Search

The majority of the information obtained for this report comes from the work of the four authors. As members of Partners in Health or clinicians, these individuals have seen first hand the effects of social violence in patient care. Moreover, they have witnessed the effectiveness of addressing these ills to better patient outcomes. Some information was also gathered from past studies, including a report by Moore et al. detailing Baltimore's racial discrepancies in care and patient outcomes.

True to the article's sentiments, many of the works cited in the bibliography are entries from news agencies, such as The Lancet, UPenn Press (the university paper) & The Guardian. There is even a citation for a blog entry. There are several releases from organizations, such as MSF and WHO, but it is unclear whether these are reports, official press statements, or opinion articles produced by workers. Additionally, there are several entries for articles from PubMed, indicating that there may be some information in the form of actual research articles.

The film is primarily the narratives of many first responders, so they play a large roll in the meassage being protrayed. They are seen as heros but also paid the price of their decisions through health issues.

1) The article begins by articulating the four domains that "biosecurity" supposedly encompasses. Yet, even just by looking at these four domains with a basic knowledge of current events, one can understand these are all far from having any sense of stability. Just recently, more reports emerged of use of chlorine gas and other agents against citizens in Syria. Reluctance to vaccination has led to a re-emergence of measles and pertussis across the US. 

2) Increase awareness and attention does not always result in cooperative and cohesive actions. While there may be movement to address certain issues, this does not always encompass details of how to attack certain public concerns. One of the main examples cited in the article was a small pox scenario termed "Dark Winter". Here, officials struggled to gauge the possibility of a small pox bioterrorism attack with the cost and effect of the small pox vaccine-- which can result in death. The conflicting results of the scenario between healthcare personnel "on the ground", government officials, and the CDC's difficulty in gauging a credible threat level led to a dismissal of the program.

3) Many of the approaches by global agencies touted as medical agencies primarily center on emergency response protocols. This modality prepares them for quick, short responses to emergency problems, while neglecting long-term intervention. The article argues this approach is preferred because of the galvanizing, global responses emergencies have-- they garner attention and resources quickly, while long-term problems do not. Additionally, short-term presence is far easier to prepare for than implementing long-term solutions to medical scenarios. 

No bibliography was given, but the citations that are used in the article are likely from medical records or government records of some sort.

Several sources are utilized in compiling Dr. Knowles' argument. Much of the historical information comes from first-hand accounts provided at the time and compiled for posterity. A good portion of information also emerges from news articles produced in the wake of the event. This includes interviews and press releases. Historical court documentation and correspondences between parties are used for depiction of events and subsequent investigations. Several aanalysis pieces by historians also appear to be used. When discussing the parallels between scenarios, Dr. Knowles relies on his own logic to fully connect the events.

It is difficult to determine where this document comes from. It deals with medicaid, so it is related to the government and healthcare.

The article pays tribute to the development of immigrants into French residency due to medical issues. Should an immigrant have a serious medical condition, and be unable to procure adequate medical care in their home nation, they would be given residency. This was a curious ascent for immigrants in status; the loss of immigrant workers as an integral portion of the economy had led to a general public distaste for immigration.

The very nature of the law made it very subject to individual interpretation-- creating divisions within the health care system. Fassin notes some instances where this interpretation caused the law to fail; discontinuity between medical professionals created situations where similar conditions were met with opposing decisions. Moreover, as cited by Fassin, this also led to several scenarios where doctors allowed their personal opinions on immigration to sway their decisions.

It is supported by the 1992 and 2003 General Conference Resolutions, which provided the basis or understanding that there was a need for programs like this one.