Doctors without Borders is comprised of physicians and other healthcare professionals. They also have some support staff workers who take care of clerical things so that those in the field can have the best support and deliver the best care possible.
The information used to produce and support the arguments made in the article comes from a number of articles and reports, as well as interviews. For example, the author communicated with the former scientific director of Spetsatom and used that information to form a better image of the situation post-Chernobyl. This information could then be contrasted to other disasters and the organizations formed in the aftermath. The author could then use research papers as a source for statistical data, as well as scientific reports as a basis for the disaster’s existence and its implications. These all together are used to form an interdisciplinary view of disaster relief, and the steps needed to prevent and respond to another nuclear disaster.
The report quite clearly details the need to change our approaches to healthcare and epidemic emergencies. Currently, we seem to address these events in a singular method, and are unwilling to alter this approach. This is partially due to the narrow scope of patient care; for the most part, administering care to patients follows a standard guideline that does not seek to reach beyond that singular case. It is beyond the scope of a practitioner to attempt to mitigate socioeconomic discrepancies within their clinics alone. However, as Farmer and his colleagues argue, broadening this standard is necessary to combat illness. Biosocial factors, not just medicinal factors, need to be tackled in order to fully combat disease.
It was difficult to figure where this article had been referenced or discussed. It was included in a volume of History and Technology, so it would have been distributed along with the rest of the articles in the book. On "researchgate.net" it did not list anyone who had cited it, so my assumption is that it is not heavily referred to outside of this class.
The largest challenge faced by the ARC seems to be organizing such a large group of volunteers for specific response. There are so many different pieces to disaster respones, and with mostly volunteers organizing things, a strong central leadership is needed, which seems to be lacking in the group as a whole.
The article seems to be primarily composed of thoughts from the author supported by evidence from historical, well-known occurrences. Moreover, both authors seem to have personal research in the fields identified here, making many of their arguments based on field experiences. There are cited reports and publications, but there does not appear to be an associated "Works Cited" page provided.
Emergency response isn't addressed in this report. This report deals with higher-level policy and morality issues.
The rise and emergence of infectious diseases has led to a number of puclic health "scares" over the years. The creation of national and international frameworks, as well as focus groups, has brought the struggle of infectious diseases like AIDS to light. Looking at diseases with the combined inputs of governmental and philanthropic organizations has had a positive influence on the fight against them. In the realm of bioterrorism, many factors are at play. First is the terrorist act itself and the social issues that lead to a terrorist being created. Then there is themethod, which is the numerous diseases that can be weaponized. These diseases are researched at the government level as potential additions to the arsenal of weapons a country has. However, they are also used at the individual level. With highly educated individuals and any number of social ideologies, the risk for bioterrorism increases. By looking at bioterrorism through the lens of both a social expert and scientist, the roots of bioterrorism can be examined.
The causes for these examinations are events that have had a largescale effect on multiple levels of expertise. These "focusing events" have a lot of factors and players, and thus require a lot of different views to analyze, as the article argues.
This article particularly focuses on analysis in the aftermath of emergencies. Specifically, in the investigative processes of structural disasters. It highlights the awkward melding of various agencies in the face of public demand for answers. More than anything, it presents this instability in the investigative processes surrounding many emergencies; understanding the logistics of a building's collapse or how a fire rapidly spread only furthers comprehension of the disaster as a whole. Moreover, findings from this analysis could provide strategies for avoiding future emergencies of a similar nature. The article opens investigations for scrutiny, asking why such an integral part of the post-disaster process often gets swept aside.
Emergency responders as a unique group aren't discussed or portrated in the film. However, the doctors had to take on the role of emergency responders often, while not neccesarily being emergency doctors. The question in the film became whether or not the doctors were prepared for these roles, and if they had the energy to dedicate to them. Some doctors burn out, and others thrive, but regardless they are challenged to make sacrifices that emergency responders often must decide on.