The Ebola Debate Rages On–Where Do You Stand?
Two Americans, Samaritan’s Purse physician, Dr. Kent Brantly, and SIM missionary aid worker, Nancy Writebol, both infected with the Ebola virus were recently brought back to the U.S. for treatment. Since the report, a debate is raging among pundits and citizens regarding the pros and cons of bringing them home to be treated. The medical staff caring for them insists these reservations are unfounded, but pundits and Americans are concerned that it could bring a 3rd world epidemic to our nation.
Both patients continue treatment at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta with an experimental drug called ZMapp, made by the San Diego-based company Mapp Pharmaceuticals. It has only been tested on monkeys so the side effects on humans are still unknown. Since this is the first use on humans and it is still in the extremely early stages of development, few doses are available.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is calling the spread of Ebola in West Africa an international health emergency. More than 960 people have died from Ebola in West Africa this year.
Do the pundits and American citizens have grounds for their nationwide concern?
Donald Trump tweeted, “The U.S. cannot allow EBOLA infected people back. People that go to far away [faraway] places to help out are great-but must suffer the consequences!” He added later, “stop all flights from EBOLA infected countries or the plague will start and spread inside our ‘borders.’”
Rush Limbaugh reasoned the situation through on his August 1st program concluding, “it’s not fair that Ebola has not broken out in America and it does in Africa and all these other poor countries, it’s not fair. You can’t possibly believe that they would import two cases of Ebola just for that reason. Anyway, that is happening. . . I’m going to tell you there are going to be people questioning why. And the people who question why are going to be tagged as heartless, cold, mean-spirited, uncaring, whatever.” Which, he is exactly what happened to both Trump and Limbaugh. Both men expressed a concern for America as a whole. That was the center of their focus.
Ann Coulter weighed in as well. She made a personal judgment about the doctor’s missionary work in Liberia. Dr.Brantly and his family offer medical services “in regions of developing countries where basic medicine is rare”, writes John Aravoisis for American blog. Coulter called Brantly “idiotic” for going to a continent that she refers to as a “disease-ridden cesspool.” Aravosis responded, “Yes, imagine a doctor going where there is disease. What was he thinking?”
Coulter is known for making stunning statements, sometimes just to shake things up. However Huffington Post UK immediately linked her Christianity to the headline, Christian Commentator Ann Coulter Lambasts Christian Ebola Doctor Ken Brantley For ‘Idiocy’ (VIDEO). Coulter is a political and social commentator who is a nondenominational Christian, not a Christian commentator. Her remarks were leveled at Dr. Brantley’s choice to serve in 3rd world countries. However, Brantley focusing on his Christian commitment noted he believes he was called by God to do so.
The other side of the debate is cast differently—optimistically even, by those caring for the two Ebola patients. Susan Mitchell Grant, RN, is chief nurse for Emory Healthcare writing for the Washington Post says,
“Those fears are unfounded and reflect a lack of knowledge about Ebola and our ability to safely manage and contain it. Emory University Hospital has a unit created specifically for these types of highly infectious patients and our staff is thoroughly trained in infection control procedures and protocols.” She continues, “Further, Americans stand to benefit from what we learn by treating these patients. (Bound by federal law, Emory cannot name the patients. The HIPAA Privacy Rule forbids health-care institutions from releasing identifiable health information.) Ebola won’t become a threat to the general public from their presence in our facility, but the insight we gain by caring for them will prepare us to better treat emergent diseases that may confront the United States in the future. We also can export our new knowledge to treat Ebola globally.”
Ms. Grant’s focus is on the welfare of the patients and healthcare’s mission in general.
In my judgment, the final consideration for America’s health and wellbeing should include the incursion of illegal immigrants reported by Arizona’s abc15’s video, “Our Border Patrol agents check on us all the time and they told us about the outbreak of scabies,” Garcia said.
In addition to scabies, reports of chicken pox, MRSA staph infections and other viruses, the Ebola contagion could well be among those crossing into America. The virus’ incubation stage is the period between infection with the virus and the appearance of symptoms related with the disease. That period can be as short as 2 days or as long as 21 days. The person infected is still contagious during this time.
Carries of the viruses are not believed to be confined to the detention centers as basic protocol. The illegals are being dispersed all over the nation without the standard precautions.
Border Patrol Agents’ focus is on their state as well as the nation’s health and safety.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has said the spread of Ebola in West Africa is an international health emergency. BBC.com reports states of emergency are in place in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. The WHO is focused on global heath.
Some people’s style of communication is blunt—sometimes crudely and flippantly expressed. Clearly, we are all concerned about a health crisis at our borders and the negligent and dereliction of duty by the federal government with regard to our national health and safety. Whether the framing of the concern is for one’s personal wellbeing, state, or national health, a medical mission, or globally—we need to reflect on everyone’s lens and form our own opinion on the matter—then have the courage and boldness to speak out regardless if criticized by those who use different frames.
