The film is geared towards the general public, all medical terms are explained fairly well. No medical or first response background is necessary, and it is fairly educational for viewers.
The article seems to be primarily composed of thoughts from the author supported by evidence from historical, well-known occurrences. Moreover, both authors seem to have personal research in the fields identified here, making many of their arguments based on field experiences. There are cited reports and publications, but there does not appear to be an associated "Works Cited" page provided.
Byron Good, Ph.D., is a professor of Medical Anthropology at Harvard Medical School. His primary area of research is mental illness and how social perceptions evolves around these issues, in terms of both treatment and social acceptance. Dr. Good has several works on these issues, including several that explore the perspective of bio-medicine in non-western medical knowledge, the cultural meaning of mental illness, and patient narrative during illness. His publications including several papers, books, and edited volumes; he is regarded as a major contributor to the field of psychological anthropology.
Rikers is not safe for inmates due to a varitey of factors, for example, the CO2 emissions, the extreme heat, flooding, the emissions from the landfill, the narrow road that doesn't always allow ambulances to pass. The stench is also disgusting. There are arguments for the closing of the jail and improvemements to how money is spent within society, as well as "efforts" to improve the condition of the jails.
This article particularly focuses on analysis in the aftermath of emergencies. Specifically, in the investigative processes of structural disasters. It highlights the awkward melding of various agencies in the face of public demand for answers. More than anything, it presents this instability in the investigative processes surrounding many emergencies; understanding the logistics of a building's collapse or how a fire rapidly spread only furthers comprehension of the disaster as a whole. Moreover, findings from this analysis could provide strategies for avoiding future emergencies of a similar nature. The article opens investigations for scrutiny, asking why such an integral part of the post-disaster process often gets swept aside.
This article primarily argues the increased attention on gender-based violence, and subsequent attempts to alter humanitarian guidelines, hinders efforts to address sexual violence and politicizes the issues. This, in turn, creates exclusionary methodologies to address sexual assault from a humanitarian stand point, manifesting as secondary victimization, labeling of the issues as gender-specific, and preventing universal solutions.
This policy applies to the U.S. healthcare system, all facilities that treat patients. It applies to the managers, staff, and patients at those locations, and those seeking treatment or evaluation, as it helps define the roles and expectations of a specific type of facility.
The chapter appears to be a compilation of accounts of immigrant medical treatments and overviews of the historical context behind several key situations. There is no bibliography, making it difficult to discern where these accounts came from. I can only assume most of this historical context came from Fissan's peers or other peer-reviewed works-- potentially another anthropological book.
At this time, the group does not appear to have drawn any significant research nor produced any. I would be intrigued to see if medical personnel (such as emergency medicine residents doing their research fellowships) would have any interest in the group, their call volume, and patient outcomes.