Ebola is a viral disease whose symptoms begin innocently flu-like. However with time, it can spark a fever so high it ruptures blood vessels, causing internal bleeding, organ failure, hemorrhaging and dehydration. It’s a disease straight from a horror movie and can be spread simply through a few drops of sweat — resulting in a 55 per cent mortality rate.

As of August 28, the disease had spread to four countries in West Africa, causing 3,069 cases of the virus with over 1,552 deaths. Being the largest Ebola outbreak ever documented, calling the disease an epidemic is almost an understatement.

Two American health workers became infected with the disease in August while in Africa. Within a few weeks, they were on the path to recovery. This raises a question: why were these Americans in recovery so soon from a virus that West Africans have been struggling with since 1976? First world countries are favouring their own citizens, while turning their backs on the thousands of other people who are dying from Ebola.

The Americans were Dr. Kent Brantly, the medical director from the aid group Samaritan’s Purse and his colleague Nancy Writebol. They were infected with Ebola while trying to help others recover from the disease in Liberia. Almost immediately after showing symptoms, both doctors were flown to Atlanta, GA for treatment.

Luckily, Dr. Brantly had heard of the experimental drug known as ZMapp, created by scientists of Mapp Biopharmaceutical and LeafBio. Although the drug seemed to be successful, it was not ready for human trials because it had not finished animal safety testing. Almost no information is known about the long-term effects of the drug. Yet facing a likely death, both Dr. Brantly and Writebol agreed to the experimental treatment. Both Americans were fully aware of the risks — and luckily their gamble paid off.

What would have been the result if this drug were given to the West Africans who have been struggling with this disease for over 30 years? Dr. Salim S. Abdool Karim, director of Caprisa, an AIDS research center in South Africa, said to the New York Times, “It would have been the front-page screaming headline: ‘Africans used as guinea pigs for American drug company’s medicine.’”

This is a good point — the unfortunate truth is that unethical procedures have occurred in the past in Africa, creating mistrust for western medicine. Multinational pharmaceutical companies often offshore experimental trials that are deemed unsuitable by ethic committees in their own countries. There are records of placebo-based trials in South Africa that withhold proper drugs to certain people in experiments.

Although this is common in most placebo-based experiments, the withholding in these specific trials run the risk of serious or irreversible harm to the person. This has caused many West Africans to mistrust western medicine, and in turn refuse treatments for Ebola. But with this history, can they be blamed?

It is a simple argument: if a drug is deemed unethical to use on a person in one country, it should be deemed unethical to use on people in any country. If as a society we live by the motto that every person is equal, why are we not treating each other in such a way?

Even with the drug’s great success, ZMapp still needs to undergo human trials before it is approved as safe enough for wide use. If the drug is eventually administered in infected regions, it is unlikely that it will be able to be produced in a sufficient supply to make an impact on the current Ebola outbreak. But even if this supply increases, who will receive the first treatments? The answer is first-world citizens.

Favoritism in administering the scarce drug is to be expected, as these citizens traveled to areas of outbreak to help those with Ebola; Dr. Brantly and Writebol risked their lives to help those in need — a just cause. Yet the process to create the ZMapp treatment is extremely expensive, especially with the drug remaining in the experimental stage with no other human trials.

Even after the drug is approved for human trials, it is estimated to take another two months before ZMapp could meet the demand globally, leaving time for an increase in Ebola-related deaths.

It is a hypocritical argument. Before the drug can be administered globally to people in need, it first needs to undergo financial and experimental barriers that prevent it from being distributed. Yet Dr. Brantly and Writebol were granted treatment from ZMapp almost immediately through what is called “compassionate use,” the treatment of a seriously ill patient using an unapproved drug.

Why are West Africans considered so different from Americans that their freedom to make an informed decision about what drugs they take is removed? If all people are equal, why are some people allowed “compassionate use,” while others are not? The argument of ZMapp currently being an unethical treatment to use in Africa is simply ironic and invalid given Africa’s history of unethical medical experiments.

Using ZMapp would be just as ethical for West Africans to use as when it was for Dr. Brantly and Writebol, if they are given the proper information. The double standard for drug use in America and Africa needs to be re-evaluated. If a trial is ethical for one, it is ethical for all.

—

Kara Tastad