Search

Perhaps this eating habit is not a special case. You can ask different families if they have similarities or differences.

This policy was received in good light by the public for the most part. Patients were only to benefit from this, especially those who lacked insurance. Even those with insurance didn't have to waste time proving it any longer, they were treated and stabilized and insurance issues and payment were brought up later. Any ethically sound doctors, such as the ones working in hospitals that were already implementing the actions set forth by EMTALA (before it was law) had no issues with EMTALA. No doctor should have any issues with it due to their duty to act as well as ethical and moral standards they should be holding themselves up to, written in their oath they took to become doctor. The only people that would stand to receive this act negatively would be the doctors who were actively turning away patients in need, who are clearly morally compromised. Yet, media, patients, a majority of doctors and staff found and received this act positively or with little reservation.

The topic of biosecurity comes up a lot in this article. The prevalence of this threat is greatly discussed as well as the importance of preparedness. Global health and emergency response efforts are also greatly discussed. Citing emerging diseases as one of the major threats to global security. Public threat response is an aspect that is also widely discussed in this paper as well. Adaptations and improvements in responses are necessary due to new science and technologies that have and are developing. Overall, biosecurity needs to be addressed and threat response improved.