Evidence-Based Interventions Used in National Traumatic Events
The DSM-5 task force added a section dedicated to trauma and stress. With an increased exposure to traumatic events, more individuals are exhibiting symptoms related to trauma exposure. Experiencing any of these events can result in an individual’s suffering from a trauma or stressor-related disorder.
Read the DSM-5 section on trauma and stressor-related disorders, in particular the articles on PTSD by Van der Kolk (2005) and Agaibi and Wilson (2005). Then search the literature for a study related to a national traumatic event and an evidence-based intervention used to treat those suffering from trauma and stressor-related issues associated with it.
By Day 3
Post a brief description of the event, including a summary of how it affected the individuals involved. What are some psychosocial issues that needed to be addressed following this event? Identify an intervention that was implemented to address one of the psychosocial issues. Discuss the effectiveness of this intervention as stated in the article. What are some of the implications for social work in connection with traumatic events?
Support your post with specific references to the resources. Be sure to provide full APA citations for your references.
Public law and administration
question- In order to combat growing security problems at airports, Parliament has passed the (fictitious) Airport Security Act 2017. The Act seeks to give powers to the Secretary of State for Transport to introduce a range of measures designed to increase security at British airports. Three sections of the Act are of particular significance:
Section 1, which permits the Secretary of State to draw up Regulations compelling airlines to take measures to enhance security. The Act states that such Regulations can only be drawn up after “consultation with relevant parties”.
Section 2, which creates a system of licensing for all airline employees. The Act states that no person can be employed by an airline until they are approved and licensed as being “suitable” by the Secretary of State for Transport. The Act states that all present employees will be required to apply for a licence, and gives them a three-month period from the coming into force of the Act to make such an application and be granted a licence.
Section 3, gives the Secretary of State various powers. These include: imposing penalties, including fines; confiscation of equipment; and, for serious breaches of regulations under section 1, revocation of an air carrier’s licence to operate flights; and a similar power of revocation where persons not licensed under the system created under section 2 are employed by an airline. Where a licence is revoked, the airline subject to the revocation will no longer be able to operate flights in and out of the UK.
The Act has now been in force for a while, and the Secretary of State has taken a number of steps to enforce the provisions of the Act. As a result, the following clients come to your office seeking advice on the potential success of either application claim for judicial review, bringing an action in private law or seeking redress through alternative grievance resolution mechanisms in order to resolve their present problems:
(a) Using the powers under Section 1, the Secretary of State introduces Regulations requiring all airlines to conduct searches of passengers at the gate prior to boarding in order to prevent ‘dangerous items’ from being taken aboard aeroplanes. Andy, a director of Hullair, a small airline flying from Humberside airport, comes to you for advice. He is aggrieved because Hullair were not consulted prior to the introduction of the Regulations, and also because Hullair have been subject to enforcement action under section 3. The enforcement action arose because one of Hullair’s searches failed to find a small paper knife, which a passenger had in her handbag. This was discovered when she began to use it on the flight in order to open some correspondence. In response to this, the Secretary of State determined that the paper knife was a ‘dangerous item’, fined Hullair £250,000 and confiscated the aeroplane where the incident occurred. Hullair was not offered a hearing before the punishment was imposed,
and have not been informed whether or not the confiscated aeroplane will be returned to them.
(b) The Airline Pilots Association, which comes to you on behalf of a large number of its members. Problems have arisen because pilots who were already employed by airlines prior to the enactment of the Act were all obliged to apply for licences under the terms of section 2 of the Airport Security Act 2017. The large number of applications has led to a significant backlog of applications for licences, and the Department for Transport has not issued licences to over 50% of the Association’s members within the three-month time limit of the coming into force of the Act as imposed by section 2. Despite this problem, the Secretary of State has stuck rigidly to the provisions of the Act, and has threatened to impose sanctions on any airline using pilots who do not yet have a licence. This situation has led to significant loss of earnings for many of the Association’s members, who have been unable to contact the Department for Transport to enquire about the progress of their licence applications as telephone lines have not been answered and emails have not elicited a response.
(c) Elif is an airline pilot who wished to apply for a licence to work under section 2 of the Airport Security Act 2017. Elif was concerned that some political activities that she had engaged in during her student days may raise doubts about her suitability under section 2 of the Act, so sought advice from the Department for Transport. She received an email from a civil servant in the Department for Transport advising that her previous political activities would not affect her suitability. As such, she made an application, which has been refused because the Department has stated that her previous political activities render her unsuitable to receive a licence.