Analyze

This report was published by Human Rights Watch.

It appears that this is an NGO report. Human Rights Watch regularly publishes articles in an attempt to draw attention to percieved human rights issues throughout the world. They claim to be an independant organization supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations. They also deny accepting any government funds whether it be directly or indirectly.

The report was written to examine the severe increase in the number of internally displaced people in Bogot and Cartagena, Columbia. HRW was concerned with the number of people and families being forcibly displaced by paramilitary groups and their lack of access to education and public health services.

This report includes a glossary, a summary of the report and situation in Colombia, recommendations from HRW which address education, health needs, and the ability to return home, a section discussing the internal displacement in Colombia, registration and humanitarian assistance, a section discussing access to education, and a section which discusses access to public health services. The report concludes with a list of acknowledgements and a listing of other HRW reports on Colombia.

The data for this report were collected through over 70 interviews with people displaced from their homes and over 50 interviews with teachers, HCPs, activists, academics, lawyers, and government officials. In July and August 2004, with a follow-up visit to Bogot in September 2005.

This report discusses the adverse consequences that result from people being forcibly displaced from their homes. These consequences include reduced or eliminated access to public health and utilities, which can further exacerbate the problem because those native to the area where people are traveling can lose access when immigrants flood their systems.

This report doesn't have a great deal of impact with technical professionals. This report is much more geared toward those in the government in Colombia and actors in the international community. The report touches on the fact that hospitals and clinics are obligated to provide all persons with emergency care, but doesn't address emergency medicine more than that.

this report has spread to a number of academic institutions and their websites. This report seems to be relatively old, so I was unable to find any news reports that cited it. It appears that there are a number of other articles related to this topic; however, I was unable to find any direct connections between them and this report.

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