Search

The policy addresses the "vulnerable" population of EMS personnel who are underprepared or not accompanied by law enforcement officers.

Funding appears to come from the university, along with the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. 

This has been referenced in a number of articles involving similar topics. 

This was a retrospective study. While not the most accurate and well supported way to conduct a study, due to the effects of recall bias, it was really the only way to gain the data that was presented in the report. There isn't really anything new about the style of research. 

The policy definitely provides a good amount of suport for a large amount of people affected. However, certain populations are left out of this. The large number of transiet persons, as well as non-resident people, in New York City is enourmous. These people were surely affected by the attacks, but are not included in the policy. This is, of course, understandable, as tracking the presence of these people's is nearly impossible nearly 10 years after the attacks. Regardless, it is a flaw in the policy. 

I was unable to find the number of currently active field missions for MSF, but I found information on the process of working for MSF. Each year they send about 2500 international aid workers (not just doctors) to many countries. These people are put alongside locally hired medical personnel to complete the missions. The process for becoming a volunteer is a bit long, with lots of requirements. Candidates need experience in their discipline, experience in management/ teaching, language skills, and previous experience in a humanitarian environment. From the film, it didn't seem that all the doctors had this experience, namely Davinder. MSF also likes that candidates have profficieny in French.

While looking at the FAQs on the US website, I found an interesting portion regarding care facilities and missions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. The MSF has a section defending their care in that area, but it is posed in the form of questions like "Why are you taking sides? You seem biased" or "Why are you getting involved in this but choose to stay neutral in other conflicts around the world?" It just strikes me as strangely unprofessional to have it phrased that way. The answers also seem very defensive in a reactionary manner. I just honestly thought it could have been phrased better or not included at all. It is information that maybe a few people might find useful, but would be better placed in a press release or answered by a recruiter.

I also learned that, interestingly enough, 90 percent of the medical professionals are local rather than international. They are trained by the international staff so as to provide a continuity of care. The film didn't really portray that fact, and made it seem like the clinic would have nearly no staff once the international doctors left.

They interviewed and used outside interviews of the people affected by the disaster. They also used other articles, research, and media to support the story and their beliefs. 

The main point is that their was water contamination on a military base that caused cancer in several people, including servicemen and their children. The government/military covered it up and this led to a bit of a scandal.