Search

As far as persuasive goes, the entire film was very convincing of the fact that the doctors were under-resourced and over-worked. The part where the doctors were trying to perform a surgery and didn't have the right kind of drill to relieve the pressure in the brain was pretty compelling. Here we would never consider drilling into someone's brain without the proper sterilization, apparatus, or drill, but in such a low resource clinic, its the only option. That just shows how desperate the doctors were to perform their craft andbest serve their patients. Another part that was convincing was the portion where the doctors argued about reusing gloves. It was a bit hard to understand the argument, as the concept is just baffling to me as a hcp, but the fact that they had to disagree over washing and reusing gloves is proof of their desperation.

The article explains how a team of medical staff treated (and consequently killed) a number of patients following the flooding of a hospital in New Orleans. The staff in question overdosed the patients to put them out of their pain as they saved other patients who were more likely to survive. The article calls into question the process of triage and how we go about it. Who has the authority to make these decisions, and what lines do we draw between ethics and compassion. The article provides a play-by-play of the events leading up to the flooding, and relevant policies that existed and have been created related to this incident. 

The author seems to rely strongly on personal experience and belief to make broad statements about the situation following chernobyl. Most of the article is about the author and their experience with the issue, rather than the objective data and observations of others. This makes the arguments seem rather close-minded and almost biased. 

The app serves as a platform for medical professionals to share rare cases and conditions they have treated.