Search

The policy definitely provides a good amount of suport for a large amount of people affected. However, certain populations are left out of this. The large number of transiet persons, as well as non-resident people, in New York City is enourmous. These people were surely affected by the attacks, but are not included in the policy. This is, of course, understandable, as tracking the presence of these people's is nearly impossible nearly 10 years after the attacks. Regardless, it is a flaw in the policy. 

The main argument Knowles develops in this article is structural and engineering integrity of buildings and equipment is not always questioned until a disaster occurs and there is public outcry for regulations to be put in place. Whereas if building codes and safety equipment was being regularly tested and enforced, when disasters occured they would not be as tramatic. 

I was unable to find the number of currently active field missions for MSF, but I found information on the process of working for MSF. Each year they send about 2500 international aid workers (not just doctors) to many countries. These people are put alongside locally hired medical personnel to complete the missions. The process for becoming a volunteer is a bit long, with lots of requirements. Candidates need experience in their discipline, experience in management/ teaching, language skills, and previous experience in a humanitarian environment. From the film, it didn't seem that all the doctors had this experience, namely Davinder. MSF also likes that candidates have profficieny in French.

While looking at the FAQs on the US website, I found an interesting portion regarding care facilities and missions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. The MSF has a section defending their care in that area, but it is posed in the form of questions like "Why are you taking sides? You seem biased" or "Why are you getting involved in this but choose to stay neutral in other conflicts around the world?" It just strikes me as strangely unprofessional to have it phrased that way. The answers also seem very defensive in a reactionary manner. I just honestly thought it could have been phrased better or not included at all. It is information that maybe a few people might find useful, but would be better placed in a press release or answered by a recruiter.

I also learned that, interestingly enough, 90 percent of the medical professionals are local rather than international. They are trained by the international staff so as to provide a continuity of care. The film didn't really portray that fact, and made it seem like the clinic would have nearly no staff once the international doctors left.

First the article makes claims to research on populations affected primarily by natural disasters such as hurricanes and how the population was selected, as in were they directly affected by the disaster, lived near the disaster, or had relations to people affected by the disaster. The article then looked at the risk factors for each population at the different parts of the disaster (pre, peri, post) and the state of individuals at each of those times; were some already struggling with depression, would employment be effected, did they have kids to care for, ect. Lastly the article discussed what interventions emergency responders can take to reduce the risk of mental illness and supported those claims with statitics from the CBT about debriefs with victims and having counselors readily available, in person or virtually. 

They interviewed and used outside interviews of the people affected by the disaster. They also used other articles, research, and media to support the story and their beliefs.