Search

Emergency responders are the MSF members in this film, they have to continue serve millions of patients with the lack of medical supplies and the worse medical conditions over the place. They have to deal with the communication difficulties and the uncooperative patients with the lack of understanding to their own health. Furthermore, they have to make decision of which patient gets help and serve. As they concluded in the film with one of the discussion they had, there is no ideal environment (situation) to plan and perform an ideal operation (surgery) in such places (~49:00 – 51:00).

Some scientific data/information or relevant organizations’ site can be added as captions within the film, so the audience can have reference to research after watching the film.

Stakeholders with this film could be doctors, international-wide medical and health services or professionals studied within the field of health conditions in the third-world countries. The MSF members (doctors) are the first person who get into contact with the locals, they would experience a range of situations with during and aftermath of the disaster. They have focused on the practical side of the medical service with contrast to the United Nation, UNICEF only planned the theoretical plans with meetings that MSF would said that are not suitable with the situations they have faced (~49:00 – 51:00). After the mission the MSF member served, each one of them have decided the future paths which assist the development of medical health within these areas in some ways. Professionals interesting in this field might benefit from the film fieldtrip recording and gain relevant research based on the situations described in the film in order to plan a possible solution to current situations or make plan for the future possible situation to prevent lack of medical service within third world countries and increase overall public health. 

The film has not included the patient’s viewpoint or the locals’ viewpoints within this kind of situations. This might due to the communication difficulties with the language. If the audience viewed the content with locals’ viewpoint might benefit from knowing the cultural practices and plan for the future interaction more carefully.

The argument has mainly shown through the discussion and meetings among the MSF members with their personal emotive expression towards the current situations or the decision makings. Other than the group meetings, the interview with each individual MFS member is also expressed emotionally with his/her own thoughts (e.g. ~11:00 Kiara inspected the patient and made a range of assumptions towards the illness, “…this could be a yellow fever”). Scientific information might carry out via their personal medical experience opinions but not specifically noted with any data or text to the audience watches the film. Also their opinion needs to translate to the locals, so the phrases used in that context is also not very scientific which makes everything can be understand by parties easily.  

This film is a good source for the general publics to gain awareness with lack of medical centers within the third world countries, so some audience might gain interest to assist the locals by contact the relevant medical organizations.

The central argument of the film is about the choice that needs to made upon with the emergency responders in a complex situation such as the lack of medical service within the country. The choices include which patient gets helped and which one are not with the lack of material supplies and the medical technology available. Or making choices if MSF member continues to stay in such condition to assist the locals getting medical treatment.

The MSF members could get some rest if there do not attend some of the parties, even though having a party is a way of relaxing, but sleeping in some way has the same function as well.

1. With the lack of medical centers, there is a lot of cost to invest into the help to these countries. But the main reason is the occurrence of war and instable activities.

“In 2015, MSF provided humanitarian assistance in 69 countries.

Around 54 per cent of activities were carried out in settings of instability. Some 57 per cent of programs were in Africa…MSF spent 1,283 million euros: 82 per cent was spent on humanitarian activities…” [http://www.msf.org/en/article/msf-international-activity-report-2015]

2. There is an urgently need of HIV/TB doctors in the field. [http://www.msf.org/en/work-msf/working-in-the-field]

“MSF provided care for 333,900 people living with HIV/AIDS and antiretroviral treatment for 240,100 people in 2015.” With the lack of appropriate medical educations, many people do not know they have infected with HIV. [MSF international_activity_report_2015_en_2nd_ed.pdf]

3. Close of Programs

“When a violent situation has stabilized sufficiently, and access to health services improves, MSF will close its program.”

“When local or national authorities and organizations have the capacity and motivation to restore and develop a medical system that meets the urgent needs of the population, MSF will withdraw.”

“MSF will close a program when a medical emergency ends.”

[http://www.msf.org/en/msf-activities]

Personally would find the discussion and argument within the MFS members are compelling as the discussion had highlighted almost all the issues they have faced. Whereas these issues have become their pressure source and the fuse of their arguments. As mentioned above, the points made by their argument are valuable for any parties that intend for future serves within these areas, theoretical plans do not work in such areas which required an enormous amount of practices, and there is no ideal environment for ideal operations (~49:00 – 51:00).