- First, listen to this podcast on Ebola (direct download the mp3 file). Generally a very good introduction to the virus, but as someone who worked in a virus lab before moving into teaching, there are a few inaccuracies that caught my ear.
- Pay special attention towards the end of the episode when they discuss the experimental drug ZMapp and the ethical questions of how and whether to use untested drugs for Ebola, and whom to use them on.
- Read this article about the ethics of unproven treatments for Ebola.
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Summer Assignment 8.18
Back to the Ebola virus this week. Slightly different assignment this week though.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
I believe that the use of untested drugs/ possible cures on patients with the Ebola virus would be a well and ethical idea because most of the purpose of the untested drugs was to cure and help the infected individuals. So, the only true way to discover if the drug works or not is by using it on Ebola patients. While there will be people, who question the use of untested drugs, realistically and statistically, the Africans would already be dead due to the Ebola virus, so why not take an untested drug that could help and save more people that are also infected? While this would be one of the more controversial decisions, it seems to be the most effective and globally correct choice. Additionally, the fact that the experimental drug was first used on Americans means close to nothing due to the fact that the medical sites in America are more sterile than the ones in Africa. Furthermore, Americans may be immune to certain side effects that would be rampant in Africans, and then Africans would blame their family’s deaths on America for being too careless with their medical actions. However the only way to truly see if there are any side effects is to test the drugs first hand on the people who are dying.
-David Liu
I believe that the use of untested drugs to treat patients is ethical in this case, because of the high mortality rate. However some attempt should be made to actually make sure the drug is doing the curing. According to the article we do not actually know if the drug is curing patients, because we are giving them multiple treatments. Unless we actually know it is helping, it doesn't make sense to mass distribute it, due to its adverse side effects. However due to the severity of the disease it does make sense to try and use the experimental drug. As far as the informed consent goes for the infected patients, I feel as if it's irrelevant to ask for their consent. Anyone infected with Ebola would grasp for anything that could give them hope, including experimental medicine. Although it is possible that some of the people would be skeptical thinking that they were being treated like lab rats. Also I feel that it was justified for the Americans to get the experimental treatment, before the Africans. The reason being, if they had any side effects then it would have been treatable. Also I would have to assume that the experimental medicine was easier to access in America rather than Africa.
The podcast about the Ebola Virus was interesting. I learned a lot more about the symptoms patients face with Ebola. For instance, I did not know that Ebola patients start out with flu like symptoms and joint pain. And then symptoms like bloody diarrhea and jaundice appear. I also learned that the virus starts out by attacking the immune system and then attacking the epithelial cells, connective tissue, and organs. Therefore, in the end the patient often dies from multi-organ failure/hypotensive shock. In the end they discussed the new experimental drug, ZMapp, as being controversial because it is not proven to help treat the virus. However, I think in cases like in Africa where the outbreak of Ebola is severe, that untested drugs should be given. There is a chance that the drug could help so it is worth a try to distribute it to Ebola patients who are willing to try it. Since the virus causes most patients to die, it is worth a try to see what effect, if any, it has on a patient. The fact that the drug was given to Americans first, could seem controversial to some people. However, it really is a no-win situation because if the drug was given to the Africans first and did not work then America would get the blame. At this point it is still uncertain as to what exactly the drug can do for an Ebola patient. In order to come to the success rate of ZMapp, more patients would have to take it. Like Kieny said in the article, if the drug is distributed it is important to properly collect all data on the patients that receive it, along with other information about the impact the drug has on the patient. Also in the article, the idea of side effects was brought up. I also think that it is risky to introduce a drug that can cause unexpected side effects that health care workers are not equipped for. That is why I think the best option would be to distribute the drug, but in limited quantity to see how effective the drug can be. In addition it is important that health care workers and even government officials keep their citizens well-informed about the effects of the virus, the precautions uninflected people should take, and about ZMapp. Keeping the public well-informed would be the first step to control the outbreak.
With such a high mortality rate for a fasting moving virus, my opinion is it needs to be used on the people that are dying. The podcast said that so far, the medicine has saved 2 out of 3 persons lives that have contracted Ebola, which is better than no medication at all. ZMapp as it is called has only been developed just a couple of weeks ago by Mapp pharmaceutical company and is now being administered throughout Liberia. The issue is that before the CDC can try the drug on those sick individuals in Africa, we need to make sure of two things. First, we need the villagers trust and complete permission and next, we need to make sure the drug completely works. If neither of those happens, then the Central and West Africans might start refusing help and the situation will get worse. That is why it was an intelligent idea to try the medicine on American soil first. Here, most of us completely trust modern science and healthcare. As Sprecher says in the article, “It could be a really strong tool. All these people that are not feeling good about coming into the treatment unit might change their minds if you start producing survivors instead of bodies.” If ZMapp works and people survive, then the natives might start trusting them and that way more medicine can be administered. The most controversial thing I found about this current Ebola virus is that how long that the medicine is being developed. The podcast mentioned that Ebola was discovered during 1976 and has continued to ravage Central Africa and now West Africa since then sporadically. However, since there is no market for drugs that could cure Ebola in Africa as many of them are third world countries, it hasn’t been developed. Hundreds have died in agonizing pain but no one bothered to develop a cure as it was not lucrative. However, once a few Americans catch it, it is whole different situation. I completely agree that it was a major letdown for Western culture and humanity.
Ashana P
I think that the podcast was interesting because I agreed with many points that they made in the podcast such as why would they would bring two people who were infected with Ebola into the U.S even though it risks others getting infected. They also mentioned that Ebola was named after the Ebola River in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which I never knew. I didn’t know that there were five strains of Ebola such as Zaire, and Reston. The strains are named after there origin such as Reston, which is in Virginia. I never knew that Ebola has a mortality rate of 90% which is very surprising considering that the Spanish flu had a mortality rate of 2.5% and still managed to kill many people and spread to many areas. Ebola attacks the immune system, which is bad because your immune system helps your body fight against the disease. Without your immune system it will make it very difficult to fight off Ebola. Ebola can easily get mistaken for Malaria because the symptoms are very similar. Ebola goes after the tissue and organs and you can die from organ failure or Hypotensive shock. They have an experimental serum called ZMapp for Ebola, which I feel, is ethical to use because it has a possibility of saving someone’s life. This virus seems very aggressive and I hope that a cure is found soon.
