Didier Fassian is a french anthropologist and sociologist with extensive global field work. He currently teaches as a professor in the School of Social Science in the Institute for Advanced Study. Fassin, although trained as an internal medicine specialist, focuses the vast body of his publication and research focuses on the intersection of the State, justice, and humanitarianism.
1) Jean-Pierre Chevenement: a key player in passing this immigration legislation, the leader has since stepped away from the political scene after running for the presidency in 2002. As the sitting minister, Mr. Chevenement has been described as a key member of the left; I'd be intrigued to see what other pieces of legislation he has worked on
2) Didier Fassin: Dr. Fassin, a reigning expert in french state anthropology, appears to bring an element of medical background to his analysis. Obviously, he seems to be a well-respected member of the anthropological community-- where and what other projects he has on-going would be interesting
3) French healthcare: this type of legislation obviously puts a tremendous amount of strain on the general healthcare; depending on the system utilized by the French state, this could have a detrimental effect on the quality and timing of care delivered.
The chapter appears to be a compilation of accounts of immigrant medical treatments and overviews of the historical context behind several key situations. There is no bibliography, making it difficult to discern where these accounts came from. I can only assume most of this historical context came from Fissan's peers or other peer-reviewed works-- potentially another anthropological book.
The article pays tribute to the development of immigrants into French residency due to medical issues. Should an immigrant have a serious medical condition, and be unable to procure adequate medical care in their home nation, they would be given residency. This was a curious ascent for immigrants in status; the loss of immigrant workers as an integral portion of the economy had led to a general public distaste for immigration.
The very nature of the law made it very subject to individual interpretation-- creating divisions within the health care system. Fassin notes some instances where this interpretation caused the law to fail; discontinuity between medical professionals created situations where similar conditions were met with opposing decisions. Moreover, as cited by Fassin, this also led to several scenarios where doctors allowed their personal opinions on immigration to sway their decisions.
1) "In this new state of social world, the body of the immigrant has become illegitimate as labor force, since it is always suspected of deleteriously affecting the job market, but the body of the foreigner has found a new source of legitimacy through illness, which, under certain conditions of seriousness and impossibility of receiving treatment in the country of origin, makes it possible to obtain a residence permit on "humanitarian grounds."
2) "Yet the variation in medical opinions observed was due less to the form of the procedure than to the use the medical officer made of it."
3) "Evaluation of this criterion, however, was not the outcome of a unilateral decision by the examining doctor or the social worker. Foreigners and their families might also develop tactics once they knew how the system worked."
This article primarily focuses on a French law instituted in 1997 allowing for the acceptance of immigrant residents on the basis of illness. This landmark law deviated from the typical methodologies of achieving residency-- most often through work or familial/marital ties. The article examines this "humanitarian reason" for immigrant inclusion, discussing the historical progression to its creation and how it can be implemented. The article also discusses how and why this criteria came to be-- how the bodily capability of an immigrant could suddenly ascend to such a high level of regard.