Search

This was created to support the existing Good Samaritan Policy. The afformentioned policy would not be applicable during biohazard or chemhazard events due to the policy that involve such events. This could cause a delay in treatment that could potentially lead to the deaths of the affected community. In order to allow for treatment without delay the hazard issues would be 'ignored' by the EPA and the responders not prosecuted. They would also receives support from the EPA and FOSC for protecting themselves from any damages lawsuits coming from the potential contamination from the response.

I read through some information about the Bhopal disaster that was referenced, as well as some other articles on Nuclear Emergency Response. I also found some protocol for Radiation Sickness. (Potassium Iodide, Prussian Blue, DTPA, Neupogen)

The author speaks of Dr. Per Bech, a Dutch Psychiatrist, and his co-author Lone Lindberg, and his patient who suffered from mental illness over the course of his life, and how the vignette Bech wrote about this patient had value and relevance for understanding the use of Zoloft.

More studies referencing corpses and their effects on epidemics

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/envsan/tn08/en/

Emergency preparedness in developing nations

How EMS deals epidemics

EMS protocol for spit

Usual punishments for abuse by Police

Other stories of similar events

Adriana Petryna is a professor of anthropology at UC Berkeley. Her primary research area is on medical anthropology, social studies in science/technology, and eastern europe. 

Doctors without Borders has facilities in many countries already established for humanitarian aid. For instance, they had been in Haiti since 1991, so their assistance in 2010 was aided by their already established position there. In that case they upped their projects within the country in response to the disaster.

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. 

The article is a report on an occurence where two EMTs witnessed four NYPD officers beat a patient on the stretcher. The author supports the story with quotes from the report written by the EMTs.