EBOLA, CONSPIRACY and ETHICS
Some see conspiracies in everything — even as logic would indicate otherwise! The reality is, in most complex scenarios there are far too many people that must have a common agenda and know how to make any conspiracy practical. But, why let logic get in the way of a good premise?
The more recent incident involving the “unaware” Ebola patient visiting the U.S. from West Africa might be construed with much suspicion by those conspiracy believers. They would argue the patient was some type of test case, by an individual or government, to gauge America’s capabilities and ascertain whether a cure already exists. Even I am not certain the patient was unaware of his condition before fleeing Liberia—and honestly if it were me I might have done exactly the same thing. This is especially true when considering my alternative—certain death. But, this scenario brings forward many ethical questions that have not been addressed because we have been completely distracted by a “conspiracy” that is real or imagined. The ethical discussion is much more important and deserves our attention.
In the African American community, there are those that are certain the treatment, or mistreatment, of the Liberian patient in Dallas had everything to with race, nationality and ethnicity. This notion in-part exists because of a very real history of examples of institutional. nationally sanctioned, research misconduct particularly on people of color and economically disadvantaged.
Historical examples, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, have been memorialized and passed down within the Black community. To some diseases, such as AIDS and Ebola are man-made and were developed to carryout some unconscionable deviant purpose. As irrational as this might sound, these conspiracy theorists believe they were are a part of some grand plan to takeover certain nations and gain control of their natural resources. Never mind the fact that our ability control an epidemic such as this is limited at best. This mindset is implausible to most rationale persons. But, think about those that still subscribe to the notion that the U.S. government was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center. Believe me, I have heard such nonsense.
So, where am I going with this narrative? The Liberian Ebola Traveler case has presented some very intriguing and perplexing ethical issues. For the most part they have yet to be discussed publicly. Specifically they are:
1. If a patient knowingly travels to the U. S. in search of a cure? How should that patient be handled?
2. What are the potential consequences should a patient succeed in finding a cure in the U. S. or some other medically advance state?
3. Would this encourage others to behave the same?
4. Could this exponentially increase the spread of Ebola to other unaffected and likely more affluent nations? Hence, do they have a vested interest in ensuring that this does not occur?
5. Ebola treatment is extremely costly who should bare that cost?
6. What is the cost, to the nation and the world, of doing nothing?
7. If the cost of treatment is not borne by someone, or some nation (s), who will suffer the consequence?
8. Should the expense of treatment be covered by insurance companies, or is the treatment “experimental?”
9. What about uninsured patients in the U.S. or abroad? Or, foreign nationals working legally in the U.S. on work/education visas? Should they be treated or deported?
10. If caregivers continue to be infected must they endure the cost of their own treatment? If so, who will provide care and thus prevent an epidemic?
These are just some of the questions with ethical overtones that are worthy of contemplation and dialog. Each, individually requires more time than allotted in this article. My purpose here is only to suggest that we need a national discussion and serious dialog on the issues contained in each question? We need consistency of application and an agreed upon ethos for dealing with this crisis from our nations leaders and health professionals? But, perhaps it is far more comfortable for them to be distracted by conspiracy nonsense than to deal honestly and candidly with really difficult ethical concerns, I, for one, would much rather the debate the latter.
