Search

While this study does not address vulnerable populations, per say, it does study cancer in patients under the age of 20, which can be considered a vulnerable population as they were young when the disaster occurred. 

The author used a combination of field-based research and article examination to produce their arguments and conclusions.

Paul Farmer has used this paper in later works and has been published in various journals and books. 

The study was funded by the WHO Country Office for Sierra leone.

The article cites various studies and uses the experiences of organizations in order to help plan for the future. The authors use the WHO and the CDC as these examples of experience. They draw upon the AIDS crisis as an example of global outreach and of a public health crisis. Innovation in science is discussed and ongoing research experiments. DOTS (Directly-Observed Treatment, Short Term) program is discussed as well and its shortcomings in dealing with TB.

This act provides ongoing support to the first responders and other professionals involved in the rescue efforts of 9/11/2001. The adverse health affects are still being discovered 15 years after the attacks, and the EMS community is still in need of the support provided. This policy also outlines a precedent for future attacks. In the event of another large-scale act of terrorism, the responders would likely receive similar support and "compensation" for the affects that might have them. 

They stress the importance of recordkeeping and how that has the ability to change the future outcomes of safety. I would imagine they stress it so intensely due to issues they had in the past. They also have the challenge of dealing with public sectors and workforces not in their jurisdiction. While they are helpful for those they cover, those they do not provide concern in that they can't protect the workers and avoid accidents and emergencies. 

The main theme of this article is the conditions leading up to, during, and following a policy passed in France in 1998. The policy allowed residency to "any foreigner habitually resident in France and suffering from a serious medical condition requiring medical treatment, and for whom deportation would result in exceptionally serious consequences, provided that he or she would be unable to receive appropriate treatment in the country to which he or she is returned" The author likens the poicy to "compassion protocol" or palliative care. The law should only apply in extreme circumstances and is based on an emotional response to pain/suffering. 

This policy had good intentions, but led to a number of resulting issues, such as disparity in care due to ambiguity in the law. For the enforcers of the law, there was much interpretation which allowed for individuals to exercise "humanitarian reason" and decide what conditions were a "serious medical condition" and what was not. This politicized medical care for foreigners/immigrants, as medical proffessionals no longer diagnosed based on symptoms, but socioeconomic status as well. 

I can't find anything about how it was received back in the day, but with the current refugee problem facing the world, there is dispute about how to treat refugees and other immigration issues. Rhetoric used to describe refugees - especially those from Syria - has caused a lot of xenophobia around the world and various problems regarding immigration.