Search

Linking messages of community pride with political opposition to intrusion by petrochemical companies has interesting implications for collaborations across communities. Does this message enable partnerships in other regions and nations, and what is its relationship to the not-in-my-backyard/NIMBY mentality? How may it be interpreted in differing cultural and language contexts? 

This article are main to referre to the Haiti's government, United Nations and USAID. Haiti's government is continuing political turmoil, and it influenced the organisation for the rebuilding after the earthquake. The government exploits the donation for children vaccination rates and HIV treatment in post disaster. These actions and auttitudes break the deals between other organisations' supporting. Due to these reasons, U.N. persuade member nations to reduce the supporting. Therefore, the restore after the disaster and cholera are so slow. USAID is United States agency for international development, and it has donated Haiti $1.5 billion since earthquake, but Haiti's people are not really can get the support.

The artical shows the political and government really influence the people's health and emergency. Haiti's government disappointed all the other oganisations and it makes the restore difficult after the eaarthquake and cholera epidemic. The artical descrpites the situation and fact in the 5 years after the disaster. In addition, the reactions of the involved organisations such as United Nations are shows the problem and the result that where the money go. There are also applied examples to support why the donation are not final go to the Haiti's people, and Haiti's government is deal-killer. Apart from this, the artical shows if there are not enough economic fund and medical supporting after disaster, there might be a epidemic comes up, and make the situation worse. All the donation and support are should be in good organisation to help people and rebuild the environment.

The government should organise all the source and fund for the disaster. Using good political to communicate with other nations and organisation who offer the supporting. Make sure the people get help such as money, food and water. As well as help people get back confident to government, therefore the government need to manage the sources in suitable areas. Medical supporting and equipment are offered for more saving and treatment. To provide the epidemic comes up post disaster, the government and organisations should be care about the weather, environment and other circumstances. If Haiti's government can help people get the supporting on fundings and others, it can really make the Haiti's restore and control the cholera epidemic. In addtion, it might can bring the confident from U.N. and other organisations.

Byron Good, Ph.D., is a professor of Medical Anthropology at Harvard Medical School. His primary area of research is mental illness and how social perceptions evolves around these issues, in terms of both treatment and social acceptance. Dr. Good has several works on these issues, including several that explore the perspective of bio-medicine in non-western medical knowledge, the cultural meaning of mental illness, and patient narrative during illness. His publications including several papers, books, and edited volumes; he is regarded as a major contributor to the field of psychological anthropology. 

The article primarily asserts that how a patient narrates or describes their medical history is deeply rooted in their native culture. As such, physicians must be aware of how an individual's medical experiences can be altered based on this. In turn, physicians must recognize the importance of story-telling and anecdotes when receiving information directly from patients. Narratives project the patient's experience and events through their perspective, granting professionals a glimpse into their thought processes and action patterns.

The author, Byron J. Good, is a Harvard professor in the department of global health and social medicine. He is the director of the International Mental Health Training Program, and has significant experience with field research that has led to many publications.

The article’s main argument is that the narration of an illness is founded in the emotional connection it has to the sufferers life, the place from which they view the illness which includes individual and cultural aspects. Furthermore any lack of factual accuracy is an indicator of the social and cultural environment in which the illness presents itself and is revealing as to how it will be perceived and treated.

The main argument is supported primarily through interviews with many individuals living in Ankara, through which they describe the first presentation of their seizures and in many cases the steps they tool to attempt a cure. Along with the interviews, statistics of the individuals interviewed and their diagnoses is used to provide a reference point to better understand their stories. Finally the article includes an analysis of narratives in a more general sense that can be applied to the narrative of an illness.

• “… illness narratives - both the corpus of story episodes and the larger life "story" or illness narrative to which they contribute - have elements in common with fiction. They have a plot; succession is ordered as history or event, given configuration.” (164)
• “The diverse accounts of the illness in these narratives represent alternative plots, a telling of the story in different ways, each implying a different source of efficacy and the possibility of an alternative ending to the story. My point is not that persons having access to a plural medical system do not simply choose among alternative forms of healing but instead draw on all of them” (155)
• “Predicament, human striving, and an unfolding in time toward a conclusion are thus central to the syntax of human stories, and all of these, as we will see, are important to stories about illness experience.” (145)