The article about whether or not experimental drugs should be used to treat Ebola was very informative because it showed the benefits and risks of using experimental drugs. In my opinion I think that untested drugs should be given to individuals in cases such as this, but only if they want to have it. If they do not want to be given untested drugs then they should not be given them, but like it said in the article “Dying people grasp at straws”. I think that a person who has the opportunity to be given an experimental drug should be told about the possible side effects (if they know of any) before given the drug, and if they agree to take the drug after being told the side effects, then they should be given it because it was their own choice. The medicine was given to the first American patients and not the African patients. I think that the American patients may have been give the drug first because the drug was made in the U.S, so they may want to test the drug in the U.S first before other countries test the drug and blame the U.S for killing other people with this experimental drug. Another point that was mentioned in the article says that the people who were infected with Ebola would get ZMapp first if the drug proved to work, and a vaccine would be given to Health-care workers so that they can help the people who are already infected with Ebola get treatment. I think that this experimental drug should be given to those who are infected with Ebola and want to take this untested drug.
I believe that the use of untested drugs to sick individuals and people with the Ebola virus can be very necessary. Yes, the use of these untested drugs is a large risk and might harm people let alone help them. However, people already affected with Ebola and all these sick individuals have already been harmed. The untested drugs to be tested on them could help an important and much bigger amount of people in the future. This is a difficult decision and a large risk to take. The drug should be given to the people actually harmed like Ebola patients. Finding a drug that can be beneficial is essential and necessary. Use of these untested drugs can help save many people in the long run.
I believe that in a situation like this, untested drugs should be given to the sick ebola infected people. There simply isn't enough time to have a full range of tests done on this product because, as was said in the podcast, ebola is killing people very quickly. By the time these tests are done, hundreds maybe even a thousand more people would have died. People should be willing to try most things to find some sort of cure and scientists should try anything to reduce the spread and mortality rate of this virus. Testing the potential vaccine on ebola patients is also the only way to know if it is effective or not and will help future patients and pharmacists with the results.
Testing the drug on Americans first does make sense, for our country has a more sanitary environment to apply them and probably easier access to the supplies needed. Also, African countries may not have enough needles, and it was stated in the podcast that reused needles gave a 100% death rate when it was previously used on an ebola patient. It is safer to first use it on Americans and then ship them over to Liberia.
The podcast was very helpful in explaining Ebola on a more informed level. Some basic background about Ebola includes that patient zero was in all likeliness a man named Mabalo and the virus was named after the Ebola River which was in the surrounding area. First of all, Ebola does not spread through the air- it spreads through bodily fluids. When it is contracted the virus attacks the victim's immune system- effectively shutting it down. The patient dies within a few days of showing symptoms due to shock, multiple organ failure, and internal hemorrhaging. That, however is not where it ends- in some ways that is where it begins; burial customs include a lot of hands on contact with the body and leaves the virus with a selection of easy hosts. Another scary fact of Ebola is that scientists do not know where exactly the virus is when it is dormant- but the suspect it resides in fruit bats which have no symptoms after contracting the virus. Climate change is suspected to have pushed the migration patterns of the bat closer to Liberia where the outbreak resides. Two American missionaries contracted it and were brought to Atlanta. (The podcast mentioned that this was in direct conflict with Utilitarian philosophy. I did not understand what this meant exactly so I looked it up.
www.utilitarianphilosophy.com/definition.eng.html was a great resource. Basically "the search for happiness stops when it decreases the happiness of another individual". Bringing the missionaries to America violated this because the chance for their happiness put the entire population of America's happiness at risk.) These missionaries were treated with an experimental drug called ZMapp. Although this drug is still experimental I agree that it is definitely ethical because it lends a possibility to saving lives when there was no previous option. Informed consent however is a tricky matter- especially in Africa where the public distrusts the government and heath officials.This can be helped by explaining the process of research to the whole community. Still informed consent is questioned because anyone close to death is grasping at straws (http://www.nature.com/news/should-experimental-drugs-be-used-in-the-ebola-outbreak-1.15698?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews). In my opinion it it is the patients choice after health officials have done as much as they can to inform them. Another major issue is how to prioritize the distribution of ZMapp. When ZMapp was given to the 3 Americans people said that we were keeping it to ourselves- but if it had been given to the Africans first and they had died, they would have said the scientists were deliberately experimenting on the poor Africans. It was a no win situation- but, I believe what was done was right because the patients it was given to were the closest to the drug and therefore the path that was taken was the most efficient path to save lives. Either way it will be months until more ZMapp is ready and this crisis can be averted. Maybe it would have been sooner if pharmaceutical companies cared about saving the lives of thousands of suffering Africans more than money- but, I suppose that is not the case.
After listening to the podcast and reading the article, I think that these experimental drugs are necessary to help the victims of the Ebola outbreak in Western Africa. Since this is the biggest outbreak of Ebola in Western Africa ever and these drugs have been tested and haven't seemed to cause any major side effects it is worth a try to use these drugs in order to help these people survive. Since most of the people who get Ebola most likely die from it, I think it's worth the risk of having side effects to see if the scientists can have any chance of treating the sick in Africa. Even though the natives may become even more defensive and aggressive with western doctors if the medicine doesn't work, it is better then giving up an opportunity to cure these patients and end the epidemic as early as possible. A major problem I see is the distribution of the medicine. The manufacturers would have to have an organized systems for distributing the small dosages available of the drugs because if the natives find out about the availability of the drugs some maybe threaten the doctors and take the medicine by brute force for their own use. Overall, if there is even the slightest chance that these experimental drugs can help those suffering from the Ebola virus it's worth a try. The drugs should definitely be given to Ebola patients first and if results are positive and more is made, the doctors and people coming in contact with the victims should also get the medications. We should be using all resources possible to stop this virus from spreading
Since the chances of surviving once one is diagnosed with Ebola is extremely slim, I believe that we should use these untested drugs on sick individuals. They honestly have nothing to lose with a 90% chance of dying and the medicine might actually save them. It would also bring us one step closer to finding a cure for Ebola which is something that we desperately need with the amount of people who are dying from this deadly disease. The podcast even said that the medicine had saved two out of the three Ebola patients whom would've not been likely to survive the disease if they hadn't been given the medicine at all.
I honestly think that most people who are diagnosed with a disease that has such a high mortality rate would agree to being give untested drugs since it could only help them survive if they're already going to die because of the disease. They would also not want anyone else to be in their position so they would want to help be a part of finding a cure for whatever disease that they have.
I think that the drug was first given to the American patients then to the African patients so that they could make sure that nothing bad would happen to the patients as a result of the untested drug. They wouldn't want to be blamed by the Africans for only causing more deaths in their nation without testing it on people of their own country first.
The Ebola epidemic might have finally come to an end. After killing 1013 people by August 9, it was considered a global health emergency. The usage of the experimental drug Zmapp made by Zmapp Biopharmaceutical of San Diego California, was finally approved for use by the WHO Panel and the UN. They stated stated it was ethical to use even though the drug was not previously tested.
In my opinion, experimental drugs should be given to sick individuals in such cases similar to the Ebola virus outbreak. Although the side effects and the outcome of the drugs are unknown, I believe that if the mortality rate of the disease is high and where the outcome is already not in favor of the Individual's survival, then the person infected should be given the choice of taking the untested drug. It may just better the chance of the person's survival.
