The author addresses public health by making the case that “evidence based medicine” is not always there for every type of case nor is it always infallible. This effects emergency response where there are so many variables and there are no datasets, protocols, or studies for some cases.
This article has been referenced in dozens of other papers on the topic of Katrina recovery and the effects the disaster had on its survivors. One of which is cited below:
Adams, Vincanne et al. “Aging Disaster: Mortality, Vulnerability, and Long-Term Recovery Among Katrina Survivors.” Medical anthropology 30.3 (2011): 247–270. PMC. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.
There are far more articles that have cited this specific work, many of them having to do with Katrina disaster recovery specifically, as well as preventative measures or vulnerabilities that the area had pre hurricane. It is also important to note that the article is also discussed by numerous governmental agencies as well.
The article: “Structural Violence and Clinical Medicine” is about the social structures that play into “violence” (anything that causes harm physically, socially, or otherwise). The research seeks to establish the importance of biosocial understanding in the medical field when trying to understand medical problems.
The majority of the facts originated from MSF (also known as Doctors Without Borders) essays/studies/experiences as well as several other outside works as cited.
The correlations between mental health disorders and EMS is discussed since those in emergency response are more open to suffer form mental disorders in the midst of disasters. Aside form that the focus was more on how to better study vulnerable populations who have experienced trauma, such as EMS.
The main argument Stephen and Andrew make is that the systems for biosecurity interventions at the global level have many issues to address, solve, and improve on in regards to biosecurity, global health and emergency response, health security and modernization risks, and toward critical, reflexive knowledge.
The article is supported through the use of numerous examples and educated points made by the author. First, the author supports her arguments by going through the events that transpired that day at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. She uses the details of the events in Japan to support her argument that a global emergency nuclear response team is necessary. Schmid also cites other areas in the world where this was an issue and protocols were not clear. Ultimately which caused the incidences at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, all of which would have benefited from a response team equipped and specially trained to deal with this type of situation. The author cites that incidences at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were the result of systems that were too complex, tightly coupled and technical, ultimately not allowing broad policy changes when needed. The author also cites that this occurred in one of the world's most advanced areas in the world, both technologically and economically. She states that having scientists and the elite left to make decisions about responses to disasters alone further proves her point and supports her arguments. She also notes that current organizations have little international authority and often suffer when attempting to include or talk to the public in terms of these situation which doesn't allow for full integration with the public. She notes the importance of this integration, but also that world leaders are attempting to do so and see how beneficial this is. She compared the way previous situations similar to that in Japan was handled and she mapped out new regulations that arose based off each of those incidences in order to see what can further be implemented as a blanket response globally for all nations in a situation like this.
This is a 180 page document that has hundreds of components in terms of what information, as well as measures and advice that the report includes and recommends. The report contains information on the radioactive release amounts and deposition in the urban, environmental, agricultural and aquatic areas surrounding the plant. Recommendations for future monitoring and research are also provided. Countermeasures are also widely discussed and ways in which people can combat and help reverse effects of the radiation and evacuations. The effects the disaster had on plants and animals is also analyzed and supported by facts and figures. The amount of human exposure and recommendations are also discussed. Future trends are analyzed as well as very detailed reports of the weather during the time of the incident, how that effected things, how specific types of animals were effected, the differences between external and internal doses. A break down of the impact on air, shelter, surface water, groundwater etc. is also provided. Needless to say, pretty much any single detail that could possibly be known about the condition during the event and after the event were researched and documented in this report.
This film, I feel, best addresses those trying to understand the broader social impacts of a disease which can include government officials and policy makers, first responders, emergency personal and more.
The authors support their argument many ways, one being how that the rates of HIV/AIDS are so positively linked and correlated with social arrangements that it is often referred to as social disease. HIV commonly effects those that are poor and disease rates are fueled by gender inequality, racism and poverty. The article discusses how structural violence has influenced HIV progression. The article cites that structural violence influences diagnosis rates, staging and treatment. The also article references a study done in Baltimore which reports racism and poverty forms of structural violence and the effects on excess mortality among African Americans without insurance- ultimately showing they were more likely to to be susceptible. The authors also used other historical data and research to support heir claims. Efforts through Partners in Health were made to prevent the spread and transmission of diseases in Haiti. The efforts made in Haiti and Rwanda were cited, both the positives and negatives. The article also discusses ways to incorporate more interventions to help eliminate any social influences of disease.