are not final go to the Haiti's people, and Haiti's government is deal-killer. Apart from this, the artical shows if there are not enough economic fund and medical supporting after disaster, there might be a epidemic comes up, and make the situation worse. All the donation and support are should be in good organisation to help people and rebuild the environment.
The government should organise all the source and fund for the disaster. Using good political to communicate with other nations and organisation who offer the supporting. Make sure the people get help such as money, food and water. As well as help people get back confident to government, therefore the government need to manage the sources in suitable areas. Medical supporting and equipment are offered for more saving and treatment. To provide the epidemic comes up post disaster, the government and organisations should be care about the weather, environment and other circumstances. If Haiti's government can help people get the supporting on fundings and others, it can really make the Haiti's restore and control the cholera epidemic. In addtion, it might can bring the confident from U.N. and other organisations.
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.
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.