However, a person terminally ill with Ebola is vulnerable and is not in a position to make an informed decision because they are desperate to survive. At this stage they would be highly tempted to try the untested drug even if it may be taking a huge risk. They may not be mentally lucid and are unable to make any decision because they are too ill. At this point, we may reasonably expect the patient and the next of kin to decide in favor of the experimental drug. It is a no win situation for them because they are out of time.
Zmapp is a monoclonal antibody treatment that is derived from tobacco plants. To make this medication, scientists introduce the Ebola virus to tobacco plants allowing it to make antibodies. Scientists then make synthetic antibodies replicating the ones similar to the tobacco plant's and injecting them into the Ebola patient. The former antibodies found in the patient then mimics the response of the injected tobacco plant's antibody fighting off the virus.
So why was the drug first given to the American patients when the Ebola virus is taking over parts of Africa? The medication at the moment has a 2/3 success rate but it is impossible to know whether this is due to the drug itself, to good health care or to other treatments. In other words, even if it was responsible for improving the health of patients, it is still an experimental drug and the results may vary. If Zmapp had a negative effect on American patients, there would be no global ethical consequences because it is an American drug administered to American patients. However, since this drug had a positive effect and saved the lives of the Americans, people are wondering why it wasn't used in Africa first. If Zmapp was first used in Africa and killed it's patients, then, the Americans might have been held responsible for using the vulnerable Africans to test the drug. To avoid any ethical problems, it was wise for Americans to first give the untested drug to the the diseased American health workers although there is "no win situation".
Absolutely. I think untested drugs should be given to Ebola patients because the outbreak is just becoming out of control. Like it mentions in the podcast, some Ebola diagnosed patients are dying just within a week after symptoms first appear, and even if they don’t, the survival rate is just too low. We’re at this point where a cure, and only a cure, is imperative and immediately needed; even despite the symptoms. With all this chaos, patients are all struggling to their death and will simply take any form of action which could allow surviving.
Though the drug may not function accordingly, the doctors still gave the patients a sense of mental relief where they got an actual chance to try this hopefully-life-saving. Also within the time of all the trials and errors, scientists can develop something more accurate and beneficial to Ebola patients.
Regarding the drug trials first given to American patients, I think it’s reasonable. It’s more effective and easier to have this process in a closer location than to send it out halfway across the world. Especially with the large breakout in Africa, patients who take a drug might be contaminated again, thus making waste of hard work and labor. Personally, when an Ebola curing drug is finally made and tested accurately on Americans, then I think it’s the right time to send a large supply over the Africa.
I believe the use of untested drugs and vaccines for Ebola is essential and ethical in order to find a way to end the spread of the virus. As of August 9th, 1,013 have succumbed to the Ebola virus. With a mortality rate at about 90% as said in the podcast, if we don’t find a cure now more people will die every day at an accelerating rate. In addition the WHO had declared Ebola a global health emergency last week. Currently we have 2 cure/vaccines, ZMapp and TKM-Ebola; however we don't know if they work yet. The only way to discover if the drug works or not is by testing it with Ebola patients. Even if the drugs don't work, I think the data we can receive from the Ebola Patients (if we test drugs on them) will be valuable in creating a better cure. And, in my opinion I think the fact that the experimental cures were first tested on Americans meant very little because it was only a test and if there were possible side effects we could be able to fix it. However I think it is risky to rely on a new drug without knowing possible side effects and giving it to Africans because as it is currently, not many African natives trust the government and health services. Any possible negative side effects might only damage the relationship between the government and the Africans further.
I read the article on if using the unproven Ebola treatments on patients was ethical or not. I think that it is ethical to give the treatments to patients since the treatments could increase one's chance of surviving Ebola. Because of the damage Ebola has already done to its victims, the treatments can only help the patients. As for side effects, the only way to lessen side effects is to collect data on how the treatments work on various patients. The Ebola treatments should also be put into use for the sake of progression. Since not much is known if Ebola treatments work or are safe, if the treatments are tested, then people could get results, find errors and problems and improve and work from there. Some may say that this is unethical, but I think that side effects would matter very little if it meant having a bigger chance of survival(even though side effects could complicate things). This article made me think more from both a patients and a doctors perspective on unproven Ebola treatments.
-Kausthub Vedantham
The podcast revealed to me that Ebola is truly a nasty virus. Internal bleeding, vomiting, burning throat, hemorrhagic fever, and a quick death with almost no warning. Ebola is not just any other virus. Ebola is a silent killer. In Africa, Ebola is spreading like hellish wildfire, and bodies are dropping dead like flies. When it comes to death, anybody will be desperate for a second chance, a chance to live another day. Right now, some people in Africa (who are barely living) are crying desperately for any cure available. They demand for shipments of unproven, untested drugs such as ZMapp, and they want the cure in their hands immediately. On the other hand, some people are cynical about foreign medical aid, and the idea of "Westerners experimenting on Africans" dominates their minds.
I believe that if ONLY there is a COPIOUS supply of ZMapp and other antibiotics, untested drugs should be given to sick individuals. Those people who villainize foreign medical aid should wake up and realize that the Ebola victims have a more than 90% of dying without any treatment. They should realize that ANYTHING, such as treatments of ZMapp and untested drugs, should be done to save sick individuals. Even if those who are treated with untested drugs die after the treatment, it is wrong for people to immediately start pointing fingers at foreign pharmaceutical companies and accuse Westerners of "killing Africans". Most likely, the untested drug will not be the cause of death. Instead, the one and only Ebola will be the ultimate cause.
HOWEVER, there is only a miniscule supply of these untested drugs, far too small for Africa's colossal outbreak. Secondly, creating these drugs takes too long. The podcast speakers speak the truth: this is indeed a no-win situation.
In this case, the use of untested drugs should be used to treat the Ebola patients. Ebola is spreading quickly and people are dying by the day. Although it may be a huge risk to use these untested drugs, it can be worth it if they work. They may work to help cure patients with Ebola. Those of whom are infected with this virus have a chance to die without this drug. Therefore, it would be a good chance to take to take the untested drug. Finding a drug to help Ebola patients is needed quickly, and this untested drug can possibly help those infected. The only way to find out a cure to something is to test it on someone with the virus to see if it works. In my opinion, I believe that this is a good risk to take. In the long run and future, it can save many lives and loved ones. It is the right decision to test this drug to see if it is a possible cure for Ebola.
