Search

The article's main points cover the major challenges impeding research studies on violence that affects health service delivery in "complex security environments". The problem isn't lack of data regarding violence affecting health service delivery, but the lack of "health specific" and "gender-disaggregated" data, or data that's not completely tied to humanitarian aid.

The authors suggest several ways to increase research: increased collaboration between academia, NGO's, and health service organizations, inserting a research component in aid operations, and increasing funding to academic and aid organizations.

The first portion of the article focuses on the shift of sexual violence from a woman's rights issue to the larger title of "gender-violence". From there, Dr. Ticktin argues the nuances of this transition necessitated medicalizing sexual violence, and turned it into a condition to be treated by tools within the humanitarian kit. Just as how we now attempt to treat polio by handing out vaccines and flyers, rape is covered by blanket protocols and procedures. In attempts to make this issue more respected, we sacrificed the nuances of care necessary for adequate treatment.

This is further exemplified in Dr. Ticktin's description of humanitarian aid-- the preservation of life itself, with disregard to the kind of life being lived. She goes on to contend that sexual violence is by its very definition a "kind" of life, thus creating an inherent conflict in the overarching goal of treating sexual violence and humanitarian interventions.

Dr. Ticktin also pays respect to the inherent difficulty in maintaining the typical principles used during humanitarian aid efforts, especially when attempting to treat gender violence. One of her primary examples is the work of MSF in the Congo Republic. During the conflict, roadblocks would be set by armed men, and thus MSF were forced to accept military escorts-- destroying the key humanitarian tenant of neutrality. Moreover, many of these militia men were perpetrators of the sexual violence, something MSF was seeking to treat. 

Emergency response is literally the main focus of the entire article. While it seems to be only a short chapter in a much larger collection of similar essays, the report fully analyzes past and present responses to nuclear emergencies. Moreover, Dr. Schmid builds a case for how future emergencies should be handled by an international team built on expertise. This includes expertise of nuclear energy, disaster response, and nuclear policy/regulation. While she refrains from commenting fully on whether the response mounted for Fukushima can be classified as "good" or "bad", her assertions indicates a need to shift focus from preventing emergencies to how nations respond to nuclear emergencies.

As an ambulatory agency, BSVAC obviously utilizes the typical EMS technologies, such as oxygen, BVM, ambulance, pulse oximetry, ect. However, it should be noted at the time of publication (2014), an article by the New York Times describing BSVAC's economic struggles, only 1 of the 6 functional rigs could be used due to lack of funding. At the time of the article, this rig had broken down-- and only through the volunteer maintenance by an EMT student's father had it been returned to commission. This leads me to believe that well BSVAC has all the available technologies, these may be dated or somewhat worn in nature.

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.

The main argument was that there are "biosocial phenomena" or "structural violence" that lead to the tendency for certain diseases or lack of treatment in populations, particularly those in poverty. Their three major findings were: they can make structural interventions to "decrease the extent to which social inequities become embodied as health inequities", proximal interventions can reduce premature morbidity and mortality, and structural interventions "can have an enormous impact on outcomes.

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. 

Stephen Collier is an Associate Professor of International Affairs at The New School in NYC. He has a Ph.D in Anthropology from U.C. Berkeley and has conducted research in Russia, Georgia, and the U.S. His expertise is in political systems (post-socialism and neoliberalism), infrastructure, social welfare, and contemporary security. His knowledge in infrastructure and politics gives him a more top-down perspective of emergency response; Collier can assist with creation of organizations and groups for large scale emergencies that would require international collaboration. 

Andrew Lakoff is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Southern California, and is an anthropologist of science and medicine. He research is in globalization processes, human science, and the implications of biomedical technology. He has a similar position in emergency response as Collier, where he sees global, political, and technological interactions that would effect how we prepare and respond to international emergencies. He's written essays and other books on emergency preparedness such as "The Risks of Preparedness: Mutant Bird Flu" and "Disaster & the Politics of Intervention".

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.

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.