Analyze

Addressing climate change in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais demands collaboration across traditional bureaucratic divisions. While the team officially tasked with devising climate plans falls under the purview of the Secretary of the Environment, their efforts to reduce vulnerability to climate change and support those already suffering its effects have brought them into many uneasy alliances. These efforts ranged from acquiring funding or technical support from European partners with fundamentally different views of environmental projection, to securing logistical aid from Civil Defense which was a part of the Mineiro military cabinet, to encouraging cooperation from the major economic institutions primarily focused around mining and agriculture. Working with these different groups necessitated that climate analysts become adept at shifting their rhetorical framing from audience to audience, but this work carried great ethical and practical risk. Were the climate scientists acting cynically when they adopted rhetoric they did not fully believe? Were they being naïve in trusting partners who may not genuinely value climate justice? What kinds of self-reflection might assist climate analysts and STS scholars in our efforts to grapple with the moral complexities of climate governance? 

Image Source: Ricardo Moraes/Reuters, "Deadly dam burst in Brazil prompts calls for stricter mining regulations," The Guardian, 10, November 2015.

Wald, Jonathan. 2023. "Beyond Cynicism and Naïveté: Ethical Complexities of Climate Governance." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11.

Communicating about racial equity and COVID-19: Connecting data to context

See more research on public health communication

Reading Amanda Windle's briefing note I was struck by the question of trust and authority, particularly its absence, and the challenges that raises for crafting a communications strategy for The Simon Community and, by extension, other communities.

In watching the US Senate Panel question public health experts, the inherent distrust toward science and scientists by many republican senators and Lt Governors remains alarming. Conversely Goldman Sach's recently issued a report that wearing masks could save the US economy a 5% hit to the GDP. If this report has an impact, will it signal that economists are more trustworthy that public health officials, or simply that monetary value is the only value that counts in COVID communications. 

I am thinking about the interplay of these differing scales of authority and trust and how difficult it is for individuals, families and local communities and care groups to make sense of the competing messages in order to craft a reasonable, sensible strategy for negotiating risk.

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.

This policy was received in good light by the public for the most part. Patients were only to benefit from this, especially those who lacked insurance. Even those with insurance didn't have to waste time proving it any longer, they were treated and stabilized and insurance issues and payment were brought up later. Any ethically sound doctors, such as the ones working in hospitals that were already implementing the actions set forth by EMTALA (before it was law) had no issues with EMTALA. No doctor should have any issues with it due to their duty to act as well as ethical and moral standards they should be holding themselves up to, written in their oath they took to become doctor. The only people that would stand to receive this act negatively would be the doctors who were actively turning away patients in need, who are clearly morally compromised. Yet, media, patients, a majority of doctors and staff found and received this act positively or with little reservation.