No. While I believe that each country should develop its own nationwide emergency medical service to respond to disasters, if capacity allows, I do not think a worldwide system is necessary. We …Read MoreNo. While I believe that each country should develop its own nationwide emergency medical service to respond to disasters, if capacity allows, I do not think a worldwide system is necessary. We already have organizations like the Red Cross and others that respond to disasters globally and are funded by donors worldwide. Because these systems already exist and function independently of government coordination (for the most part), I do not thin our governments needs to come together to form a unified worldwide medical response.Read Less
A global system in place to respond to disasters could prove helpful for developing nations that experience a higher risk of national disasters or internal/external conflicts, resulting in a nation’s …Read MoreA global system in place to respond to disasters could prove helpful for developing nations that experience a higher risk of national disasters or internal/external conflicts, resulting in a nation’s decline. A global response to disasters could also be useful to states that fall short in providing aid for their own people.Read Less
No, I do not believe that a worldwide emergency medical service is necessary. Each country faces different types of disasters, so it is unrealistic to build a single system that effectively serves …Read MoreNo, I do not believe that a worldwide emergency medical service is necessary. Each country faces different types of disasters, so it is unrealistic to build a single system that effectively serves every participant. Domestic institutions already understand local risks, infrastructure, and response capacity, which makes national-level intervention more efficient. A global system would also require massive financial contributions from all member states, but countries differ significantly in their fiscal capacity. This asymmetry would create new political problems because wealthier countries would gain more influence over how the system operates. For instance, if Japan contributes more than other participants, the system may naturally reflect Japan’s preferences even if the original purpose was to support lower-income states. These structural imbalances make a worldwide emergency medical service both impractical and potentially unfair.Read Less
A worldwide emergency medical service could be a good idea, but implementing it would cause problems and it wouldn’t solve what its there to solve. It wouldn’t properly address emergencies from each …Read MoreA worldwide emergency medical service could be a good idea, but implementing it would cause problems and it wouldn’t solve what its there to solve. It wouldn’t properly address emergencies from each different country either.Read Less
No. While I believe that each country should develop its own nationwide emergency medical service to respond to disasters, if capacity allows, I do not think a worldwide system is necessary. We …Read MoreNo. While I believe that each country should develop its own nationwide emergency medical service to respond to disasters, if capacity allows, I do not think a worldwide system is necessary. We already have organizations like the Red Cross and others that respond to disasters globally and are funded by donors worldwide. Because these systems already exist and function independently of government coordination (for the most part), I do not thin our governments needs to come together to form a unified worldwide medical response. Read Less
A global system in place to respond to disasters could prove helpful for developing nations that experience a higher risk of national disasters or internal/external conflicts, resulting in a nation’s …Read MoreA global system in place to respond to disasters could prove helpful for developing nations that experience a higher risk of national disasters or internal/external conflicts, resulting in a nation’s decline. A global response to disasters could also be useful to states that fall short in providing aid for their own people. Read Less
No, I do not believe that a worldwide emergency medical service is necessary. Each country faces different types of disasters, so it is unrealistic to build a single system that effectively serves …Read MoreNo, I do not believe that a worldwide emergency medical service is necessary. Each country faces different types of disasters, so it is unrealistic to build a single system that effectively serves every participant. Domestic institutions already understand local risks, infrastructure, and response capacity, which makes national-level intervention more efficient. A global system would also require massive financial contributions from all member states, but countries differ significantly in their fiscal capacity. This asymmetry would create new political problems because wealthier countries would gain more influence over how the system operates. For instance, if Japan contributes more than other participants, the system may naturally reflect Japan’s preferences even if the original purpose was to support lower-income states. These structural imbalances make a worldwide emergency medical service both impractical and potentially unfair. Read Less
A worldwide emergency medical service could be a good idea, but implementing it would cause problems and it wouldn’t solve what its there to solve. It wouldn’t properly address emergencies from each …Read MoreA worldwide emergency medical service could be a good idea, but implementing it would cause problems and it wouldn’t solve what its there to solve. It wouldn’t properly address emergencies from each different country either. Read Less