I was able to understand the virus in more depth after listening to the podcast and reading the article and I do believe that it is okay to give untested drug to sick patients if they want it. The problem with doctors taking the time out to test the drug is that most of the people would have probably died already due to the death rate being so quick. When giving them this untested drug, there is a high rate of the drug harming those infected with Ebola, but they already have the virus so it is worth trying out the drug hoping it might help the patient. Since no one truly knows if the drug works it is best to test it out on Ebola carriers. Those who are going to receive the drug should be informed on the possible side effects of the drug. If the side effects are unknown to the doctor, I think it is important for the doctors to learn and be informed on the possible problems the drug can cause, so that way the patient is fully aware of the consequences the drug might provide. It was a controversial issue that the drug was given first to Americans rather than Africans. Even though it is a controversial issue, there is no right or wrong answer on who should have gotten the drug first. I think that fingers could have be pointed at both Americans and Africans in a negative way depending on who could have received the drug first. I believe it is ethical to give the untested drug to sick patients so that way if the drug does work, doctors are able to save the life of other Ebola patients in the future.
I find it amazing how the ebola virus is so simple, starting only with patient zero, but still manages to have such a large and devastating impact on us. It is made up of very few RNA base pairs compared to our cells but continuously manages to cleverly deceive our bodies by using it against itself. This virus works by entering a cell and injecting its RNA into the cell, which then hijacks the processes of the cell and turns its regular duties into becoming a replication machine for the virus. It focuses on attacking the immune system first, leaving our bodies defenseless, and then continues on its journey until the patient dies of multi-organ failure. The virus also secretes glycoprotein which allows it to travel in and out of the cell membrane without destroying the cell. It is even hard to diagnose because the symptoms usually show up by the time it is too late and appear to be the same symptoms commonly found in other diseases. These fascinating but deadly qualities of the ebola virus make it extremely difficult to treat which explains why there are no effective treatments (other than hydration through IV fluids) that have actually been approved for this virus yet. Recently though, some new drugs have been introduced but there has not been enough time to thoroughly test each drug because of the sudden outbreak of ebola in the past couple of weeks. For example, the experimental ZMapp serum was created by introducing ebola to plants such as tobacco and collecting the antibodies that they created to fight it. We then synthesize these monoclonal antibodies and inject them into a patient where they mimic a human body’s immune response, helping fight the virus. I found this drug to be an amazing and creative method in treating ebola but the problem with this is that we do not have enough time to test it thoroughly, making it difficult to decide whether or not it is ethical to provide the dying patients with these possibly dangerous drugs anyway.
I do think that patients in such a critical condition should have the option of being given the drug because when there is no other choice but death, this serves as a small bit of hope. Knowing that the data collected from their reaction to this drug will help medicine in the future will probably also make the experience a little more comforting. Some sort of recorded consent is necessary though because the patients should understand what they are getting themselves into and the risks of using this method should be emphasized or else the Africans may feel as if they are being taken advantage of and used in our “experiments”. Medical helpers stationed in Africa have already been facing distrust and misunderstanding from the people there making it difficult to provide them with the assistance they need. This brings us to the issue about whether to try the drugs on Americans or Africans first. Calling this a no-win situation is very accurate because if it is given to the Africans first without being tested and it puts their lives in danger, we would lose their trust and make them angry which could cause rash decisions in the future. If the Americans tried it first and the drug worked, we would be considered selfish for only trying to help our own people, which is exactly what happened. I do think that testing it on ourselves first was a better option though so that our delicate relationship with Africa is not damaged. As the end of this ebola outbreak approaches, I think that we should start preparing for the future by creating a new, larger supply of the ZMapp drug beforehand and ridding the TKM-Ebola treatment of major side effects. We should start taking action on new ideas such as using the blood of ebola survivors since their blood now contains a high concentration of antibodies against the disease and using the VSV vaccine that helped monkeys recover from a previous outbreak. Taking action now in order to prepare for potential future outbreaks could save many lives, help us avoid not having enough time to test a new drug, and improve medicine in general.
I believe the use of untested drugs such as ZMAPP should be allowed in serious cases of Ebola. It should at least be used in cases of Zaire Ebola, since it has the highest mortality rate out of all the other strains. Any person who believes they are on the brink of death will look for any way out, even if they have to trust an experimental drug that might not work. After all, they have to choose from a very high chance of a slow and painful death from Ebola or a death caused by a drug that may save their life. It's like choosing to have a needle slowly driven into your heart or having the needle swiftly driven into it instead. The fact that the drug was first given to Americans and then Africans does not matter to me. This is because if the drug was given to Africans first and didn't work, America would be seen as evil and using others as test subjects. However, if Americans tested on Americans and it did work, then America would be seen as selfish, which is why the podcast members called it a no win situation. The case of the Spanish priest dying after getting ZMAPP may have not been an effect of the drug, since he may have had been in a stage where the virus was too strong and the drug needed time to cure him. In the end, even if a cure is made after a few tries, someone will be blamed for not giving the cure to Africa or America fast enough or for causing the death of some patient who took untested drugs.
After listening to the podcast i was able to attain a higher understanding of Ebola and how it first started. I'm pleased to know that Ebola is not an air borne virus. This is good news because according to the speakers in the podcast said the mortality rate is 90%. There are five types of Ebola. They are named after named after the region they were found in.
I think that untested drugs can be given to sick individuals if that person gives consent and if that person is too sick to make an informed decision the family should be able to make it. I think they should have to sign a form saying that this drug does not guarantee a recovery. Also the signer has the full understanding of what might happen. The alarming fact that the usual cautions and treatments are not working also lead me to believe that the use of untested drugs should be permitted during this crisis. I really do not know a way to prioritize who gets the drugs first because really they all need them. I would say this but, the people that are helping should get some first. I think this only because they are putting their lives at risk to help others.
The podcast cleared some things for me, such as what the actual symptoms of Ebola are. Some of these symptoms are joints aching, tiredness, and loss of appetite. The symptoms are flu-like and Ebola is often mistaken for malaria, until the virus progresses further and no longer resembles it. The effects that Ebola takes on the human body are horrible, especially towards the end of the affected person’s life, where there is internal bleeding that leads to death. Hearing about these awful symptoms made me want a cure to be found even more, and it’s possible that they have made one. ZMapp is a drug that has first been given to three Americans affected, and it has a 2/3 success rate so far. However, there are two problems with this trial of using the drug: the fact that it is untested and the fact that it has been given to Americans first. The problem with the drug being untested is that some believe it’s not smart to just be giving people this medicine because there is a chance it will work. However, I believe this is the very reason it should be used even if it’s untested. A chance of working is more than we had before, and with Ebola having a 90%mortality rate, I believe that every possible cure should be looked into and used. Despite this, I believe that the patient should be able to choose whether they want to use it or not, after being thoroughly explained to about possible side effects and other backsets along those lines. But this can lead into a different discussion about the type of consent to expect from someone who has nothing to lose anymore. They die if they don’t try it and they could still die if they do. But we can still let them make their own decision about whether they want it.
