Search

This policy would help provide first responders and technical professionals with specific information on a nuclear emergency from a forign source which they could be responding to. This information could allow them to more effectively mitigate the effects of such a disaster. 

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

Funding for the American Red Cross comes primarily from individual and corporate donations. They are funded by the people to serve the people.

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. 

I looked up

1. International response to the Ebola epidemic

- from http://ebolaresponse.un.org/liberia

   I learned about how the UN coordinated various organizations, including UNICEF, the World Food Programme, and the WHO in their individual persuits to end the transmission of ebola in Liberia, including providing food, hygene kits, medical supplies and care, and how within 3 months of international joint operations the transmission rate of ebola was deacreased to zero.

2. Health Care in Liberia

Source http://www.aho.afro.who.int/profiles_information/index.php/Liberia:Index

While physical access to primary health care has improved dramatically across Liberia, from one health facility serving an average of 8000 population in 2006 to one health facility per 5500 population in 2009, it is still not nearly enough, and the existing resources of medications, supplies, and facilities can and do become overwhelmed when faced with new challenges. 

3. Liberain public health response to the ebola crisis.

- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/world/africa/ebola-response-in-liberi…

As international support came into the country at the outbreak of ebola, Liberian public health structures and political institutions were unable to cope with the new strains and were rendered ineffective. Meetings between liberian health officials and international organizations that were lauded to the public as being "effective" were consistantly bogged down in politics, resulting in the inefficient implimentation of programs and the poor distribution of despritely needed resources.

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. 

Emergency response is not specifically mentioned in this article, as the focus of the article is investigation in the aftermath of disaster. In some cases, such as the Iroquois Theater Fire and the World Trade Center, investigations found that had more adequite emergency fire response been available at the time of the accident the outcome of the disaster could have been much different.

The article diuscusses the sociopolitical factors effecting populations who were exposed during the chernobyl disaster. It looks at effected population's access to healthcare, and government interventions effecting the post disaster recovery, resettlement, and healthcare. The article establises that there is an entire society built up in the chernobyl effected community which people are entirely dependant on health care systems and the politics governing them take the prescident over many other issues.

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.