Government

Commentary on U.S. legal and policy issues raised by the Ebola outbreak

WASHINGTON LAWYER by Sarah Kellog       April, 2015 edition

...Despite knowing that Ebola would likely find its way here (to the U.S.), the public health system was ill-prepared to fight the disease. It was caught napping, unable to swiftly formulate an effective national plan to contain the virus, address the concerns of medical professionals, and calm the public’s mushrooming fears....

The same lack of preparation seemed evident in how government authorities responded and applied public health statutes and regulations, especially at the state and local levels. Legal experts say U.S. public health law is robust enough to address any disease crisis, even one as deadly as Ebola, but the people who administer the law showed a profound ignorance about disease prevention and mitigation, as well as of basic civil rights, in dealing with the Ebola threat.

“Legally, we’re in excellent shape,” says James Hodge, a professor of public health law and ethics at Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and a national expert on infectious diseases and the law. “Politically, we’re severely challenged.”

Read complete article.

....To the extent there is discussion of improving the international response to epidemics, the focus has been on the need to reform the World Health Organization. Such reforms are badly needed, but even a fully effective WHO will not close the most gaping holes in the world’s epidemic response system. Even if the WHO did a better job of recognizing outbreaks that pose a risk of epidemic and alerting the world that action is needed, it does not have the substantial response function needed to combat such an epidemic. Recent discussions about creating a WHO response function — assuming that the agency could be trusted to manage it — rely largely on overburdened and underfunded nongovernmental organizations to staff a response. Thus, any new WHO response capacity will lack military-style mobile hospitals ready to be deployed; battalions of medical personnel with accompanying security support to isolate and treat the infectious and the ill; or a medical airlift capacity to move patients to places where they can get help...

Now the threat from Ebola seems to be receding, rich countries must not revert to their former myopia. Listening to other countries’ needs and investing in women and children would be a start

THE GUARDIAN Commentary  by Chelsea Clinton and Devi Sridar                May 6, 2015

Amnesia has set in across the world as the fear and global attention given to Ebolarecedes. But this is not a new phenomenon. With Sars, avian flu, swine flu and Mers, there were repeated calls to fix the global health system to avoid previous mistakes. We cannot continue to be surprised when a health crisis emerges and we need to start to take a long-term, inclusive perspective to ensure health security across the world. Myopia was a key factor in the failure to respond to Ebola in a rapid and effective way.

There are three immediate steps that should be taken:

Read complete article.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/06/ebola-global-health-priorities-chelsea-clinton

CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION by Moneeza Walji                                    Mayl 4, 2015
The call to action for the Ebola outbreak extended far and wide, with the epidemic now having more than 26 000 cases and claiming more than 10 000 lives, but the response has raised questions about underlying problems that hinder health care in some countries and about who was best positioned to respond.

At a recent session of the Consortium of Universities for Global Health in Boston, Dr. Peter Piot, one of the discoverers of the Ebola virus, said the outbreak and crisis in West Africa "has revealed major fault lines in the local societies and in the international system; in how we conduct research and how we develop new drugs and vaccines and also in trust and the way that international aid and development and cooperation is operating."