Health: A Global Commitment?

Epidemics—like terrorism, climate change and money—travel without regard to borders, which present them with no obstacleSo much has been written about global health that it is sometimes difficult to find arguments to convince the reader of the effectiveness of investment in health and finding quality solutions. But if it is true that a picture is worth a thousand words, the pictures coming to us from Liberia and Sierra Leone of the Ebola epidemic are the kind that open the way to a new vision and explode the myth that we can dispense with aid to countries that have low levels of development.

The 18th of September 2014 will go down in history as the day the United Nations Security Council approved the first ever international emergency health mission, which has been launched to fight Ebola. The rapid spread of the virus and the inability of the countries affected to deal with the epidemic has triggered a response that might appear disproportionate if Ebola were solely a public health problem within those countries. After all, the total number of deaths caused by this epidemic is currently around 5,000, representing only a miniscule percentage of the 600,000 people who die from malaria or the 9 million people who get tuberculosis every year. Nevertheless, travelling at the speed of the thousands of aircraft that every day fly from Africa to the United States and Europe, Ebola penetrated the veins of the western world.

The Ebola epidemic has merely served to reawaken the memory of the fear generated in the West by the onslaught of AIDS at the end of the 1980s and of the indignation that finally, well into the 1990s, brought treatments to AfricaEpidemics—like terrorism, climate change and money—travel without regard to borders, which present them with no obstacle. Health does not recognise states, and while the worst consequences of ill health often affect the most vulnerable countries, the only way to combat them is through international responses and mechanisms. In this respect, the Ebola epidemic has merely served to reawaken the memory of the fear generated in the West by the onslaught of AIDS at the end of the 1980s and of the indignation that finally, well into the 1990s, brought treatments to Africa where most of the victims were living. The response to the spread of the HIV virus was a turning point; it was clear that none of the countries with a high burden of disease could mount an adequate response without help. While there is still a long way to go, in the absence of a global world government, the international response achieved unprecedented progress, creating new mechanisms for promoting research and ensuring access to treatment for those most in need. At the same time, the concept of global health started to take shape and to become something more than just an academic term.

Unhealthy people cannot work, and it is impossible to achieve equitable development with an unhealthy populationToday, the international community is once again facing a historic opportunity: Ebola is the tip of an iceberg that reveals health to be the most important factor shaping development in many parts of the world. Unhealthy people cannot work, and it is impossible to achieve equitable development with an unhealthy population. The inability of many of the countries that suffer the worst consequences of disease to deal with the problem is proportional to the instability in which those populations live and the concern they generate about world safety. For this reason, at a time when a new framework of response to the major challenges is being developed to replace the Millennium Goals, the world needs a new commitment to health that can identify the needs and ensure that adequate resources are found to address them. Health is a global responsibility.