Suchergebnisse

This article describes UK and US responses to 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks, referring to 'biodefence' and the civilian structures of disaster preparedness. Following a review of initiatives undertaken in each country the article details principal differences between the two systems, the federal nature of the US response and the more localised arrangements preferred in the UK. Finally, with reference to certain international standards articulated by the World Health Organisation, the article concludes with some critical reflections on recent policy developments. International standards promote the civilian character of preparedness programmes and their connections to public health infrastructure. This is being challenged by US developments that emphasise the role of the military while, in the UK, there remain questions about the capacity of civilian structures.

This article describes UK & US responses to 9/11 & the subsequent anthrax attacks, referring to 'biodefence' & the civilian structures of disaster preparedness. Following a review of initiatives undertaken in each country the article details principal differences between the two systems, the federal nature of the US response & the more localised arrangements preferred in the UK. Finally, with reference to certain international standards articulated by the World Health Organisation, the article concludes with some critical reflections on recent policy developments. International standards promote the civilian character of preparedness programmes & their connections to public health infrastructure. This is being challenged by US developments that emphasise the role of the military while, in the UK, there remain questions about the capacity of civilian structures. 27 References. Adapted from the source document.