The other problem with this drug is that it was given to Americans first, and not the Africans, who the majority of Ebola affects. Personally, I don’t have much of a problem with this because as the podcast described, it’s a lose-lose situation with which they decided to give it to first. If it was given to the Americans first and it worked (as it seemed to have) people would get upset and wonder why it wasn’t being given to Africans. However, if the Americans died even after getting the drug, people wouldn’t have a problem with it. On the contrary, if it worked on affected Africans, people wouldn’t have a problem with it, but if it didn’t work, people would be upset. It’s a double bladed sword on who should get it first, and in the end, it worked out, as the rest of ZMapp is being sent out to Liberia to be used. When it comes down to it, use of this untested drug do more help than harm, so we should try it.
Over the past few weeks, the African governments and international organizations are having a very hard time controlling and ending the current Ebola outbreak. The podcast reinforced my general understanding of Ebola and the current outbreak. It mentioned that “Patient Zero” for this outbreak is most likely a two-year-old. It shocked me greatly that a toddler’s illness eventually spread to four countries and has killed well over a thousand people. As of today, August 25th, two people in the Democratic Republic of Congo have tested positive for Ebola (CNN). Shockingly, their initial tests suggest that the strain is different from the one plaguing West Africa. This opens the possibility for the further spread of Ebola. It also raises the question of whether the virus has spread, mutated, or is a completely different strain that could lead to another outbreak.
In an effort to control the outbreak, the medical community has been forced to administer and experiment with an untested (on humans) drug, ZMapp. ZMapp has proven to be a very controversial drug for several reasons. Its limited supply, usage in Americans, and lack of proper clinical trials have presented many with an ethical debate. The WHO unanimously approved the usage of untested drugs during an epidemic, which I support. In such dire circumstances, we have to exhaust all possible avenues to end the epidemic. Currently, rehydration is the chosen, and only, treatment for Ebola. Unfortunately, patients cannot even get rehydration therapy due to the distrust of health care workers and lack of equipment. Under these circumstances, ZMapp seems to be the only practical approach to save even a few of the Ebola patients. There have been several cases of compassionate drug use- I cannot think of another case where compassionate use might be so warranted.
That being said, people should be given the choice of taking ZMapp instead of the traditional treatment (it should be made clear that no treatment is not an option, as it can endanger the lives of others). Informed consent is very important – the patient is entitled to know about the treatment or therapy being offered, and any possible side effects, and should be offered; but I do not think it will make a difference. Though death is not certain for every Ebola patient, it certainly is likely. It would make sense that a patient would take a drug that could raise their chance of survival by even the slightest amount. As a precaution, the health care officials and the patients should be equipped and or willing to deal with the possible side effects.
Additionally, I believe that it was justified for the Americans patients to receive the drug first, for a few reasons. The main reason it was justified was because they were doctors – they would be more likely to understand the possible ramifications of taking ZMapp, and they could make a more informed choice. I think it was also a politically smart move for an American company to “experiment” on American doctors first, as the consequences of the drug failing would be greater if it were Africans that had adverse reactions. If the drug had failed on African patients, there would be an even greater distrust of Western doctors and treatments in Africa, as well as political backlash. This would further hinder efforts to control the outbreak, and would only result in the spread of Ebola. This truly was a no-win situation, as it makes the United States look bad in both options.
Overall, I think that ZMapp, though untested and unproven, should be given to the affected population. The recent death of the Liberian doctor that was given ZMapp challenges our knowledge of proper drug administration (timeliness, dosage, frequency). While it is being administered in Africa, further data collection and testing should continue; this would enable us to learn about ZMapp, its affectivity, and side effects. Even though ZMapp may be a possibility, the governments and organizations should place extra emphasis on preventative actions for the public.
Article 3: After reading this article, I have come to the conclusion that it is ethical to treat Ebola patients in Africa with drugs that have not been tested. We are explicitly not in the position to turn down hope for these Ebola patients. Currently, we have no other options that cause significant help as much as these drugs may do. All we should do is offer the patients the drugs and it should be their decision if they would like to use it or not. Even if a patient feels more ill and has severe reactions after taking the drugs, scientists can perform autopsies and locate the problem with the drug. This can help scientists enhance the drug and warn patients of that outcome. One reason that the scientists fear that the unapproved drugs should not be offered is because of the side affects. However, the side affects don’t occur to everyone. Therefore, we should still offer the drug; but as I mentioned earlier, give information about the drugs regarding side affects etc. We should not expect any results because even thought drugs like ZMAPP were tested in the U.S we have different lifestyles compared to the African Life style. For instance, we have a different diet and different medical histories, which may either, help a person or not contribute at all to his/her recovery. As a result, just because the drug was successful in the U.S with it doesn’t ensure that people in Africa will have the same results. Also, after seeing the other side of the story regarding how it is unethical causes myself to think more about my decision. For instance, giving a possible harmful drug to infected people who don’t know what it will do seem a little risky. This is like finding a stray dog on the street and giving it to a kid without giving the dog any tests, vaccinations or medications before giving it to the child. Hence, it may harm the child’s health making the person who gave the child the dog feel guilty because of his unethical behavior. However, in our situation we would learn from our mistakes and not make that mistake in the future. That is why it is ethical to give untested drugs to Ebola patients. Therefore, drugs like ZMAPP and other Ebola saving drugs should immediately be available for Ebola patients in Africa. However, the largest weapon the victims of Ebola have, is not giving up hope. If the drugs negatively effect the infected population, then we should stop offering the drugs and use this experience to guide our actions in the future if other diseases break out. We must always remember in any scenario,” Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is to not stop questioning.”(Albert Einstein quote)
I believe in circumstances such as these, untested drugs should be used to treat Ebola. As stated in the podcast, there isn’t enough time to carry out the normal drug testing process as people are dying too quickly. Even though these untested drugs may have negative outcomes, and may worsen the patient’s condition, it may also work in reverse. It is important to test these drugs out since there is a time constraint and if not tested, we will never know if the drug works. Unfortunately, it is necessary to take the risk even though it may have serious consequences. I found one of the new tested drugs – ZMAPP to be very interesting. It is made when Ebola is introduced to a tobacco plant, and the plant then makes antibodies to the virus. These synthesized antibodies are then injected into a sick patient and they mimic your body’s immune response. This drug was given to the patients in Atlanta, and two of the patients are showing positive responses. However, one patient did not survive. This drug has a 2/3 success rate. Testing out this drug in America first, is more practical since we have a more efficient and cleaner medical system, and therefore the survival chances may be higher in this country than in Africa. The fact that this drug was given first to American patients, and then African patients makes sense since as stated in the podcast and the article, it may backfire and worsen the patients conditions in Africa. The medical department in America would be put to blame and would be held responsible. Therefore it is safer to test it in this country which has a more sterile health environment. As for consent I feel it is not necessary since anyone with this virus would not hesitate to take any drug which gives them hope of survival. The mortality rate of this virus is extremely high – around 90%. Im sure people would be open to taking any drug which was said to have some sort of potential to cure a patient. In a time of desperation, people possess an open mind to anything which may have the potential to save their life. “Dying people grasp at straws” was a statement made by physician Armand Sprecher.
