The author likely read through the referenced articles to find where they could be appropriately cited, and then conducted first hand interviews with select people (as mentioned in the notes) to put the information into context. Together, the multiple forms of media allow for a well-rounded point of view in writing the article, with various angles being well-represented throughout.
The article focused on treatment and prevention of diseases affecting communities, however I was interested in the initial causes of these epidemics in places that were originally free of disease. I read an article “The Tipping Point” published in the New York Times that explained multiple social theories as to how epidemics begin, using Baltimore as a case study.
I looked into the stated mission and some of the work done by the Partners in Health, as they are a group that responds to epidemics. It was interesting to see that they focus not on immediate emergency response but instead on creating lasting infrastructure to gradually stop epidemics, as well as educating locals on how to react to future emergencies of the same nature.
The article mentions that clinicians are not trained to see social issues as they are so commonplace in everyday life as to become invisible, I felt that was a limited mindset and read an article written by Doctors for America. The article showed that while it is true that comparatively little time is spent on social issues during a doctor’s education, clinicians dealing directly with patients clearly recognize social conditions effecting health. The article suggests that the lack of attention on those issues in the medical field is not due to ignorance but rather the lack of an existing system through which individual doctors can report their experiences and work towards a solution.
The ARC conducts research continuously to provide quality support in the context of CPR, disaster response, and blood collection.
The article referenced many other papers that focus on the modern health threats due to scientific advancement, the spread of disease in modern society, and on the current approach to health prevention and the response to epidemics. This suggests that the paper was a culmination of ideas that did not include new research or data.
The policy establishes the World Trade Center Health Program within the Department of Health and Human Services. It provides “medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible emergency responders and recovery and cleanup workers… who responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and… initial health evaluation, monitoring, and treatment benefits to residents and other building occupants and area workers in New York City who were directly impacted and adversely affected by such attacks”
The program also establishes measures to prevent Fraud and a Quality Assurance program was also implemented. This includes measures to assure adherence to protocol, appropriate referrals, prompt communication of results to patients, and any other elements the program administrator deems necessary, with consultation from other sources.
The argument is mainly supported by historical examples of structural failures and the subsequent investigations. The post incident investigation tactics, or lack thereof, discussed support the argument that disasters require an existing structure for authority and procedure. The 1814 Burning of the Capitol Building is an example of an unrestricted investigation that had a successful ending, the building was reconstructed. The 1850 Hauge St. Explosion shows how a joint investigative team without proper distribution of expertise and responsibility leads to an incomplete investigation. Finally, the 1903 Iroquois Theater Fire is an example of a modern investigation process that utilized available knowledge and resources effectively.
The author, Byron J. Good, is a Harvard professor in the department of global health and social medicine. He is the director of the International Mental Health Training Program, and has significant experience with field research that has led to many publications.
The film doesn't look much at the people's experience with MSF. There are no interviews of the patient's themsleves. The film touches on the local health officials' opinons, but not much on the actual patients'. It doesn't highlight their sturggles as much as I believe it should.
The film includes perspectives from the doctors, both the oncologists involved in primary care for their patients as well as specialists, both nurses and palliative doctors, to deal with the final months of treatment. The patients and their families provides the other viewpoints, with several families dealing differently with the situations they found themselves in.