Analyze

It is not addressed, but public health and the system of healthcare as a whole is discussed.

The author addresses emergency response in the context of the workers who responded to and continue to work at the site of the chernobyl nuclear disaster. These workers were monetarily compensated in high ammounts, but left physically injured and disabled by the exposure to radioactivity at the site.

Emergency response is discussed in the context of a world post- Fukushima and the lessons learned from the incident. The article brings to discussion the pros and cons of an international nuclear emergency response team, which currently is non-existent. The paradigm has long been to focus on accident avoidance and regulation to prevent such disasters. The author cites several existing agencies (internationally) and the Nuclear Regulatory Comission as possible sources of knowledge and resources for the development of an internationally united response team, specializing in nuclear disaster relief.

They also emphasize the need for an interdisciplinary effort in creating and maintaining such a team. Researchers, operators, and policy-makers alike have a stake in the success of relief efforts, and thus should all be involved in creating the team. And not only does the effort have to be multidiscplinary, but international, which brings about questions of funding, protocols, and jurisdiction. Also, who will join, and where will they receive the necessary training needed for specific response? These are all challenges that need to be addressed prior to the creation of the team. 

Emergency Response isn't directly addressed in the article. However there is one mention of emergency responders and the debriefing typically held after a traumatic event/call. But, the article also says that this method is not actually effective in preventing psychopathology, and can actually hinder the healing process by promoting exposure to traumatic memories. 

Emergency response isn't specifically addressed, though follow-up aid is the main focus. 

Emergency response isn't directly addressed as much as ongoing access to care. 

The artice cites WHO preparadness plans and Doctors without Borders as sources of policy on emergency response, in the context of global health. With the rise in infectious disease, there is a risk for "global threat" that is not directly targeted at a group, but rather engineered through social and economic factors. This means that emrgency preparadness is key. However, the article metions the use of Emergency repsonse as a bit of a cop-out. It is much easier to plan for the worst than prevent it from happening. The author states "... measures focused on mitigating potential emergencies are easier to implement rhan longer-term structural interventions."