Search

1)            Factors affecting disease (HIV/AIDS) outcome in different biosocial settings are radically different despite similar, established “risk-factors” in lifestyles/behaviors for individuals. This is because biosocial factors play an important role that is far often overlooked by current medical systems and policies.

2)            mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV, antiretroviral therapy (ART) and infant formula (preventing pediatric aids transmission through mother). MTCT of HIV is driven through universal breastfeeding being mainly pushed by the existing medical structures of the local and international healthcare policy makers. They claimed that the difficulty giving access to infant formula in rural areas and stigma around signing up for an HIV project doomed it to failure; however the projects in Rwanda and Haiti proved otherwise, when the structural “violence” was addressed. This was done mainly by giving both distal and proximal support and care as well as addressing the other social-economic barriers to good medical care in these communities.

3)            When locals, who are much more aware of the areas biosocial setting, implications and problems, are utilized in the medical system, the results are multifold. Proximal care provided by an accompagnateur not only reduces barriers to care such as traveling to a hospital for basic medicine, but also creates jobs that contribute to raising the quality of life which is another major factor when examining structural “violence”.

The arguments are supported by the stories told by individuals and families and cultural reasearch to help understand the stories.

Emergency response is addressed in how it should respond to gender violence in crises from a global/national/organizational perspective, effecting the end result and care on the ground.

1)            In domains of biosecurity: bio-terrorism (smallpox, anthrax, etc.), emerging infectious diseases (AIDS, tuberculosis [TB], malaria, etc.), life science (intention production of various deadly organisms for research or otherwise), and food safety (animal borne pathogens and diseases like mad cow, E. coli, etc.)

2)            Global health and emergency response: The DOTS (Directly-Observed Treatment, Short-Course) program failed in several areas to be a service-ready anywhere in the globe for drug resistant TB in places like Georgia. The strict regulations in treatment did not account for the variance in doctor training and practices in this area of the world. Its rigidness led to the breakdown of the protocol adherence.

3)            Health security and modernization risks: As the world modernizes, we generate new risks that need to be addressed. For example, in the 20th century, the technological and system advancements in agriculture and food processing have aided in consistent and increased food supply, but also introduced new problems such as sanitation practices and diseases that led to the creation of the Food and Drug Administration and the expansion of the Department of Agriculture.

Women in some countries are much more familiar and used to rape, in fact, they will openly answer questions about it in front of others. There is debate as to whether rape should be treated the same as other humanitarian efforts, or differently, as each way has benefits and drawbacks for the feminist movements and for humanitarian workers. This pushes humanitarianism to a stage with politics, world progress, and other changes. They only meant to help those in need, but by using their work to see where changes can be made, the world will hopefully be a better place.

The author compares existing and previous nuclear regulation/safety/etc committees, analyzing differences between them and various shortcomings. This information is used to develop the author's idea of a more effective and safe oganization to enforce regulations and train an emergency response team.

The author also looked at how previous emergencies were handled and what new regulations stemmed from each, as well as how those have worked since their implementation, and what more can be done.

There were a few notable viewpoints that were not included. First, those on the international level, but also the doctors and those managing the outbreak (other than the one Ebola response member that was interviewed).