The Zika virus outbreak is spreading in the U.S., according to local public health authorities and the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC); international Zika virus cases are also increasing. Infection occurs because of a mosquito bite that transmits the virus, and most public health interventions to date concentrate on limiting exposure to the mosquito (Aedes aegypti). As of yet, there is no vaccine or specific treatment for the Zika virus. The discovery that Zika virus infection in pregnant women can lead to birth defects, including microcephaly, raised the alarm about the spread of the virus in this population (see earlier post here). To date, there are about 1400 reported cases in the U.S; there are about 400 cases of Zika infection in pregnant women. Most cases in the U.S. are traced to individuals traveling outside the country, returning with the infection; Puerto Rico, Brazil and other Caribbean and Latin American countries are some of the hotspots of transmission. Now, however, there appear to be are several cases of local transmission of the Zika virus in Florida, which means that the virus is gaining a foothold in the U.S. itself. As in most public health crises, the government is tasked with providing increased support to local authorities, funding for treatment developments, and other activities. Congress has been in a stalemate over emergency Zika virus funding over the last month. President Obama sought $1.9 billion in new dedicated funding; the House of Representatives approved $1.1 billion. On to the Senate, where several provisions inserted into the funding bill encountered opposition; most notably, an explicit ban on Planned Parenthood as the recipient of any new funds. As discussed in an earlier post, because of the risk that Zika virus infection poses to pregnant women, who are at risk to give birth to babies with developmental disorders (and not all are known at this point), access to contraception and other reproductive services would appear to be a key ingredient in minimizing the birth of Zika-affected babies. That’s where the usual political conflict over reproductive and family planning funding entered the Zika funding legislation, and created an impasse. So to date, the Senate has not approved the funding that the House approved, and Congress has taken its usual lengthy summer break without acting on emergency funding for Zika virus research and support. The 7-week hiatus in the Zika funding battle has dismayed federal public health officials. The American Medical Association (AMA) faulted Congress:
At a time when concerns continue to mount about the nation's readiness to protect the public from the Zika virus, the AMA is disappointed by Congress' failure to pass legislation before adjourning for summer recess that would provide the resources necessary for our country to respond to this looming public health crisis. Without ensuring there are sufficient resources available for research, prevention, control and treatment of illnesses associated with the Zika virus, the United States will be ill-equipped to deploy the kind of public health response needed to keep our citizens safe and healthy—especially since the spread of mosquito-borne illness is accelerated during the summer months.
Editorials in some of the hardest hit areas of the country noted how the impasse would adversely affect their regions; here is the Palm Beach Post from Florida on the local impact:
Congress has left the building. And in its dysfunctional wake, it leaves yet another failed effort at passing crucial emergency funding to fight the spread of the dreaded Zika virus. For at least the next seven weeks, Florida — which has distinguished itself as ground zero for cases of the mosquito-borne virus — will just have to hope that the worst part of the rainy storm season doesn’t translate into more infections. (Palm Beach County has seen about 12 cases of travel-related Zika.) It may be a long, hot summer. Mosquitoes that carry the Zika virus breed year-round here, and the number of infections in the continental United States is mounting. On Monday, the state Health Department reported 13 new cases of the Zika virus in Florida - the most reported cases of the virus in a single day. Moreover, federal officials say they will have to postpone a slew of anti-Zika actions. For example, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will have “limited capacity” to help with efforts to counter mosquito populations in the continental U.S. and territories.
Yes, it should be noted that the CDC is now dispersing about 60 million dollars currently to localities to augment public health efforts, but these are “stopgap” awards that will not approach the scale of the demand. Congress returns on September 6th.
The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) has released a brief, titled Ethics and Ebola: Public Health Planning and Response, following its consideration of specific ethical questions that emerged while the U.S. government was responding to the Ebola virus outbreak in western Africa. Ebola virus cases in the U.S. began to appear last fall, the but Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia experienced significant outbreaks during 2014, and the World Health Organization reports an ongoing struggle in these countries. The commission advanced several recommendations to improve international responses, as well as the U.S. domestic response and capabilities:
Strengthening the capacity of the World Health Organization to respond to global health emergencies through the provision of increased funding and collaboration with other international, national, and non-governmental public health organizations.
Identifying and empowering a single U.S. health official accountable for all federal domestic and international public health emergency response activities.
Strengthening the deployment capabilities of the U.S. Public Health Service, including by streamlining command structure for deployment and providing appropriate resources to train and maintain skills needed for emergency response.
The Commission also highlighted the need to embed ethical considerations into disease management and responses in a coordinated ethics framework:
In addition, the Bioethics Commission recommend[s] that ethical principles be integrated into timely and agile public health decision making processes employed in response to rapidly unfolding epidemics. It call[s] for qualified public health ethics expertise to be readily available to identify ethical considerations relevant to public health emergencies and responses in light of real-time available evidence. Specifically, it recommends that a single U.S. health official should be accountable for ethics integration.
While recognizing that public health measures can compromise individual liberty in emergency situations, the Commission addressed the need for possible quarantine:
On the contentious issue of quarantine and other policies related to movement restrictions, the Bioethics Commission recommend[s] that governments and public health organizations employ the least restrictive means necessary—based on the best available scientific evidence—when implementing restrictive public health measures.
The Commission recognized that clinical trials during a public health emergency can pose ethical choices regarding trial design, and particularly regarding the use of placebos, but did not rule out their use:
Clinical research during a serious communicable disease epidemic creates a stark ethical dilemma: On one hand, using placebo controls appears to deny some patients the possibility—however small and uncertain—of a benefit from experimental interventions; on the other hand, research that does not yield conclusive results about an intervention’s safety or effectiveness could exacerbate the tragedy of the epidemic by providing misleading and potentially harmful information. Navigating this tension requires careful analysis of the range of possible trial designs coupled with a commitment to core principles of research ethics.
In upcoming work, the Bioethics Commission will further consider “the importance of democratic deliberation and public education in bioethics.” While the role of the Bioethics Commission is deliberative and advisory, it has a broad and singular mandate to consider how the government ethically responds to the emergence of new life science technologies and ethically reacts to medical or health crises that necessitate competent and agile federal involvement.