ZMapp is an experimental drug used to treat Ebola, the dangerous virus that's been spreading across Africa. What started as a generalized few cases in West Africa has begun spreading to areas like Kenya and a few cases have been documented in the US as well. Ebola has had over a thousand casualties. Due to misinformation and carelessness, the disease has spread more than it should have. This experimental drug has worked on 2 out of three people. For example though, the doctor in Liberia tried this drug and died anyways. There are many ethical issues to an untested drug being used. These issues include side effects and if it would instead of a decrease cause a rise in death toll. What if the drug causes liver failure? African countries are not, in any way, advanced enough to properly care for hundreds of people who have liver failure. The sanitation in some hospitals isn't great either.
HOWEVER, what if this drug can save the life of a child? What if it can aid a parent who can resume caring for their child? What if out of a hundred people who used the drug 50% are saved from fatality? Even one life is worth saving. I believe the drug should be used by a non profit organization and tested in Africa. This way more people can afford this drug and atleast be given the CHANCE to live. Aren't we as United States citizens granted the right to life? Shouldn't this right be extended to these suffering people as well? Even if it doesn't necessarily work, the drug can then be analyzed for side effects and maybe learning more about the disease can help enhance the drug. This way, eventually, innocent lives can be saved. America created the drug so of course our people were given the drug first. But other people should be given the chance too. Of course there will be consent from the government and people because any way to cure the disease is also a way to stop it.
I believe that the use of untested drugs on Ebola patients is ethical and should be done. At this point in the outbreak, with so many deaths, I do not that a possible cure can make it any worse. Since ZMapp seemed to have worked on the American Ebola patients, nothing really bad has been reported about the drug. Another factor that plays a large role is time. Time is still moving and everyday more people are infected and die, so using the untested drugs is the best option. After so many deaths in Africa because of the lack of a vaccine, I do not think that the Ebola patients would thin a consent is even necessary because again at this point in the outbreak they just want to get even a little better.
I think that the drug was given to American patients first not because they are more important, but because they are the closest (proximity) to the drug and necessary resources. I also think that doctors would become aware of the any dangerous side effects. They could change what they needed to in the drug, and also avoid what would have happened if many more than two patients in Africa suffered from the side effect
The podcast was very informative and explained current situations thoroughly. People are dying because of Ebola, but it can be prevented because it is a contact virus, not an airborne virus. One controversial issue is with deceased bodies. Health care workers need to take dead bodies away from the living, but the African people are hiding the bodies. They don’t want to give up their loved ones’ bodies. The people want to honor their dead and bury them. Ebola is spreading because of this. With the contact of the body and bodily fluids, the virus is spread. Ebola is different from other diseases because at first, it is incognito. It sits in the body of an infected person quietly in the range of 2 to 21 days. Some symptoms are fever and joint aches. Doctors don’t realize that this is Ebola and assume it is malaria or a common fever. This is another reason why more and more people die. The spread of Ebola increases tremendously. The virus later shuts down immune system defenses, which later leads to tissue damage and organ failure. Doctors have to check infected patients by looking for immune system antibodies rather than the virus.
I believe that the use of untested drugs to treat patients is ethical because of the fast spreading, high mortality rate virus. There should be preparation before giving this drug to the people. Same factors (treatments) should be given to the majority of the infected people to test the success and failure rate. A medication like ZMapp that so far has a 2/3 success rate should be tested out more and then given to the people in Africa. I believe the World Health Organization made the right choice declaring this controversial topic ethical. With more time lives could be saved. If not, different measures should be taken.
After listening to the podcast and reading this article, I have formed an opinion that the use of untested drugs such as ZMapp is ethical to treat Ebola. Although many of the side effects are unknown, the risk is worth the possible positive outcome. The Ebola virus is sweeping Africa with a mortality rate of about 90%. At this point, the patients are desperate and they would experiment on anything that could save them. This possibility of recovery also gives them hope, which is good for the Placebo Effect. If the patients believe that they could get better with this drug, then the Placebo Effect would allow them to. Although it is arguable that the experimentation of ZMapp is just using the Ebola patients as test subjects, it would not be unethical if they volunteer to try the drug. They most likely wouldn't care about how ethical the drug is or the possible side effects, because if they have a 90% chance of dying, they would be willing to try anything, even if they have to live with some side effects for some time. Also, they tested the drug on American patients first, and they seem to be recovering well, so it's safe to say that African patients might recover just as well. In conclusion, due to the circumstances of this virus, the use of ZMapp is ethical.
Ebola has been taking Africa by storm and even affecting Americans. There have been outbreaks all over Africa in countries like Liberia. Scientists and doctors have been trying to use a new untested drug named ZMapp to test patients and look for a cure. As the podcasts reports, the drug only benefited 2 out of 3 patients and many had a problem with it as it was unproven. I believe that untested drugs should be given to sick individuals as long as the individuals give consent. Ebola has been spreading rapidly and for many it is their only hope to use ZMapp. The drug should be given as long as the patient gives consent and I would assume there would be a good deal of individuals who would take the risk. I also believe it was wrong that the drug was given to Americans first as Africans were the ones affected more. The podcast was very informative and essentially declared that the untested drug was a no win situation
Ebola is a very smart virus because it specifically attacks immune cells and goes from there. The Ebola virus completely overtakes the immune cell and forces it to create replications of the virus. Ebola was mainly found in Africa but has since spread to other parts of the world. Ebola outbreaks are relatively small, but mostly because of the fact that the disease can kill an infected person before they even have a chance to pass it on to another person. This is the main reason why I believe that it is ethical to give an untested drug to sick individuals. Usually I would disagree with giving any kind of untested drug to anyone because of the high risk of even further damage. What if the drug makes the patient's condition even worse and slims the chances of living to none? This could certainly happen with any drug. With Ebola however, the disease kills so quickly that you want to make every attempt to diminish it. Also, the mortality rate of Ebola is already about 90% so there isn't much margin for further damage. Another thing is that Ebola outbreaks are so small that even if the drug was ineffective, a small amount of people would suffer which is terrible either way.
From a person that has a disease with a high mortality rate, we can reasonably expect that they would be willing to dry the drug. Patients only have this drug as a last resort type of treatment so I believe that they will agree to using the drug.
