Search

1) "It is important to note that these changes that incorporated gender-based violence into the human rights realm also brought the law to bear as a primary instrument of change and struggle. Calling this ‘governance feminism’, Janet Halley argues that this was the work of a certain group of feminists who came together in the 1990s, taking criminal law as a primary instrument of reform, and working in a top-down fashion to institute punishment for a global war against women."

2) "This approach inherently limits the mode of intervention. The mandate of humanitarianism – again, as defined by the new wave of ‘sans frontiere-ism’ exemplified by ` MSF – is not to reform or improve the kind of life one lives, only to preserve life itself. And yet gender-based violence is about the kind of life one lives. Under the rubric of human rights, freedom from gender-based violence is part of a parcel of rights that define what it means to be human in ways that include the right to be free from violence, the right to equality and the right to dignity"

3) "In MSF’s General Assembly debate, Rony Brauman, the former president of MSF, suggested that rather than descending into politics, humanitarians should make a distinction between describing what one witnesses, and qualifying it, which entails making a judgement. He asked one of the MSF Holland representatives, ‘How do you know the women were raped? Did you see it happening?’ Brauman proposed sticking close to what one sees, and letting others take it from there – he felt strongly that MSF should not have called for action. For him, and many others, humanitarianism is not about justice, politics or taking sides. The MSF Holland representative responded that there was a slippery slope between political neutrality and irresponsibility, and a fierce debate ensued"

Dr. Schmid's fourteen-page report includes an additional four pages of references. These references date from mid-twentieth century (1961) to mid-summer 2012 (publication of the book was 2013). The list includes studies, reports, policies, review articles, and publications, spanning from radiation absorption of Strontium to overarching reviews of nuclear energy to organizational reliability studies. These sources, if nothing else, indicate Dr. Schmid has crafted her report from multiple angles, and is not simply re-hashing Fukushima reviews. 

As mentioned earlier, this group is heavily experienced in dealing with traumatic injuries and responding to larger scenes. I imagine the hardest challenge they face is funding; they typically run on a budget made of a few hundred thousand dollars. This encompasses salaries for some personnel (although the vast majority are voluntary), classes for CPR, EMT, First aid certification, and supplies. With such a large call volume of complex cases (think of all the resources needed to treat an individual with multiple gun shots to the chest or someone who has been stabbed several times), this is quite extraordinary that they can function adequately with such little funding.

According to Google, this article has been cited by 370 other papters since its 2006 publication. Moreover, any article discussing Farmer, Partners in Health, or any of the other authors alludes to this and several other reports.

This article seems to focus more on the overarching theme of global medicine. This does include aspects of emergency response (such as discussing how various agencies respond to emergencies or how they formulate protocols) as biosecurity seeks to minimize or eradicate health emergencies. However, as the article contends, biosecurity is not a functional ideal at this time; it primarily contends that our current models of biosecurity are undermined by several factors, leaving them as simply emergency responses.

This article seems to be primarily cited by other articles concerning historical disasters. It appears, for the most part, to be very under-cited by the research community. This may be due to its nature as a primarily historical analysis of a very under represented issue. Many competing articles seem to focus on more substantial issues with direct effects on communities or directly point out failures that led to significant reduction in response capability. As argued in the article, it can be very difficult to press issues without public encouragement for the topic. 

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.