Search

1) “The current concern with new microbial threats has developed in at least four overlapping but distinct domains: emerging infectious disease; bioterrorism; the cutting-edge life sciences; and food safety”

2) “’Global health’ is a second field in which health threats have been problematized in new ways.”

3) “The regulation of what Ulrich Beck calls “modernization risks” comprises a third field in which biosecurity has been newly problematized.”

4) “Although there is a great sense of urgency to address contemporary biosecurity problems— and while impressive resources have been mobilized to do so — there is no consensus about how to conceptualize these threats, nor about what the most appropriate measures are to deal with them.”

Dr. Schmid used a variety of sources and methods to produce her report. She pulled a lot of information from other essays, whether they be directly relating to the Fukushima incident or nuclear safety and preparedness in general. She also conducted communication with a number of other researchers and experts in the field. Additionally, she pulled a great deal from IAEA documents and US NRC publications.

More focus on the care, treatment, containment, and management of contagious diseases like Ebola would have increased its educational value, especially to first responders.

Emergency response isn't addressed in the report at all. The only area that could be claimed to be touched on is access to emergency prophylaxis for HIV by those in poor areas.

With over 80 citations, and a wide variety of sources (few of which are repeated), we know that this research article was infer that a good deal of time and care was spent on this article. There are lots of citations to steel investigation, structural and architectural references, government building standards, similar historical disasters, and news articles reporting on 9/11. Without even reading the article, one can suppose a good deal about the article and how it was produced.

This article seemed like an introduction to a book and didn't really present any susbstative arguments. It mostly talked about how large organizations like WHO function and what some of their protocols are. It also discussed how infections and diseases can spread differently in the current era versus how they used to be spread.

I looked more into the U.S. policy on uninsured patients, ER hospital policy, and how they are treated. If you go the ER without insurance, you are expected to pay the full bill; however you are guaranteed under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act to receive treatment regardless of your ability to pay it. There are assistance programs available to help those whom cannot afford to pay their medical bills. Some of these are private charities, there are government programs that help with those at or below the poverty line, and the hospitals themselves will often negotiate a much lower price than originally billed for to meet a patient’s financial need. Despite this, there are still many cases where all of the above are not sufficient enough to keep patients out of bankruptcy. (http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/go-to-er-without-insurance.htm)

MSF relies upon what ever technology and infrastructure they can afford to send to a certain area. Becuase they avoid using facilities that the host country has, they are able to establish their own infrastructure in an area. Additionally, certain areas may be greatly helped by some types of medical technology while others aren't. They rely upon doctors being able to make due in difficult environments as well.

The extensive citation show the work that went into the research to put the article together. The article cites other research articles as well as government publications and interviews.