Search

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. 

Much of the data gathered by Dr. Schmid comes from reports occuring in the aftermath of Fukushima. Additionally, Dr. Schmid appears to use multiple reviews of past nuclear emergencies and protocols. She uses these articles, international statements, policies, and current treaties to build her argument.

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.

"Third, we have seen that structural interventions can have an enormous impact on outcomes, even in the face of cost­effectiveness analyses and the flawed policies of international bodies"

"These are not the tasks for which clinicians were trained, but they are central to the struggle to reduce premature suffering and death. The importance of structural interventions for the future of health care means that practitioners of medicine and public health must make common cause with others who are trained to intervene more proximally."

"Pioneers of modern public health during the nineteenth century, such as Rudolph Virchow, understood that epidemic disease and dismal life expectancies were tightly linked to social conditions"

1) "Approaches based on preparedness may not be guided by rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Rather, they are aimed at developing the capability to respond to various types of potentially catastrophic biological events"

2) "This analytical approach, when turned to the field of biosecurity, makes neither broad prescriptions for the improvement of health and security, nor blanket denunciations of new biosecurity interventions. Rather, it examines how policymakers, scientists, and security planners have constituted potential future events as biosecurity threats, and have responded by criticizing, redeploying, or reworking existing apparatuses"

3) "But increased attention and funding to health preparedness by no means implies consensus around a single approach. The existing institutions of public health are not easily reconciled with the new demands and norms of health preparedness and there is considerable disagreement about the appropriate way to achieve preparedness."