The International Olympic Committee has barred athletes from Ebola-affected countries from competing in the Youth Olympic Games which opened on Saturday, Aug 23, in China. WHO believes that screening that has been implemented in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone is sufficient to protect air travelers. However, the IOC may be facing many other countries which might opt to stay away, if the IOC did not take this precautionary measure of excluding athletes who might bring Ebola to the games.
The IHR International Emergency Committee on the West African Ebola epidemic met on Aug 6, 2014 and issued recommendations including this one: "There should be no general ban on international travel or trade; . . ."Despite their recommendation, there is a growing number of states barring trade and travel with Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia. This WHO recommendation is consistent with the IHR (2005) overall purpose which reads:
Art. 2. Purpose and scope. "The purpose and scope of these regulations are to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade."By all accounts, the Ebola epidemic still has months to run its course in West Africa and whether the economic impact can be lessened seems to be increasingly unlikely.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn environmental law, we always hear about the on-going struggle between environmentalists and entrepreneurs. Ironically, to win an environmental case, it's imperative to appeal to the economics in the form of costs to our society. Here, when countries suspend air travel and/or limit trade due to Ebola, it's one of the few, but not rare, situations where the general population's health wins over economy. Even so, I wonder what companies who do business in West Africa can bring in the form of lawsuits?
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting question. What would be the basis of such a lawsuit-- that the airlines had acted unreasonably by suspending flights? Usually companies (and airlines) like the comfort of pointing to a government order as the basis for their actions and as an affirmative defense (despite its often uselessness). In this case, the airlines were confident enough that they were acting reasonably in suspending airline travel, it seems. Companies would have to show they were acting unreasonably, negligently or there was a breach of contract? Any other theories? I think it would be a hard case but a special set of facts might work.
DeleteIt is personally interesting to me to hear news regarding this recent outbreak of Ebola as the first time I became aware of the virus was in reading the novel "Hot Zone." Whenever you read a horror/thriller story, there is usually a detachment from fully comprehending the scenario as there is likely a thought in your mind saying, "Ya, but it couldn't really happen." When forced to encounter these fears in reality, people react according to whatever limited personal information they have. Rising anxiety in the face of the unknown results in poor, misinformed decisions. An example of this is the recent 2009 mass slaughtering of pigs in Egypt resulting from the confluence of avian flu and swine flu mutation concerns, cultural understanding, and general paranoia. In that case, reimbursement for destruction of personal property and threatened tourism boycotts were perhaps the largest financial concerns. Despite WHO and IOC recommendations to make barriers on international travel and trade commensurate to the public health risk, a populations' anxiety and mentality of "better safe than sorry" exacerbate the situation and hinder opportunities to implement the most effective and medically sound solutions available.
ReplyDeleteAt what point would the WHO allow a general ban? It seems evident that the governments of the hot zone nations are unable to control the spread across the continent. Even the WHO labeled this an ‘extraordinary event’ and has demonstrated a relaxing of rules (such as the ethics of administering experimental drugs) in this epidemic. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2014/ebola-20140808/en/
ReplyDeleteThis is a good question. WHO has flexibility in the IHR to make recommendations and while the objective of the IHR is to avoid unnecessary travel bans and trade embargoes, WHO could take a more stringent step. However, it would have to be narrow and for a limited time, based on a risk analysis of the public health threat.
Delete