Search

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 first portion of the article focuses on the shift of sexual violence from a woman's rights issue to the larger title of "gender-violence". From there, Dr. Ticktin argues the nuances of this transition necessitated medicalizing sexual violence, and turned it into a condition to be treated by tools within the humanitarian kit. Just as how we now attempt to treat polio by handing out vaccines and flyers, rape is covered by blanket protocols and procedures. In attempts to make this issue more respected, we sacrificed the nuances of care necessary for adequate treatment.

This is further exemplified in Dr. Ticktin's description of humanitarian aid-- the preservation of life itself, with disregard to the kind of life being lived. She goes on to contend that sexual violence is by its very definition a "kind" of life, thus creating an inherent conflict in the overarching goal of treating sexual violence and humanitarian interventions.

Dr. Ticktin also pays respect to the inherent difficulty in maintaining the typical principles used during humanitarian aid efforts, especially when attempting to treat gender violence. One of her primary examples is the work of MSF in the Congo Republic. During the conflict, roadblocks would be set by armed men, and thus MSF were forced to accept military escorts-- destroying the key humanitarian tenant of neutrality. Moreover, many of these militia men were perpetrators of the sexual violence, something MSF was seeking to treat. 

Emergency response is literally the main focus of the entire article. While it seems to be only a short chapter in a much larger collection of similar essays, the report fully analyzes past and present responses to nuclear emergencies. Moreover, Dr. Schmid builds a case for how future emergencies should be handled by an international team built on expertise. This includes expertise of nuclear energy, disaster response, and nuclear policy/regulation. While she refrains from commenting fully on whether the response mounted for Fukushima can be classified as "good" or "bad", her assertions indicates a need to shift focus from preventing emergencies to how nations respond to nuclear emergencies.