Search

I found the part where the healthcare worker relates to the difficulty of his position most compelling and persuasive. A man on the burial team talks about some of the challenges he faced. He says that they are in denial about the disease. For example, a man’s wife died from the disease. They took the body and marked the room with the health tattoo, do not enter and barricaded the door. A health team was tasked to disinfect the building but the moment they left the husband bust the door down and went inside. He died as well. “You see the challenges? You tell people, don’t do this, they pass behind you go do it, don’t do this, they say we are eating free money, the government is lying”.

                I was probably influenced by the fact that I am a healthcare worker and while not the same situation, I can relate to his dilemma. 

1) Gender violence against humanitarian workers.

2) Gender violence that exists within the humanitarian organizations themselves.

3) How gender violence is interpreted and perceived by different cultures. 

More focus on the care, treatment, containment, and management of contagious diseases like Ebola would have increased its educational value, especially to first responders.

1) International courts came to agreement that gender based acts of violence, such as rape, constitute a crime against humanity.

2)  When gender is erased from the picture it removes the why, what, and how of the incident as well as ting to be uniform in care but also recognizing biological differences between men and women, gender differences and how that changes treatment, care, and outcome.

3) Human rights activists have been championing to address violence against women since the 1980s which later turned into “gender based violence” so that it would broaden the scope to include any gender. 

Emergency responders were not the main focus of the film but were portrayed as having to deal with difficult situations that they had little real control over, mostly because the state was portrayed as trying to do the right thing but making things worse. The consequences of the government fell on the emergency workers. The doctors and responders had to risk personal safety and had to deal with people not trusting them and ignoring their requests.

The majority of citations are attributed to MSF and other humanitarian organizations. This incite frames the viewpoint from which this article was made.

There were a few notable viewpoints that were not included. First, those on the international level, but also the doctors and those managing the outbreak (other than the one Ebola response member that was interviewed). 

The main argument of the article is that humanitarian efforts are far behind progress when it comes to gender violence due to politics, stereo types, and prioritization. 

Several stakeholders are presented in this film. First, the families in the communities that were affected. This especially focused on Emmanuel Urey’s family who had to decide to leave some of their children behind in Liberia as they could not secure the necessary affidavits to bring them all to the US. Next, The first responders who have to deal with a public that does not trust them and does not follow health instruction. The government is the last main stakeholder presented in the film. They are trying to control the disease as well as treat those already infected which has many social issues on top of the medical issues such as starvation, water shortages, and shooting their own citizens to enforce the measures designed to protect them.

I had difficulty finding direct discussion of that particular chapter, but according to Google Scholar there are 22 citations of the larger work, some of which cite this particular chapter.