Research came from newspaper articles, surviving letters, and other texts were used to produce the argument in the report regarding disaster investigation.
The author supports his argument by first giving the reader a history about immigrant healthcare in France. By using stories of immigrants and showcasing the ways in which physicians dealt with the medical and humanitarian issues, the author provides a social framework for us to see how immigrants were treated. By also providing philosophical insight and statistics, the author is further able to support his argument.
The article describes the situation in post-Katrina New Orleans as one where trauma is constantly happening and more work is going into emergency response than recovery. Instead of construction workers, social workers and the like, the military was sent by the government for aid after Katrina.
The main argument made in this article is that the term "chronic disaster syndrome" can be used as a diagnosis of Katrina survivors as opposed to PTSD. They use this term on the basis of factors including: individual suffering (trauma), the workings of disaster capitalism tied to the undermining of public infrastructures of social welfare and their replacement with private-sector service provision through contracts with for-profit corporations, and the ways that displacement functions within disaster capitalism. They make the point that this term can be used in link with disasters. In this case, Katrina caused "chronic disaster syndrome" to most survivors in that they were affected (and still are) socially, politically, and individually. The trauma experienced and the lack of leadership and governmental response created stressful situations for all residents of New Orleans pre-Katrina.
The main findings in this article is the phenomenon of "biological citizenship" that occurred in the Ukraine after the Chernobyl disaster, how "scientific cooperation and political management" developed, and how sociopolitical factors affect the course of health and disease in a country.
The parts of the film that I found most persuasive and compelling were Atul Gawande's personal experience. As both a surgeon and son, he has the unique viewpoint of being the one to be the bearer of bad news and be the one to accept his father's mortality as his cancer progressed. Gawande gives rational and emotional parts of end-of-life care, and is able to learn new ways of handling mortality as a healthcare provider and a human.
It uses flow charts that are easy to understand and uses other charts that lead physicians to proper patient care.
Sonja D. Schmid uses data pertaining international response to the disaster that occurred in Fukushima. She uses references and information gathered that has to do with the reactions of various leaders. She uses past situations and opinions in order to formulate her conclusion and claim that there is a need for an international nuclear emergency response plan. She pulls from examples that show that many organizations that tried in the past to create a plan failed due to the lack of international authority.
It doesn't talk about these things because its focus is on depression and the ways in which stories and personal experiences could help doctors better the lives of their patients.