Arizona and Sonora share the same ecosystem, the Sonoran Desert region. They share common history, several Native American tribes on both sides of the border, and they have six border twin towns. The natural boundary is 361 miles long and it has never been a totally closed border. Arizona needed Sonora's miners and ranchers and they have been the biggest source of migrants to the USA.
Because of the constant flow of people across the border, the Arizona-Sonora region <em>developed its own separate identity.</em> Many people living there are bilingual and commute daily to the other side of the border for work. Their value system has been affected by the proximity of a different culture. As a result of that, intercultural and interracial mixing took place that created a generation of people who feel a connection to both countries at the same time. Prejudices have been reduced and stereotypes abolished.
<em>The interdependence</em> between the USA and Mexico has always been and still is business related. Starting with vegetables trading, the cross border shopping and manufacturing developed into big industry today. A major economy connection has developed through the maquiladora sector. Arizona based companies operate about 30% of maquiladoras in Sonora and Sonora's economy is dependent on this and the automobile industry in Arizona.
Cross-border shopping, tourism ( for pleasure and medical reasons), joined environmental projects, bilingual schools and cultural events are all parts of the interdependence between the two countries.
Hello
<em />
<em>In Feb 1807, explorer Lt. </em><em>Zebulon Pike </em><em>was arrested on the upper Rio Grande River by Spanish forces on his government-sanctioned exploration of the Arkansas and Red Rivers.</em>
<em />
Best regards
Given limited supplies of vaccines, antiviral drugs, and ventilators, non-pharmaceutical interventions are likely to dominate the public health response to any pandemic, at least in the near term. The six papers that make up this chapter describe scientific approaches to maximizing the benefits of quarantine and other nonpharmaceutical strategies for containing infectious disease as well as the legal and ethical considerations that should be taken into account when adopting such strategies. The authors of the first three papers raise a variety of legal and ethical concerns associated with behavioral approaches to disease containment and mitigation that must be addressed in the course of pandemic planning, and the last three papers describe the use of computer modeling for crafting disease containment strategies.
More specifically, the chapter’s first paper, by Lawrence Gostin and Benjamin Berkman of Georgetown University Law Center, presents an overview of the legal and ethical challenges that must be addressed in preparing for pandemic influenza. The authors observe that even interventions that are effective in a public health sense can have profound adverse consequences for civil liberties and economic status. They go on to identify several ethical and human rights concerns associated with behavioral interventions that would likely be used in a pandemic, and they discuss ways to minimize the social consequences of such interventions.
The next essay argues that although laws give decision makers certain powers in a pandemic, those decision makers must inevitably apply ethical tenets to decide if and how to use those powers because “law cannot anticipate the specifics of each public health emergency.” Workshop panelist James LeDuc of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and his co-authors present a set of ethical guidelines that should be employed in pandemic preparation and response. They also identify a range of legal issues relevant to social-distancing measures. If state and local governments are to reach an acceptable level of public health preparedness, the authors say, they must give systematic attention to the ethical and legal issues, and that preparedness should be tested, along with other public health measures, in pandemic preparation exercises.
LeDuc’s fellow panelist Victoria Sutton of Texas Tech University also considered the intersection of law and ethics in public health emergencies in general and in the specific case of pandemic influenza.
They are organized according to 3 characteristics:
1. The first is having <span>less rigid hierarchical structures and greater sharing of power and responsibility by all participants. Less rigid hierarchical structures meant that there would be higher changes between the positions and that it would be possible for lower leveled workers to become higher leveled through their work. It would also work vice versa. The money was also split more equally.
2. The second is </span><span>encouragement of participants to share their ideas and try new approaches to problem solving. This was similar to brainstorming. Even people at lower levels of the hierarchy would be able to provide ideas and help the businesses, it was not just about having the higher-ups decide something and have it enforced by the lower level people from the hierarchy.
3. The third is introducing </span><span>efforts to reduce the number of people in dead-end jobs, train people in needed skills and competencies, and help people meet outside family responsibilities while still receiving equal treatment inside the organization. This was done to help people prosper and become even better workers since they could get a promotion while also not being exploited and being with their families.</span>
