Search

The report quite clearly details the need to change our approaches to healthcare and epidemic emergencies. Currently, we seem to address these events in a singular method, and are unwilling to alter this approach. This is partially due to the narrow scope of patient care; for the most part, administering care to patients follows a standard guideline that does not seek to reach beyond that singular case. It is beyond the scope of a practitioner to attempt to mitigate socioeconomic discrepancies within their clinics alone. However, as Farmer and his colleagues argue, broadening this standard is necessary to combat illness. Biosocial factors, not just medicinal factors, need to be tackled in order to fully combat disease.

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. 

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.

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. 

The report includes information gathered by both authors during the course of their own research, including citing several of their own publications within the report. Moreover, as a review article, the report includes work from other prominent epidemiologists, psychologists, and organizers of disaster relief; additionally, there appear to be several reports from various emergency response agencies providing data for prevalence of various mental disorders

It addresses the public as a whole. Throughout the film, those involved in fighting for information/responsibility over Camp Lejeune emphasize the power of the public to write or speak about this issue. Moreover, it strongly demonstrates how often public welfare is shunned by those in power-- ironically, the least effected group. 

1)      From the perspective of readers or hearers of stories that are in process, plot is less a finished form or structure than an engagement with what has been told or read so far in relation to imagined outcomes that the story may bring - outcomes that are feared, longed for, or seem ironically or tragically inevitable.

2)      Second. several prototypical plot types can be identified among the illness narratives, as well as among the specific stories of which they are constituted. These have a distinctive cultural form, rooted in Turkish popular medical culture. They are present as the plot structures of the narratives we heard. They are also available as cultural resources for those in the midst of illness attempting to make sense of their experience; that is, they are possible stories one might reasonably tell about such an illness, potential plots giving order to the events one is experiencing.

3)       Meanwhile, he continues to work in a job at the municipality, where he is treated well by co-workers. His major concern is that he and his wife have had no children, and he wonders if either the illness or the medications are to blame. This, rather than treatment of the primary disease, organizes his interest in shaping the outcome of his illness story.

Miriam Ticktin, PhD, is a current associate professor of Anthropology and a co-director of Zolberg Institute of Migration and Mobility. She received degrees from both Stanford University, Oxford University, and Ecoles de Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales. Her work typically focuses on the intersection of medicine, science, law, anthropology, and postcolonial feminist theory. She has multiple publications on the above subjects, including journal articles, books, special journal issues, and chapters.