I think that the fact that the drug was given to Americans before Africans was not that significant in terms of the their different living conditions. A person is a person and therefore it should not matter if an American gets treated before an African as long as everyone is getting treated before it is too late. The only thing that does matter is the fact that there are more infected people in Africa than there are in America which causes problems. If the drug was damaging then it's good that Americans received it first rather than having the Africans receive it first because that would mean more deaths. If the drug was very effective then we would rather give it to the Africans first because of the larger amount of people. In reality there was success I'm 2/3 people which isn't very beneficial but certainly not damaging. That is why I don't think that the fact that the drugs was given to Americans first is all that significant because this really was a no-win situation.
I do not agree that the experimental drug Zmapp should be used in Africa. It is unproven in its medical use and has potential side effects. My opinion would be different had the medicine been tested and proven to work in other cases, but due to the circumstances of ebola, it is hard to test before the patient dies. My reasoning for preventing the use of Zmapp is to gain the trust of the natives in Africa. Many natives reject modern medicine and do not believe that we can help them. With improper care of infected people in villages and poor disposal of the bodies, Ebola spreads much quicker when the villagers don't seek medical attention. By using this unproven drug patients may die from Ebola anyway, but the villagers can blame the doctors for mistreatment or blame the medicine. This can create tension and push the natives away from modern medicine. Its a proven fact that Ebola stays on a body after the person dies and when left to the natives to bury or take care of can lead to further infections. Yes i understand that some patients may be healed from it, but the negatives outweigh the positives in my opinion. I believe the best way to stop the outbreak is to inform and educate the natives on the disease and ways to prevent it.
In a situation such as this Ebola epidemic, I believe that it is ethically acceptable to use untested drugs in an attempt to cure the affected patients. The Ebola outbreak has been spreading for months now and has killed 1,013 people as of August 9th. The usual prevention methods have not been working to contain the spread of this disease. More and more people are being affected by the day, and there is yet no cure. The new ZMapp drug made by Mapp Biopharmaceuticals of San Diego, California, could possibly be the solution to this epidemic. Though the two US recipients of ZMapp seem to be recovering, it cannot be determined for sure if it is all because of the drug alone. It makes sense that the drug was first given to the US patients. As it is an untested drug, the side effects of ZMapp are still unclear. The drug may have different effects on the Americans than on the Africans. Since medical practices are safer in America than in Africa, the survival chance of the patients could be greater here. If the drug was first given to the Africans and had negative effects, the American medical departments would be blamed and put at fault, which could have led to terrible lawsuits. If this new medicine could potentially save numerous amounts of lives, why wouldn't one take it? What other better options are there anyways for those affected? People are afraid of the unknown, and in this case the effects of this new medication are unclear. Thomas Frieden, who is the director of US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, stated that at least 3 more months of this epidemic can be expected before it is completely put to an end.
From an observer's standpoint, based off of what I have learned, I do not think the use of unproven treatments on those infected with Ebola is unethical. I think that for an infected individual, the risks and possible complications unproven treatments pose are outweighed by the potential cure they may offer.
Ideally, the patients on the receiving end of experimental drugs should be treated with complete respect, told everything about the treatment, and have the choice to accept it or not (as describes a statement released by the WHO regarding the ethics of using unproven treatments on Ebola patients).
Abstaining from using any treatment and doing nothing to attempt to save the lives of Ebola patients - maybe this course of action might be considered unethical.
Further controversy lies in the handling and prioritizing of the scarce drugs available (such was the decision to give Liberia the last remaining doses of ZMapp). Essentially, such decisions will be unfair as long as there are people being excluded from the distribution and option of potentially life-saving treatment.
What really stood out to me from the podcast was the information on what a massive impact the Influenza of 1918 (Spanish Flu) had on the world. Considered one of the deadliest natural disasters in history, the Spanish Flu took the lives of 20-40 million people across the world in a single year and dropped the average American life expectancy by ten years the same year. All this- with a mortality rate of only 2.5%.
It blows my mind to see the magnitude of death brought by a disease whose mortality rate doesn't even come close to that of Ebola's 90%. This speaks to how crucial control is when it comes to disease.
I support the decision made by the WHO to approve ZMapp for use, despite the fact that it is an experimental drug. In such circumstances, Ebola victims and doctors must realize that with such a high mortality rate, it is extremely likely for the majority of Ebola patients to die from the hemorrhagic fever. If I were a victim of Ebola, I would definitely want to be treated with an experimental drug, which may heighten my chances to survive, rather than go on with the treatment available (which does not seem to be working). Although it does have a 2/3 success rate, it is better than doing nothing. Additionally, I believe that it was rational for Americans to receive ZMapp before any Africans did. As stated in the podcast, if ZMapp was administered to Africans before it was to the Americans, any adverse reactions experienced by the Africans would be blamed on the Americans for essentially “testing” the drug on them.
Yes, I believe that giving patient’s untested drugs is warranted, especially if you take into consideration the circumstances. Time is against them, so giving those who are infected with the virus the untested drug is really the only choice that they have to try saving these innocent lives. The only other option that they have is just try to find some other way to treat the virus, whose attempts have been futile so far. The scientists and doctors that are trying to save the lives of the patients truly have nothing to lose. I learned many new facts about the Ebola virus that I didn’t know before. The fact that the name comes from the name of a river is completely new to me. I also found it interesting how the virus is easily mistaken to be malaria. What if the previous cases of “malaria” that we have dealt with before, was actually the precursor or the earlier nuances of the Ebola outbreak? The usage of the Zmapp drug is justified in this case. The fact that the results of these experimental drugs can help in further research and help solve forthcoming cases if Ebola and other virus further justify the use of the experimental drugs. I also found it interesting how there are five different types of Ebola, each named after the region of Africa that they originated in. One of them is also names after a city on Virginia! The podcast was very beneficial in relaying more information about the virus itself, while the podcast was helpful in listing the pros and cons of whether or not to use the experimental drugs. Overall, I think both the podcast and article did an excellent job in informing the community about the outbreak.
The podcast was a great way to learn about Ebola. Before listening to this podcast I knew very little on Ebola. All I knew was that Ebola was a notoriously aggressive virus that that killed its patients terribly. After listening to the podcast I learned a lot about Ebola. According to the podcast there are suppose to be 5 strains of Ebola which are Bundibugyo Ebola virus, Zaire Ebola virus, Reston Ebola virus, Sudan Ebola virus, and Tai Forest Ebola virus. Each Ebola virus originated from different places. The two Ebola viruses that were mentioned in the podcast were Zaire and Reston Ebola Virus. Zaire is supposedly the deadliest Ebola virus there is, originating from the Congo. However Reston Ebola virus is located in West Virginia, this form of Ebola does not affect humans at all. In the podcast they seem to have compared the Spanish flu to the Ebola Virus. They particularly compared the mortality rate of the two. The Spanish flu mortality rate, which was 2.5%, was nothing compared to the mortality rate as of the Ebola Virus, which was 90 %. What was ironic was that the Spanish Flu still ended up infecting 500 million people across the world and killing most of them. In central Africa, Doctors had mistaken Ebola for malaria due to similar symptoms. When first infected with Ebola the host does not feel symptoms right away, it takes time for the virus to infect and reproduce. Around day 21 is when Ebola patients start feeling the symptoms. The symptoms have 3 stages in which get worse as increased. During the first stages of Ebola there is a sudden onset of fever, intense weakness, muscle pain, headache, and sore throat. The second stage consists vomiting, diarrhea, rash, and impaired kidney and liver functions. Lastly stage three consists of both internal and external bleeding.
