Search

1) "Approaches based on preparedness may not be guided by rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Rather, they are aimed at developing the capability to respond to various types of potentially catastrophic biological events"

2) "This analytical approach, when turned to the field of biosecurity, makes neither broad prescriptions for the improvement of health and security, nor blanket denunciations of new biosecurity interventions. Rather, it examines how policymakers, scientists, and security planners have constituted potential future events as biosecurity threats, and have responded by criticizing, redeploying, or reworking existing apparatuses"

3) "But increased attention and funding to health preparedness by no means implies consensus around a single approach. The existing institutions of public health are not easily reconciled with the new demands and norms of health preparedness and there is considerable disagreement about the appropriate way to achieve preparedness."

The authors pulled information from a variety of sources and tools. They pulled from information procured by their non-profit, Partners in Health as well as from other research articles. Some of them are also on the ground level, treating and interacting with patients who are symptoms of their structural violence argument. These patients are able to provide first-hand information to the authors.

1) "The most bizarre, and perhaps most telling, moment in the hearing occurred when Rep Anthony D. Weiner of New York, addressing the panel of experts, asked for the person in charge of the investigation to raise his hand. When three hands went up..."

2) "Clashes over authority among powerful institutions both public and private, competition among rival experts for influence, inquiry into a disaster elevated to the status of a memorial for the dead: these are the base elements of the World Trade Center investigation. And yet, even a brief historical review shows us that these elements are not unique."

3) "They were not reassuring, or especially enlightening answers. Some things were already known."

Andrew Lakoff is an associate professor of anthropology, sociology, and communication at the University of Southern California, Berkeley. He expertise lies in the anthropology of science and medicine and the implications of biomedical innovations. He does not appear to be professionally situated in emergency response. He has only written on book on a macro scale titled, "Disaster and the Politics of Intervention," but he appears to have no further association or expertise in the field.

Stephen J. Collier is the chair of the Graduate Program in International Affairs at the New School in New York City. He is an expert in economic regulation, social welfare, and emergency management in Russia, the Republic of Georgia, and in the United States. He is currently researching the emergence of vital systems security in disaster policy, homeland security, and infrastructure protection. In this manner, he is related with emergency response. He also has a number of publications listed on his CV in relation to disaster response.

1) "In this new state of social world, the body of the immigrant has become illegitimate as labor force, since it is always suspected of deleteriously affecting the job market, but the body of the foreigner has found a new source of legitimacy through illness, which, under certain conditions of seriousness and impossibility of receiving treatment in the country of origin, makes it possible to obtain a residence permit on "humanitarian grounds."

2) "Yet the variation in medical opinions observed was due less to the form of the procedure than to the use the medical officer made of it."

3) "Evaluation of this criterion, however, was not the outcome of a unilateral decision by the examining doctor or the social worker. Foreigners and their families might also develop tactics once they knew how the system worked."

They have produced a number of articles which can be found here: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/our-work/medical-research

A few of the recent highlights are articles that discuss the impacts of masss vaccination campaigns, how to care for victims of sexual violence, and what effect ready to use food can offer in a nutritional emergency.

The overarching goal of the report appears to be an overarching analysis of the current systems in place to address and research mental health outcomes in disaster events. The article firstly presents comorbidities known to predispose individuals to development of mental illness.This would be in the hands of the response team to recognize that a certain population may be more predisposed to developing PTSD from the event-- such as children or females, who have shown increased levels of PTSD and MDD. Recognizing that students from an all-girl's K-12 School who have just come from, say, a forest fire will be more likely to develop mental health complications after the disaster than a population of older, male welders will help streamline appropriate responses.

Secondly, by exploring and recognizing these factors (pre, peri, post), emergency responses can help prepare and minimize mental health effects. For example, by implementing PFA in all government agencies, this help mitigate the traumatic effects of experiencing a disaster; PFA includes three distinct goals in treating these patients, including limiting stress reactions and regaining feelings of control. 

Thirdly, while studying mental health in the wake of disasters is crucial to ensuring successful and adequate interventions, there are four major challenges, all discussed in the report (defining target population, obtaining representative sample, implementing an appropriate study design, and measuring key constructs). The authors contend that for future research, several key changes can be made to benefit overall research outcomes. These include widening the scope of psycho-pathological inquiry from to include other disorders such as GAD and panic disorder, the time ranges studied (with higher emphasis on pre/peri factors to help tailor interventions), other factors that create predisposition, and further intervention implementation.