|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Sunday, January 26, 2003Medact estimates that if the threatened war on Iraq ensues, "total possible deaths on all sides during conflict and in the following three months will range from 48 000 to over 260 000. Civil war within Iraq could add another 20 000 deaths. Additional later deaths from postwar adverse health effects could reach 200 000. In all scenarios the majority of casualties will be civilians." The report calculates that "the aftermath of a `conventional' war could include civil war, famine and epidemics, refugees and displaced people, and catastrophic effects on children's health and development." Knock-on effects could include exacerbation of international conflicts, inequalities, and divisions. The most recent UN report also estimates substantial and wide-reaching humanitarian impacts: "As many as 500 000 people could require treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries," on the basis of the WHO's estimates of 100 000 direct and 400 000 indirect casualties. It indicates existing shortages of some medical items, "rendering the existing stocks inadequate" for war increased demand, and exacerbated by the "likely absence of a functioning primary health care system in a post-conflict situation." The report also "estimated that the nutritional status of some 3.03 million people countrywide will be dire and that they will require therapeutic feeding [according to Unicef's estimates]." Finally, "it is estimated that there will eventually be some 900 000 Iraqi refugees requiring assistance, of whom 100 000 will be in need of immediate assistance [according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)] . . . An estimated 2 million people will require some assistance with shelter." For 130 000 existing refugees in Iraq "it is probable that UNHCR will initially be unable to provide the support required." But the most worrying impact of the use of force in Iraq and internationally is in its role as an escalator of collective violence. The WHO defines "collective violence"by states or non governmental groupsas: "The instrumental use of violence by people who identify themselves as members of a groupwhether this group is transitory or has a more permanent identityagainst another group or set of individuals, in order to achieve political, economic or social objectives." The WHO reports that such collective use of force has long term negative impacts on stability and social wellbeing. International violence has been steadily increasing and "overall a total of 72 million people are believed to have lost their lives during the 20th century due to conflict, with an additional 52 million lives lost through genocides." Conflict escalates after use of collective force, as violence becomes a more common and legitimated form of political or social action. Didn't they say the same thing about Afghanistan? That's Afghanistan, where children are now finally getting immunized against measles, and efforts are finally under way to help women get prenatal care and safe deliveries of their babies. And don't these same people advocate laws that protect abused women and children from their abusive families rather than turn a blind eye to "maintain the status quo"? They should think of Iraq as an abusive family. UPDATE: Howard Fienberg is ahead of the game. He debunked this back in November. posted by Sydney on 1/26/2003 08:50:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
