Thursday, August 14, 2014

Three Ethical Dilemmas on Ebola Virus Medicine

The Ebola Virus outbreak in West Africa has put the spotlight on ethicists. As the health world scrambles to address the problem, bioethicists are also facing ethical dilemma related to Ebola. It is a well known fact that the Ebola virus has not treatment and no vaccine available in the market today. But there are several pharmaceuticals racing against each other to develop a medicine against it. Last week, the US government tested the new drug ZMapp on two Americans infected with the virus. There was a public protest on why the medicines were given to the Americans and not made available to the general public. This raised several ethical issues.

Here are three of the biggest ethical issues that we all need to consider.

1. Is it ethical for us to use vaccines and drugs against Ebola that has not been adequately tested on humans?

So, here is the dilemma. The drug, as reported, is still on trial stage. There has only been the animal test phase. No human trial for its safety and efficacy has been done. The ZMapp given to the infected Americans, at its best, is a human research to its efficacy. Although, early reports showed positive response to the drug, there is no conclusive evidence to show it is effective. Would it be proper then to subject thousands of people to this medicine without knowing its effect to humans?

I will not even dare elaborate on another ethical if not racist issue behind this. Suffice for me to ask the perennial questions, why are experimental drugs done in third world countries? Why subject Africans to experimental drugs with unknown risks or benefits?

The WHO ethics panel agreed that it is ethical to use experimental, non-approved drugs to fight the Ebola outbreak. They reasoned that this outbreak is a special circumstance that needs special consideration. A research protocol needs to be followed in doing human research. Are we following the proper protocol in using these experimental drugs? Human research requires that the risks and benefits to the person should be weighed. Without knowing the gravity of the risk nor any benefits it can provide to the patients, would it still be ethical to provide these medicines to humans?


2. Who would receive the limited number of this new Ebola medicine?

The second, and perhaps the most difficult, ethical dilemma is sorting out questions on the principle of justice - specifically distributive justice. Who should receive the new Ebola medicine? Pharmaceuticals have reported that they have only more than a dozen of medicines available ready. Regardless of problem #1 being resolved, the medicines are now sent to West African countries. It's now time to give them to the people affected by Ebola. As of this writing, WHO has reported that more than 1 million people are now affected by Ebola. Who among them would receive the 12 or 15 or 20 medicines?

There are 4 countries severely affected by the Ebola virus - Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. Who among these countries should receive the most of the available medicine? Should it be the closest ally of the western world? Should it be the country with the highest death toll? Where should the pharmaceuticals developing the medicine send their products? When they have settled that issue, more ethical questions needs to be raised. Who would be the blessed people to get treated first? Two Liberian doctors are going to receive the experimental drugs. Why the doctors? Why not the mother of 8 children whose husband recently died also of Ebola?


3. Why raise the ethical dilemma for the Ebola stricken West Africa?

The third maybe a little difficult for me to explain. This was raised by my Nigerian friend which I am now only beginning to understand. I will try my best to make it simple. When the ZMapp medicines were given to the infected Americans, there was no ethical question about it. It did not bother WHO to convene a panel of ethicists. In reality, experimental medicine are given almost anywhere. Here in the Philippines, stem cell therapy is on top of them. When a patient willingly consents to receive an experimental drug, no one bothers to stop them because it is still experimental. Yet, in the case of the Ebola virus outbreak, the world has to pause and reconsider giving the drugs. At a time where the affected people are crying out to give them anything - even experimental drugs - to stop Ebola, the world has to bring up ethical questions.

Yes, for some people - especially those who desperately need them - to second guess giving a "potentially" helpful drug is tantamount to withholding any hope of cure. Are there underlying reasons behind the hesitancy? Is money an issue? Does the financial gains and costs holding the world back? Are we really concerned about the efficacy of the drug and the safety of the sick people? Are we really being ethical about this?

2 comments:

Lawrence Griffin said...

I manufacture a natural product which may have benefit for Ebola. With the politics of drugs distribution it has been made very clear to me that even if my product was scientifically manufactured there would be no place for it because it is not a patented drug. The system is so broken that natural products are not allowed to save lives because because they do not fall into the patented and limited pharmaceutical world. The only way I could distribute my product will be to make it into an illegal drug such as heroin or cocaine and sell it on the street without any government approval even though I am more than willing to submit to testing, analysis and within reason a review of how it works. It is not really about saving lives, it is about keeping the few legal Pharmaceutical Cartels keeping control of the dollars generated to them and those who have been bought off with their BIG dollars. A sad commentary to how health is distributed throughout the world.

theomed said...

Interesting note. But it is true that those big companies with big bucks can influence greatly global health situation. This becomes clearer with globalization.