Yes, the plague is still a relevant disease
This past fall Madagascar experienced a plague outbreak that
infected more than 2,000 people resulting in 171 deaths. While the outbreak
seems to now be under control, the plague is still very much a prevalent disease
in some parts of the world. How it is addressed is something that needs serious
consideration. We are familiar with the bubonic plague, which is caused by the
bacterium Yersinia pestis. It is
commonly carried by rats that have been bitten by fleas infected with the
bacterium. If bubonic plague is not treated, it can become pneumonic plague,
which travels to the lungs. What makes this plague more serious is that the pneumonic
plague is much more virulent and can be spread from person to person by coughing
or sneezing.
Although the plague can easily spread from person to person,
it can also be easily treated. Both forms of the plague can be treated with
antibiotics, but the key to this is early detection and treatment. Fortunately,
Madagascar was able to prevent the plague from being spread outside of the
country. The response to the first reported cases of the plague was to increase
treatment centers staff and to trace how the disease was spread. This led to
about 95% of patients taking preventative antibiotics. Madagascar was able to
prevent further spread of this deadly disease, but with the global world that
we live in, it raises questions about how prepared other countries might be for
such an outbreak? In addition, we also have to think about whether or not it is
our responsibility to help other countries during these outbreaks if they were
to need additional resources.
Even though it was not the case for this particular
outbreak, the United States often donates resources and people volunteer in
countries where there are disease outbreaks; individuals from the World Health
Organization (WHO) and Doctors Without Borders went to Madagascar during this
most recent plague outbreak. There may be some who argue that we should not be
giving money or providing resources to these countries, but when looking at
what is the ethical thing to do in these situations, we can look at the ethical
principle of justice. According to this principle, if individuals in the US were
given treatment to prevent an outbreak, then individuals in other countries
should also be given the same treatment. We have to consider what is fair. If
the US has the resources to help these countries, then we should be doing so. Although
not everyone may agree, containing these outbreaks is essential to avoid a
possible global outbreak that could result in more illness and more deaths.
References:
Bichell, R. E. (2017). How
Madagascar Took Control Of Its Bubonic Plague Outbreak. Retrieved November 20,
2017, from https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/11/19/564821692/how-madagascar-took-control-of-its-bubonic-plague-outbreak
Senthilingam, M. (2017). 124 dead, nearly 1,200
infected with plague in Madagascar. Retrieved November 20, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/25/health/madagascar-pneumonic-plague-outbreak/index.html
Your post was very interesting to read. In the back of my mind, I always thought that the plague was something from the history books and not really relevant to modern society. I think this is due to the fact that the U.S. has access to advanced technology in health and medicine and so its prevalence, along with media attention, of this type of disease is less widespread. However, other countries—even large parts/demographics of the U.S.—does not have access to resources that could provide immediate aid to contain a highly communicable disease.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a great question about whether or not other countries are prepared for such outbreaks and if they do not, is it the ethical duty for global communities to donate resources and aid. I would agree that under justice, it is our duty to help countries combat preventable and treatable diseases. All peoples are human beings that have the right to access healthcare and to improve their quality of life. Also, providing aid also sets a precedent for future situations and encourages a sense of a global community. I would also argue that the other ethical values like beneficence, non-malfeasance, and to some degree autonomy would also indicate that it would be unethical to refuse to provide help. Not only is it ethical to provide help, but to help contain the plague and other communicable diseases, it will help prevent the spread of the disease from reaching other countries: we are protecting others and ourselves from potential infection and minimizing the consequences. The idea of providing aid to other countries should not be a novel idea, but standard procedure—especially if the additional resources have way more benefits than harmful consequences.
My partner is from the United Kingdom and the Bubonic Death is something that we've always marveled as a marker for scientific advancement. It's interesting (and at the same time deeply saddening) that something that wiped out over 30-60% of the entire population in Europe, is so easily preventable and treatable now. As with any modern treatment for a 'historic' disease, it makes me wonder how different our world would look if bubonic plague had been treatable through the middle ages.
ReplyDeleteIn Caliban and the Witch (1998), Federici takes a macroeconomic perspective that indirectly lays the blame for colonialism, capitalism and many patriarchal systems at the feet of the black death (and the Catholic church's response to it). Both fleas and rats could be found almost everywhere in medieval Europe, but they were particularly at home aboard ships of all kinds–which is how the deadly plague made its way through one European port city after another. Because they did not understand the biology of the disease, many people believed that the Black Death was a kind of divine punishment–retribution for sins against God such as greed, blasphemy, heresy, fornication and worldliness. By this logic, the only way to overcome the plague was to win God’s forgiveness. Some people believed that the way to do this was to purge their communities of heretics and other troublemakers–so, for example, many thousands of Jews were massacred in 1348 and 1349 (https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/jewish/1348-jewsblackdeath.asp). With the perspective of time, its hard not to imagine retrospectively how different things could have been if treatment had been available far earlier - but the effects of bubonic plague transhistorically show that we do indeed have a moral imperative to assist countries outside of the US in any way we can.
As everyone is mentioning, just add the plague to the growing list of diseases Americans (and other citizens in fully developed countries) don't realize still exist. It's another example of an extremely deadly disease that's easily prevented with simple medical intervention, interventions that we certainly take for granted.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether or not we should provide assistance to other countries in need, I completely agree that we should. Under the principles of justice and beneficence, more developed countries should always lend help when they can. Regardless of whether or not a country technically has the means to prepare for an "outbreak" or not, if they're struggling, the global community should step in and help.
Unfortunately, governments don't always base their decisions on ethical principles, sometimes basing their decisions on selfish motivations. Even when this is the case, it is still in everyone's best interest to lend a helping hand to struggling nations. We live in an extremely globalized world now, with excellent methods of disease transport constantly flying and sailing between countries. Whether a nation wants to help fellow humans in times of need, or simply protect themselves, every nation who has the means to help during outbreaks like the plague should quickly do so.
I think this is a very important topic and should be looked as a potential pandemic. With the increased rise in people traveling to different countries and how fast people can travel, ie planes, it is important to look at all the precautionary measures of the bubonic plague. Symptoms of the bubonic plague don't appear until 2-6 days after being infected. That allows plenty of time for a person to get on a plane, potentially affect the whole plane full of people, and then go on their merry way to wherever they live. An average plane size is about 100 people therefore 100 people are now vectors for this virus without even knowing it. Ethically it is the duty of the people who have the resources to prevent the spread of disease to do so, even if the area it is happening is not directly correlated to the country that can help. If we do not take preventative measures, this disease can spread like wildfire, from person to person, from fleas, rats, and any other animal vector throughout the world in a matter of days. I believe diseases with potential mass destruction should be a worldwide problem that everyone has to deal with, not just a small country that everyone turns its back on.
ReplyDelete