Search

This image reminds me of how mutual aid and communities keep each other fed, and safe, and how local practices are actually best practices. My own research， although not immediatley related to the specific public health concern of COVID, will focus on Indigenous food soverignty, particularly the right and autonomy to ferment and distribute alcohol (紅糯米酒) within the Amis community, and their current fight with the local health department on declaring whether or not their alcohol is "safe" for public consumption and distribution.

Emergency response is not directly addressed, but the policy of allowing otherwise ineligible people to full access to the emergency medical system indirectly is effected and has its own challenges, disputes, and implications.

The arguments are supported by data from the National Institute of Health and beyond as well as interviews with people on the ground.

The assessments that patients take are not visible to the public so I can not elaborate on it. This is what is quoted from the company’s website about the “Easy Clinical Screenings”:

“Patients take digital, gamified mental health assessments conveniently on their mobile device to learn their actual diagnosis and become more self aware. Providers can deploy customized assessment questions specific to each patient. Patients can see their charted progress over time. Assessments are reimbursable by insurers.”

The claims are supported by personal interviews/surveys by the author as well as external data from the state and other sources and studies. 

The way that countries and the world address nuclear emergencies is addressed in this article. Currently there is no central international response resources or authority. Because of the rarity of nuclear catastrophic nuclear emergencies, there are few pockets of professionals with field experience with dealing with these types of emergencies. Japan greatly lacked the assistance of these people during this disaster. These things all contribute to a less optimal emergency response. By addressing these issues the quality of response to nuclear emergencies can be greatly increased.

Dr. Kramer refers to various people in various medical cases but redacts their names.

The Journal of the American Medical Association and the medical community as a whole embraced “evidence based medicine” back in the 90s and claimed that individual case stories were inferior, antiquated, and a thing of the past.

Oxford University press and the New England Journal of Medicine started writing case reports embracing stories.

    The article: “Structural Violence and Clinical Medicine” was written by Paul E Farmer, Bruce Nizeye, Sara Stulac, and Salmaan Keshavjee. Paul Farmer is an anthropologist and physician who works professionally as a humanitarian healthcare worker in impoverished nations, physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital Division of Social Medicine and Health Inequalities, Professor at Harvard University, and cofounder of Partners In Health. Bruce Nizeye is a Director of the Program on Social and Economic Rights. Sara Stulac is a Director of Pediatric Programs at Inshuti Mu Buzima, in Rwanda, and Partners In Health’s deputy chief medical officer. Salmaan Keshavjee is also a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, an instructor at Harvard’s Department of Medicine, and a specialist at Partners In Health on tuberculosis.

                It is important to understand the work of Partners in Health (PIH) is to assist underdeveloped countries build high quality healthcare systems, when talking about the authors’ work.

1) “‘A confusion between humanitarianism and politics–two fundamentally different orders of activity – can only lead to a mutual weakening of both”.

2) “Approaching gender-based violence as a medical or health issue alters how violence is both approached and understood; that is, rather than understanding gender violence in the context of gendered relations of power, or as part of larger histories and expressions of inequality which are inseparable from histories of class or race or colonialism, this type of medicalisation transforms gender-based violence into an emergency illness, requiring immediate intervention.”

3) “Sexual violence elicited a particular form of moral outrage in the MSF report and debate; and the question was how to justify the willingness to condemn the perpetrators in cases of rape more than with other forms of violence or torture. Should women be !C 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Medicalising and Politicising Sexual Violence 259 treated as special categories of victim, who need more protection? Furthermore, are they the only ones recognised as subject to rape? Should sex and sexual violence be seen as crimes apart, or should they be equivalent to any type of harm or injury in times of war? What is the nature of gender-based violence, and how do we qualify the particular vulnerabilities to it?”