Search

pece_annotation_1480523368

tamar.rogoszinski
Annotation of
In response to

I found the most compelling part of the film a portion where an elderly man needing dialysis swears and screams at one of the doctors that he's sick and tired of having to wait for dialysis. He says how annoying it is to come to this hospital and expresses frustrations with having to get dialysis at this particular hospital. He is frustrated to such an extent that he even asks the doctor to remove the catheter and let him die, stating that eveyrone dies so he doesn't care anymore if it's sooner rather than later. He's tired of waiting.

pece_annotation_1475371051

ciera.williams
Annotation of
In response to

The film gave a lot of instances where the providers were more or less just having fun. For example, nearly every interview invoved the guys sitting down and drinking a beer while joking. While this proved their humanity, it also showed that the doctors spent much of their free time having fun rather than getting sleep. I would assume that they weren't drinkng while still "on call" or planning on giving care, and thus had the time to get proper rest. The amount of luxury afforded to the doctors after the trip also was a bit less compelling. At the end, the doctors were swimming at a nice pool and just relaxing, which is understandable for destressing. But it also seemed to take away some perspective. These doctors go on about how little resources they have to give and how the wish they could stay on their mission, but immediately turn back to luxury. Its just a bit hypocritical. And I understand that they cannot directly contribute to the people they care for in terms of wealth, but I found it was a bit unnecessary to include in the film.

pece_annotation_1475202196

tamar.rogoszinski
Annotation of
In response to

The convention in 1951 was a response to WW2 and the vast amounts of refugees that existed as a result. States involved in the convention and the UN could decide to apply it to refugees not necessarily from WW2, but in 1967, the limits were removed and made it so that it could apply to any refugees, not just those from WW2. It has since been used during major refugee crises in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. 

pece_annotation_1480606211

tamar.rogoszinski

pece_annotation_1476208027

ciera.williams
Annotation of
In response to

The article addresses the lack of unity in the decision making proceess during emergencies. Lots of life-or-death decisions are left up to a doctor's judgemnet, which causes ambiguity as a result. One can argue that doctors are given this right to judgment as a sign of their training and the trust we put in them. However, when the trust is perceived as betrayed by affected individuals, the judgement is called into question. 

Another point is the lack of evacuation preparadness in hospitals.

pece_annotation_1478486910

ciera.williams
Annotation of
In response to

The author addresses emergency response in the context of the workers who responded to and continue to work at the site of the chernobyl nuclear disaster. These workers were monetarily compensated in high ammounts, but left physically injured and disabled by the exposure to radioactivity at the site.