![]() Its 2007 report, A Safer Future: Global Public Health Security in the 21 st Century, described the prospect of a pandemic flu as “the most feared security threat” in the world ( WHO, 2007). In August 2007, the World Health Organization (WHO Geneva, Switzerland) explicitly adopted a militarized security model for public health. And the federal government's new ‘Draft Guidance on Allocating and Targeting Pandemic Influenza Vaccine', released in late October 2007, gives top priority to allocate vaccines in short supply, not to pregnant women, infants, children or the elderly, or even to front-line emergency medical care providers or outpatient health care providers, but to military personnel who have “an essential role in national and homeland security” ( ).Įuropeans might be tempted to think that the militarized national security model of public health is confined to the USA, but that would be a mistake. Bush, for example, reacted to the threat of a bird flu pandemic in 2005 by suggesting that the US military should be used to quarantine “parts of the country” experiencing an “outbreak” ( Annas, 2005a). If ‘extreme' and ‘ruthless' measures are seen as reasonable, no one should be surprised that the military is often immediately brought to mind. Or, if there is any chance to limit the geographical spread of the disease, officials must have in place the legal power to take extreme quarantine measures” in the case of a flu pandemic ( Barry, 2004). …officials might decide to order mandatory vaccination. Barry, the author of The Great Influenza, put it, “ublic health officials will need the authority to enforce decisions, including ruthless ones. Just as national leaders have argued that the public should barter its civil liberties for safety from terrorist attacks, so public health officials have argued that health is best protected by adopting the national security metaphor 2001 is the excuse, but 1918 is the model.Īs John M. Pray for them, and if you interact with them on social media, thank them for their help in making this film possible.After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the myth emerged that public health should rely on the pre-First World War tactics of forced quarantine, mandatory physical examinations and vaccinations to be effective against a pandemic. We believe that their involvement is valuable in making this film a helpful apologetic tool for Christians to understand the thinking of those who identify as progressive Christians. ![]() We are thankful that these men participated and cooperated in making this film possible. The film’s position is that their views about Christianity (particularly the atonement) are outside of the bounds of historic Christianity. We allow these individuals to express their opinions about scripture, even though we disagree with what they believe. In this film, four individuals from the progressive and humanist side of the debate agreed to be interviewed by us for the film. In our first film, "Christ Alone," all of our requests for interviews from the prosperity camp were ignored or rejected. This is an important note for those watching "AG2: Christ Crucified," particularly for those who plan to screen this as a church.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |