It is hard to ignore the barrage of new reports on Ebola virus
victims and statistics this past summer and now fall. The press obsession does
have reason however. Just last Sunday, October 5th, Ebola claimed 121 lives
marking the deadliest day for the virus this year. The WHO (World Health
Organization) estimates a whopping total of 4,000 deaths from the virus. As
numbers climb, paranoia fills the air. Precautions are becoming more and more
meticulous. Teresa Romero, a Spanish nurse, contracted the virus while aiding an
infected victim. As her case gathered popularity, people began to question if
man/ woman's best friend could be a vector for the disease, meaning that if
contracted could harbor and spread the virus. Studies have indicated that dogs
can contract Ebola and in fact, show an antibody (defense) response. With
ignorance to whether or not the dog could possibly spread Ebola, it was ordered
to be euthanized. While some science professionals rejoice as they could again
wipe the sweat from their fuzzy brows, others claim the case was valuable, and
the dog should have been studied. A separate party, animal rights advocators
protested in Madrid.
Was this move justified with by the rapid
growth of Ebola? Could this dog have served a more ethical purpose before its
death? I like to believe that something could have been learned from Excalibur.
The structure or sequence of the antibody protein targets this virus could be
monumental for vaccine development.
You mention that animal rights protesters gathered because of the dog being euthanized. Do you think they would have been less upset if the dog had been kept alive solely for the purpose of medical testing? Or would there still have been protests by animal rights activists?
ReplyDelete