In the article, I truly believe that giving an untested drug to sick Ebola patients is ethical. The only way to figure out if the drug is working is by testing it on infected patients. The two doctors who returned from Africa that were diagnosed with Ebola were treated with the new drug ZMapp nobody new if the treatment was going to work. When ZMapp was tested on the two doctors they seemed to do well but a priest that was given the same drug and was also diagnosed with Ebola died. Scientist still don’t know if ZMapp actually works or the treatment itself helped the doctors do well. During the podcast they brought up a good point where the new drug was given to the first American. This could have gone two ways. If the Americans gave it to the Africans first and the new treatment hadn’t worked fingers from Africa would have been pointed at us Americans for testing drugs on poor Africans. In conclusion, currently Liberia has the last stock of the ZMapp drug and the only way to end this Ebola outbreak is to give the drug to the infected
The podcast and article provided me with new information I never knew about Ebola. It also helped me understand why the outbreak in Africa is such a big deal. The podcast talks about how Ebola is very deadly, however it doesn't kill that many people. This is mainly because it is transferred when an infected persons body fluids touch a healthy person. Thus, it is not an air borne virus. Another reason It's hard to get is because the people infected die before they can pass it on. I also learned that there are 5 main Ebola strands. These strands are named based of the origin. This virus is hard to stop because of the natives. These people don't trust outsiders to help them. For example, in the podcast, they talk about burial rituals. These customs involve family and friends to come in direct contact to the body. Since they don't trust the outsiders, they hide the bodies form World Health Organization. We have found a drug called ZMapp. This could be the cure to the disease. However, the problem is that it is untested. However, it has been given to 3 infected Americans. The result is a 2/3 success rate. The World Health Organization approves of this drug being used in patients.
In my opinion, I agree with this decision. The patients should be given ZMapp. Although it is not tested, it's better than letting the disease kill people. The only problem is earning their trust. I think that may be our best bet to get better results. I think it is right that the drug was given to American patients. Since it is an American product, we could be the ones to blame if something goes wrong. It will might cause other country's to not trust us. Overall I found the podcast very informative and helpful.
I believe that the unproven cure for Ebola should be given to ill patients right away regardless of the ethical predicament that rises up from this situation. The Ebola virus is a huge outbreak and a global emergency as mentioned in the articles. Therefore, public health and control measures are insignificant in this conflict because the Africans need a cure right away, and the ethical questions that rise from these unproven treatments should not be such a huge concern. I think the informed consent we need to expect from someone with the disease is whether the side effects are very severe or not. In addition, an ill person would also ask if this unproven treatment would actually be helpful and cure the person. Even though the treatments might not have very severe effects, the public is very paranoid with the fact that the doctors should not be trusted. Therefore, before getting the consent of diseased people, I think doctors need to gain the public's trust that they are only trying to help them and want to put an end to this enormous outbreak. Furthermore, I think it was a good idea to test these unproven drugs on healthy patients. This enables scientists to see if there are any harmful side effects. However, this does not solve the main question about whether the drug will cure a sick patient because the person that the drug was tested on is already healthy. If there are no extremely harmful side effects, I think scientists should expose these treatments to the Africans right away and put an end to this epidemic as soon as possible. I am pretty sure an ill patient would rather cope with side effects than have their lives under great risk. In essence, this Ebola outbreak is a huge global crisis, so ethical concerns is kind of unimportant. The main goal is to put an end to this outbreak and cure the ill; the side effects are a secondary concern.
Despite the concerns of Amesh Adalja, physician from PITT Medical Center, that testing ZMapp in African countries will provoke mistrust of Western companies and corruption as in ‘Constant Gardener,’ it is one of the few vaccines with some form of success. Because so many people have been dying of the disease, it is worth the risk to use ZMapp for any step to impede the mortality rate. To test the drug on American patients was the better option of the two no-win options, because if the drug did not produce favorable results in African patients first, then there would be political implications. If many African patients had died because of it, then the American motive would be seen as treating them like nameless guinea pigs, even though the only way to know if a drug works is to test it. The podcast also hinted at political and racial implications by suggesting that it took the endangerment of two Americans’ lives to motivate pharmaceutical companies to committedly put effort towards a cure. While I don’t know how accurate that claim is, it is definitely of concern by many that oppose the drug testing in Africa.
Ebola is a relatively new disease compared to others, and so far, has proven itself to be deadly. Ebola is classified into five different types, each named after the region it was discovered in. Ebola spreads easily, whether it was a short handshake or a simple cough. Ebola soon ripped it’s way into families and friends and spread like wildfire. Recently two Liberians who entered as missionaries, were brought to Atlanta for treatment and are now locked away. They are currently being treated, using an unapproved drug, and the process is going successfully. Regarding the issue with the untested drug, I believe that the drug should be used, if it is proving itself to be successful. Even if the drug wasn’t tested before hand or approved by authorities, if it does the job, and cures the patient, it should be used. Any drug, tested or not, can still under go errors. Either way, the drug can be faulty, so if all goes well in the treatment, testing and approval isn’t necessary. The patient is always most important, so whatever can cure the disease should be used. A consent form should also be provided. Any patient should have the power to dictate whether or not the drug should be allowed to be used on them. As for the issue with the drug being used in America first, I believe, it was a logical idea. Considering the fact that medical sites in America are much more stable and efficient then those in Africa, I believe it was the right thing to do. Side effects may be different within Americans and Africans, so the drug should, potentially, be tested on those who are on the verge of death and suffering continuously from the effects of Ebola.
The podcast was very helpful in providing background information on Ebola, though I found the ending to be the most interesting. In such a high pressure situation when so many lives are at stake, it's easy for lines to be blurred and regulations to be bypassed because so many lives depend on this Ebola medication. While it does raise a lot of ethical questions, as ZMapp does seem to be saving lives, I believe it should be administered to the victims of Ebola immediately. Obviously the patients should be explained the full ramifications of taking a drug that hasn't been thoroughly tested and can cause serious side effects, and in the end the final decision on whether they want to take the drug or not should be theirs. However, they need also be informed that there is a pretty good chance that it will ensure their survival. Though it may sound cold or clinical, by giving the patients ZMapp we would have a larger control group to study the effects of the drug and collect data to improve it. This would help save a lot more lives in the future.
Post a Comment