Search

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. 

Through the use of surveying, this study identified that there are in fact inequalities in people's understanding of proper responses to pandemic influenza outbreaks. This study helped identify these vulnerable groups, and that social media and forms of mass media are the main ways to reach these groups. To address this vulnerable population, the public needs an increased accessibility to information, overall increasing the public's level of knowledge about the pandemic.

The references show that there was an intense amount of research done by the author. There were a lot of new articles and some studies on disasters in the bibliography. The articles also date back to the times of the actual events, showing an extensive about of work and research on the author's part.

This convention is based on the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. (Date of adoption: 26  September  1986)  To  prevent  potential  nuclear  hazards  across  states  internationally.  (Convention ‐ Background) 

"This delegitimization was not limited to France. When humanitarian reason was introduced into French law in order to protect sick immigrants against the risk of deportation, it was optimistically thought that, under pressure from nongovernmental organizations..the provision would be extended throughout the Union."

"The logic of state sovereignty in the control of immigration clearly prevailed over the universality of the principle of the right to life."

"Should we accept 'getting our hands dirty' by agreeing to work with the immigrants' service of the prefect's office on the difficult issue of deportations?"