The effects of the current war on the Iraqi population should deeply
shock anyone with a minimum of humanitarian concern (regardless of their
political and ideological convictions). The institutional fragility for
dealing with the war and its dire consequences is also extremely
troubling. It is painful to observe the deplorable bankruptcy of channels
for intermediation of such manifestations of unavoidably insane traits in
the human species.
Under such crucial circumstances, the international community must
quickly mobilize the largest possible number of health professionals to
develop ways to publicize, deal with, and minimize the intense suffering
resulting from another inhumane war. The current initiative by the JECH is
immediately legitimized by the present situation’s urgency. Both the text
provided by Barr & Miranda and further comments by Baum, Tao et al. and
Milio explores properly this worrying 'zeitgeist'.
To orient ourselves in this grievous moment, we must try to
understand this situation in order to devise possibilities for action with
some expectation of effectiveness. Beyond the health sphere itself, we may
very well assume the signs of a major crisis in our civilization, the
result of the political and economic dynamics dating to the last decades
of the 20th century.
Along with increasing affluence in certain regions of the so-called
First World, we observe the hegemony of global volatile capitalism and its
glaring ethical flaws, the expansion of economic inequalities affecting
the economically weaker countries, the impoverishment of social relations
(increasingly affected by violence and insecurity), and the alarming
outburst of extremist manifestations. All of this could already be
glimpsed before the tragic events of 9-11-2001. The current abominable war
in Iraq appears as a paroxysmal, depressing emblem of a hazardously
uncontrolled process.
A characteristic of the crisis is the coexistence of an impressive
local rationality and an alarming global irrationality. Unfortunately, one
of the apparent symptoms of this statement appears precisely in the field
of public health with the ‘timely’ link – viewed as ‘favorable’ – between
two terrible current events. Consider the following, published on the
ABCnews.com website on March 30, 2003, by Peter N. Spotts of the The
Christian Science Monitor: “As public-health officials worldwide ended a
second week of efforts to quash the spread of a previously unknown illness
traced to Asia, bioterrorism specialists were watching their progress for
lessons that might be applied to the aftermath of a bioterror attack (…).
The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, has shown that
‘pathogens do not recognize political boundaries,’ says David Heyman, a
bioterrorism specialist at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies in Washington, DC ‘You need a global response to bioterrorism,
not just a domestic one.’ In that respect, he adds, ‘This is a great test
case.’”[1]
In fact, the suggestion that two tragic and alarming foci of extreme
insecurity provide a ‘logically’ advantageous opportunity only makes sense
contextually in light of an absurd lack of overall meaning. Perhaps a good
point of departure would be for us to not take satisfaction in accepting
such precarious localized coherence, that is, to not lose sight of the
fact that more is needed to disarm the disastrous escalation in the
apparent current global lack of meaning.
Reference
(1) Scientists Show How United Efforts on SARS Might Help Limit Impact of
Bioterror Attack ABCnews. March 30, 2002
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/SARS_cooperation_csm_030331.html
The effects of the current war on the Iraqi population should deeply shock anyone with a minimum of humanitarian concern (regardless of their political and ideological convictions). The institutional fragility for dealing with the war and its dire consequences is also extremely troubling. It is painful to observe the deplorable bankruptcy of channels for intermediation of such manifestations of unavoidably insane traits in the human species.
Under such crucial circumstances, the international community must quickly mobilize the largest possible number of health professionals to develop ways to publicize, deal with, and minimize the intense suffering resulting from another inhumane war. The current initiative by the JECH is immediately legitimized by the present situation’s urgency. Both the text provided by Barr & Miranda and further comments by Baum, Tao et al. and Milio explores properly this worrying 'zeitgeist'.
To orient ourselves in this grievous moment, we must try to understand this situation in order to devise possibilities for action with some expectation of effectiveness. Beyond the health sphere itself, we may very well assume the signs of a major crisis in our civilization, the result of the political and economic dynamics dating to the last decades of the 20th century.
Along with increasing affluence in certain regions of the so-called First World, we observe the hegemony of global volatile capitalism and its glaring ethical flaws, the expansion of economic inequalities affecting the economically weaker countries, the impoverishment of social relations (increasingly affected by violence and insecurity), and the alarming outburst of extremist manifestations. All of this could already be glimpsed before the tragic events of 9-11-2001. The current abominable war in Iraq appears as a paroxysmal, depressing emblem of a hazardously uncontrolled process.
A characteristic of the crisis is the coexistence of an impressive local rationality and an alarming global irrationality. Unfortunately, one of the apparent symptoms of this statement appears precisely in the field of public health with the ‘timely’ link – viewed as ‘favorable’ – between two terrible current events. Consider the following, published on the ABCnews.com website on March 30, 2003, by Peter N. Spotts of the The Christian Science Monitor: “As public-health officials worldwide ended a second week of efforts to quash the spread of a previously unknown illness traced to Asia, bioterrorism specialists were watching their progress for lessons that might be applied to the aftermath of a bioterror attack (…). The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, has shown that ‘pathogens do not recognize political boundaries,’ says David Heyman, a bioterrorism specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC ‘You need a global response to bioterrorism, not just a domestic one.’ In that respect, he adds, ‘This is a great test case.’”[1]
In fact, the suggestion that two tragic and alarming foci of extreme insecurity provide a ‘logically’ advantageous opportunity only makes sense contextually in light of an absurd lack of overall meaning. Perhaps a good point of departure would be for us to not take satisfaction in accepting such precarious localized coherence, that is, to not lose sight of the fact that more is needed to disarm the disastrous escalation in the apparent current global lack of meaning.
Reference
(1) Scientists Show How United Efforts on SARS Might Help Limit Impact of Bioterror Attack ABCnews. March 30, 2002 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/SARS_cooperation_csm_030331.html