Search

I was unable to find the number of currently active field missions for MSF, but I found information on the process of working for MSF. Each year they send about 2500 international aid workers (not just doctors) to many countries. These people are put alongside locally hired medical personnel to complete the missions. The process for becoming a volunteer is a bit long, with lots of requirements. Candidates need experience in their discipline, experience in management/ teaching, language skills, and previous experience in a humanitarian environment. From the film, it didn't seem that all the doctors had this experience, namely Davinder. MSF also likes that candidates have profficieny in French.

While looking at the FAQs on the US website, I found an interesting portion regarding care facilities and missions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. The MSF has a section defending their care in that area, but it is posed in the form of questions like "Why are you taking sides? You seem biased" or "Why are you getting involved in this but choose to stay neutral in other conflicts around the world?" It just strikes me as strangely unprofessional to have it phrased that way. The answers also seem very defensive in a reactionary manner. I just honestly thought it could have been phrased better or not included at all. It is information that maybe a few people might find useful, but would be better placed in a press release or answered by a recruiter.

I also learned that, interestingly enough, 90 percent of the medical professionals are local rather than international. They are trained by the international staff so as to provide a continuity of care. The film didn't really portray that fact, and made it seem like the clinic would have nearly no staff once the international doctors left.

First the article makes claims to research on populations affected primarily by natural disasters such as hurricanes and how the population was selected, as in were they directly affected by the disaster, lived near the disaster, or had relations to people affected by the disaster. The article then looked at the risk factors for each population at the different parts of the disaster (pre, peri, post) and the state of individuals at each of those times; were some already struggling with depression, would employment be effected, did they have kids to care for, ect. Lastly the article discussed what interventions emergency responders can take to reduce the risk of mental illness and supported those claims with statitics from the CBT about debriefs with victims and having counselors readily available, in person or virtually. 

The main point of the article is to show the ethical and enviromental danger inmates face on Riker Island. This is supported by the description heat emergencies that are risking lives of inmates, air pollution in the facility due to methane gas that is being produced by the landfill it was built on, and the shifting in the ground that is leading to cracking, subjecting facilities to flooding during extreme weather.

They interviewed and used outside interviews of the people affected by the disaster. They also used other articles, research, and media to support the story and their beliefs. 

The main stakeholders portrayed in this film is the Marines and family members of Marines living at Camp Lejeune. Many of them have been diagnosed with cancer, likely caused by chemicals in the base's water supply. Several of the victims have united to question the government and the actions they failed to take after reports of polluted water.

This article is referenced in various other papers concerning cultural factors in patient treatment. 

The main point is that their was water contamination on a military base that caused cancer in several people, including servicemen and their children. The government/military covered it up and this led to a bit of a scandal. 

Healthcare professionals, from all levels, doctors to even students, are invited to share and discuss conditions and diseases.