Fireworks' Fun Display of One Neighbor Is a Trauma for Another: Where to Draw the Line! 

Fireworks displays can have various effects on war zone survivors (I am a child of war), refugees, school shooting survivors, gun violence survivors, and veterans of foreign wars, especially if they have experienced trauma. Fireworks trigger Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and unpleasant memories. To some it is a form of celebratory practice, to trauma survivors, it is the flashback memories of bombing, sonic bombs that the enemy combatants deployed to terrorize us. It is the trigger for the loss of loved ones, family members,  friends, classmates, neighbors and beyond.

 

PTSD can have significant effects on refugees, war children, and veterans when it comes to fireworks. These individuals may experience heightened sensitivity and distress due to the loud noises, flashing lights, and sensory stimulation associated with fireworks displays. Here's a breakdown of how fireworks can affect each group:

1. Refugees: Refugees often have a history of traumatic experiences, including war, persecution, or displacement. Fireworks can trigger memories of explosions, gunfire, or bombings, which can intensify their feelings of fear, anxiety, and helplessness. The sudden loud noises and unpredictable nature of fireworks can lead to a heightened state of hypervigilance and feelings of being in danger. It is essential to approach fireworks displays with sensitivity and awareness in areas with refugee populations.
2. War Children: War children, who have grown up in conflict zones or have experienced war firsthand, may have already been exposed to traumatic events. Fireworks can remind them of the sounds and visual effects of war, potentially retraumatizing them. They might experience heightened anxiety, flashbacks, or emotional distress during fireworks displays. It is crucial to create safe spaces and provide support for war children during events involving fireworks.
3. School Shooting Survivors: Individuals who have survived school shootings or have been directly affected by such incidents may associate loud noises like fireworks with the traumatic event they experienced. The sound of gunshots and the chaos that often accompanies school shootings can resurface during fireworks displays, causing anxiety, fear, and emotional distress.
4. Gun Violence Survivors: Those who have survived gun violence, including victims of shootings or their loved ones, may have heightened sensitivity to loud noises like fireworks. The sounds and flashes can trigger traumatic memories and evoke a sense of danger, leading to increased anxiety, emotional turmoil, and potentially retraumatization.
5. Veterans of Foreign Wars: Veterans, particularly those who have served in combat zones, may have a higher likelihood of experiencing PTSD. Fireworks can trigger memories of their military experiences, such as explosions, gunshots, or other traumatic events. The loud noises and bright flashes can induce anxiety, panic, or a sense of being back in a combat situation. Many veterans find fireworks displays to be distressing and may choose to avoid them altogether.

So, Iyad, what can we do as a community? Given the potential impact on these individuals, it is important to approach fireworks displays with sensitivity and understanding. Communities can take steps to mitigate the effects by considering alternative, less triggering forms of celebration or by providing advance notice and resources to those who may be affected. Raising awareness, promoting education, and fostering empathy within communities can help create a supportive environment for individuals who have experienced trauma and are sensitive to fireworks. Additionally, providing access to mental health support and resources is crucial for those who require assistance in managing their emotional responses to fireworks.

If you made it this far in this blog post, and you found information might be beneficial to someone you know, share it to raise awareness, promote education, and foster empathy within our communities.

Health Care Reform Constitutionality Battle, Would It End Tomorrow?

By: Iyad Afalqa*

June 27, 2012

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s upholding of a key portion of Arizona immigration law, all eyes are fixated on President Barack Obama’s signature policy achievement i.e. the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)— aka Healthcare Reform Law. The critics of this law charge that it establishes an array of new entitlements, poor cost controls, and overly imposing regulations on the health sector that comprises of one-sixth of U.S. economy. Furthermore, they have raised profound constitutional concerns — not only due to its sheer scope, but also because of the authority it claims for the federal government.

Most of the lawsuits challenging the reform act have focused on Section 1501 of the statute, known colloquially as the "individual mandate" or "insurance mandate." This section, which goes into effect in 2014, will require nearly every American citizen either to maintain health-care coverage or to pay an annual penalty submitted with individual tax returns. In some cases, the penalty may be up to $750 per individual per tax year, subject to inflation adjustments.

Again, at the heart of this debate is the basic question of whether the constitution really allows the United States government to compel its citizens to buy insurance. Erwin Chemerinsky, a scholar of constitutional law and the founding Dean of UC Irvine’s Law School, in a recent presentation explained that, “ The most commonly cited authority for the individual mandate is the commerce clause, located in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. This clause gives Congress "power to regulate commerce...among the several States." He further explained that this authority in turn, allows Congress to regulate two general fields of activity; one that consists of the instrumentalities of commerce — such as the phone lines, waterways, boats, rails, and train cars by which interstate trade is conducted or shipped while the other consists of the goods and services that are traded interstate.

So, what will happen? The speculators including experts on constitutional law have argued five different scenarios for the upcoming court ruling. One is for the court to uphold the entire law. Second, to strike the individual mandate while keeping everything else intact including the penalty. A third is to strike both the mandate and the penalty while keeping other provisions. A fourth is to strike the mandate, the penalty, the insurance reforms, but keep everything else in place. And fifth, to  strike the whole law—in other words, keep nothing.

If the court would uphold the entire law as constitutional, this would obviously be a clear win for President Obama. However, if the court would deem the individual mandate unconstitutional and that it could not be separated from the rest of the law (severability) it would leave more than 30 million people who expected to be insured without recourse. This would be a bitter sweet win for the Republicans as well, as they would be under immediate pressure to offer the nation an alternative legislation to fix this increasingly insurmountable healthcare crisis. Achieving the triple aim of higher Quality, lower Costs, and increased Access to care would be an immensely challenging task especially in such a bitterly divided Congress.

According to some experts, the current US Supreme Court make-up is the most conservative since the 1930s.  In addition, being an election year, where Republicans are fiercely pressing the issue of repealing the entire reform, it could be safely assume that an intense debate on the said issue would continue regardless of the court’s decision. On the other hand, since the reform measures are not fully applicable until 2020, its full impact, beneficial or otherwise, is so slow in coming that it no easily palpable arguments could be made in its favor in this age of political expediency.

Iyad Afalqa is an Executive Faculty Fellow at the UC Irvine’s Paul Merage School of Business, where he is pursuing his Healthcare Executive MBA with focus on Healthcare management, policy and strategy. Also, he is a board member of the Medical Network Devoted to Service (MiNDS), a southern CA based charitable network of healthcare providers caring for the uninsured