This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • World Health  • Emergency Medicine  • Alert me on articles by topic

Paul B. Spiegel, MD, MPH

JAMA. 2005;293:1915-1918.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The massive tsunami that affected 11 countries over 2 continents, killed approximately 220 000 people, and made millions of others destitute¹ is a tragedy that deserves all of the media attention, funds, and response it has received. The current crises in Darfur, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), among others, deserve the same, but are not getting it. Why does a natural disaster invoke such a heartfelt and generous response from the news media, governments, United Nations (UN) agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the private and public sectors, whereas complex emergencies do not? The answer is relatively straightforward—response to natural disaster is easier and less politically risky.

A disaster is a serious event that causes an ecological breakdown in the relationship between humans and their environment on a scale that requires extraordinary efforts to allow the community to cope, and often requires outside help . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliation: Dr Spiegel is Senior Technical Officer, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva, Switzerland.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Aid after disasters: Economic considerations tend to take priority
Hayanga
BMJ 2005;331:49-50.
FULL TEXT