Search

The paper mostly focuses on how the survivors recieve long-term care, since they have severe financial struggles in the aftermath of the disaster. This impacts emergency response since we do need to be funded in some way, and if it is not covered by the healthcare system in the area, then the cost is placed on the individual. If they are in need of immediate care, then this is an issue. They have many health conditions caused by the disaster that could cause a sudden health emergency. If they do not feel they can financially support calling an ambulance, then it places the person's life in jeopardy.

The author uses a wide variety of news and journal sources to make their point. Everything from the New York Times to East Asian Science. It also cites many volumes on disaster preparedness. For example, “The Chernobyl Accident: a Case Study in International Law Regulation State Responsibility for Transboundary”. The sources tell me that the article was developed around the news at the time and works that dealt with handling of disasters from the past. For me, this furthers the case that the author is making: that the way we have been doing things in the past is not working.

1) “Repeatedly, I have been surprised by the impact that even lightly sketched case histories can have on readers.”

2) “But even the manifesto conceded that less formal expertise would remain important in the areas of practice that had not been subject to high-level testing. THAT confession covers much of the territory.”

"The contributors write: “Data are important, of course, but numbers sometimes imply an order to what is happening that can be misleading. Stories are better at capturing a different type of ‘big picture'.""

"Four decades later, in 1995, suicidal thoughts brought this anxious man back into the psychiatric system, at age 70. For the first time, he was put on an antidepressant, Zoloft. Six weeks out, both the panic attacks and the depression were gone. He resumed work, entered into a social life and remained well for the next 19 years — until his death."

1)            Factors affecting disease (HIV/AIDS) outcome in different biosocial settings are radically different despite similar, established “risk-factors” in lifestyles/behaviors for individuals. This is because biosocial factors play an important role that is far often overlooked by current medical systems and policies.

2)            mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV, antiretroviral therapy (ART) and infant formula (preventing pediatric aids transmission through mother). MTCT of HIV is driven through universal breastfeeding being mainly pushed by the existing medical structures of the local and international healthcare policy makers. They claimed that the difficulty giving access to infant formula in rural areas and stigma around signing up for an HIV project doomed it to failure; however the projects in Rwanda and Haiti proved otherwise, when the structural “violence” was addressed. This was done mainly by giving both distal and proximal support and care as well as addressing the other social-economic barriers to good medical care in these communities.

3)            When locals, who are much more aware of the areas biosocial setting, implications and problems, are utilized in the medical system, the results are multifold. Proximal care provided by an accompagnateur not only reduces barriers to care such as traveling to a hospital for basic medicine, but also creates jobs that contribute to raising the quality of life which is another major factor when examining structural “violence”.

Emergency response is addressed in how it should respond to gender violence in crises from a global/national/organizational perspective, effecting the end result and care on the ground.