Ebola is incurable and deadly. The outbreak in West Africa in 2014 was unprecedented, dwarfing other human Ebola epidemics in the level of mortality. Of 24,666 suspected or confirmed cases reported, 10,179 people died.9
No approved treatments or vaccines for Ebola are available. While some drugs have shown potential in laboratory studies and animal models, they have not been tested in humans for safety and effectiveness. Not only are these drugs untested or unregistered but they are also in short supply.
Given the great suffering and high mortality rates, it is fair to ask whether unregistered and untested medications are better than none at all. Should such drugs be dispensed and, if so, who should receive them, in light of their extremely limited supplies? Is it ethical to treat untested drugs on patients with Ebola? On the other hand, is it ethical to withhold potentially life-saving drugs from dying patients? Or should the drugs perhaps be reserved for health-care providers working to contain the disease?
In August 2014, two infected US aid workers and a Spanish priest were treated with ZMapp, an unregistered drug that had been tested in monkeys but not in humans. The two American aid workers recovered, but the priest died. Later that month, the WHO released a report on the ethics of treating patients with the drug. Since Ebola is often fatal, the panel reasoned that it is ethical to give the unregistered drugs and unethical to withhold them for safety concerns. This situation is an example of “compassionate use” outside the well-established system of regulation and governance of therapies.
When do you feel it is ethical to provide unregistered drugs and when is it unethical?
