Search

                The main argument Stephen and Andrew make is that the systems for biosecurity interventions at the global level have many issues to address, solve, and improve on in regards to biosecurity, global health and emergency response, health security and modernization risks, and toward critical, reflexive knowledge. 

The article is supported through the use of numerous examples and educated points made by the author. First, the author supports her arguments by going through the events that transpired that day at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. She uses the details of the events in Japan to support her argument that a global emergency nuclear response team is necessary. Schmid also cites other areas in the world where this was an issue and protocols were not clear. Ultimately which caused the incidences at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, all of which would have benefited from a response team equipped and specially trained to deal with this type of situation. The author cites that incidences at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were the result of systems that were too complex, tightly coupled  and technical, ultimately not allowing broad policy changes when needed. The author also cites that this occurred in one of the world's most advanced areas in the world, both technologically and economically. She states that having scientists and the elite left to make decisions about responses to disasters alone further proves her point and supports her arguments. She also notes that current organizations have little international authority and often suffer when attempting to include or talk to the public in terms of these situation which doesn't allow for full integration with the public. She notes the importance of this integration, but also that world leaders are attempting to do so and see how beneficial this is. She compared the way previous situations similar to that in Japan was handled and she mapped out new regulations that arose based off each of those incidences in order to see what can further be implemented as a blanket response globally for all nations in a situation like this.

The Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion in 1986 led to a ten day reactor fire that resulted in a large and unknown amount of radiation spilling into the surrounding areas in Ukraine. This caused the contamination of the environments and those around the reactor. Hundreds of thousands of people had to evacuate and to this day it remains to be an issue. Due to this controversy that still surrounds this disaster, the IAEA, FAO, UNDP, UNEP, OCHA, UNSCEAR and WHO created the Chernobyl Forum. They generate "authoritative consensual statements" on the environmental consequences due to the radiation exposure. Ultimately they and this event in Chernobyl are what called for this report. 

This film, I feel, best addresses those trying to understand the broader social impacts of a disease which can include government officials and policy makers, first responders, emergency personal and more.

The authors support their argument many ways, one being how that the rates of HIV/AIDS are so positively linked and correlated with social arrangements that it is often referred to as social disease. HIV commonly effects those that are poor and disease rates are fueled by gender inequality, racism and poverty. The article discusses how structural violence has influenced HIV progression. The article cites that structural violence influences diagnosis rates, staging and treatment. The also article references a study done in Baltimore which reports racism and poverty forms of structural violence and the effects on excess mortality among African Americans without insurance- ultimately showing  they were more likely to to be susceptible. The authors also used other historical data and research to support heir claims. Efforts through Partners in Health were made to prevent the spread and transmission of diseases in Haiti. The efforts made in Haiti and Rwanda were cited, both the positives and negatives. The article also discusses ways to incorporate more interventions to help eliminate any social influences of disease. 

This article mainly notes on the influences of culture on patients and their depiction of their medical history. The way a patient describes a narrative of their illness depends on their beliefs, set of morals, culture and customs in which they are used to and identify with. There is a correlation with the physicality of an illness and how it is perceived by their culture along with the way they depict it to professionals and pursue alleviating the issue. The importance of doctors recognizing this cultural influence and perhaps raising of stigmas is also reported since it can deeply impact the way a patient is taken care of and treated. 

Emergency response is not the focal point of this article; instead preventing future disasters by investigating and making necessary regulations or improvements.

A main concern is the fact that no disaster will ever be the same. A hurricane in one area will be very different in another area, despite the same source of destruction. This is because each areas has a different population, different needs  and different services available in each area. The most challenging part is the ability to foresee what might be good resources or equipment or forms of medical care and best to supply at each different disaster since each one is unique. 

I further researched the history of sexual violence and its role in times of war, since its use as a weapon was mentioned. I also researched the background of sexual violence and stigmas that are associated with them in the countries mentioned in the article, in order to better understand underlying meanings and cultural struggles aside from the obvious atrocities of the violent act. Also since Medecins Sans Frontieres kept being cited, I did further research on them since much of the study was based off their findings, this lead me to further study Doctors Without Borders, which is what it is commonly known as in the US.