Ebola & American Intervention

Q1. Do you think the United States is ethically required to respond to epidemics and other
health crises in foreign countries Why or why not?

Yes, the United States is ethically required to respond:

In an interconnected world, diseases can easily spread across borders. Responding to health crises in
foreign countries can help prevent the global spread of diseases, which can ultimately protect U.S.
citizens. Addressing health crises abroad can contribute to global health security, reducing the risk of
future pandemics that might directly impact the United States.

Concentrating relief efforts along historical colonial lines during the Ebola outbreak would not
necessarily be an ethical approach. Relief efforts should be based on the severity of the crisis and the
needs of affected populations, rather than historical colonial ties.

Q2. Should the U.K., France, and the U.S. have concentrated their relief efforts along
historical colonial lines during the Ebola outbreak? In general, do the U.S. and other
imperialist nations have particular ethical responsibilities to aid their former colonies?
Explain your reasoning

Some argue that imperialist nations, like the U.K., France, and the U.S., have ethical responsibilities to
provide aid and support to their former colonies. This perspective stems from a sense of historical
exploitation and a moral duty to address the legacy of colonialism, which often left former colonies with
weakened healthcare systems and socio-economic disparities.

Ethical responsibilities should not be limited to former colonies but should extend universally to all
nations facing crises. This viewpoint emphasizes the principles of fairness, equality, and impartiality in
humanitarian assistance.

While acknowledging historical ties and responsibilities, the ethical approach to aid during health crises
should prioritize need-based responses and universal principles of assistance rather than concentrating
efforts solely along colonial lines. Ethical responsibilities should be considered in a broader global
context, taking into account the severity of crises and the principles of equity and justice.

Q3. Do you think it is ethically permissible to deploy the U.S. military in humanitarian
relief efforts?What are the potential harms and benefits of such a decision? in short
The ethical permissibility of deploying the U.S. military in humanitarian relief efforts is a matter of
debate. Here are potential harms and benefits:

**Benefits:**

1. **Rapid Response: ** The military can provide a swift and organized response to humanitarian crises,
delivering aid and support more efficiently in some cases.

2. **Logistical Expertise:** Military forces have experience in logistics and coordination, which can be
crucial in distributing aid and reaching affected populations, especially in remote or dangerous areas.

3. **Security:** Military presence can help ensure the safety of aid workers and the protection of aid
convoys in volatile environments.

**Harms:**

1. **Militarization:** Deploying the military in humanitarian efforts can blur the lines between
humanitarian and military actions, potentially compromising the perception of neutrality and
impartiality that humanitarian organizations strive to maintain.

2. **Perception and Sovereignty:** It can be perceived as an infringement on the sovereignty of the

affected country and may create resentment among local populations.

3. **Conflict Risk:** Military involvement can inadvertently escalate conflicts, especially in fragile
regions, leading to unintended consequences.

4. **Costs:** Military operations are expensive, and diverting military resources to humanitarian efforts
may affect defense capabilities or domestic priorities.

The ethical permissibility of such deployments depends on the specific context and the balance between
the potential benefits of a military's capabilities and the potential harms related to militarization,
sovereignty, and conflict escalation. Decisions should be made carefully, with consideration of both the
immediate humanitarian needs and the long-term consequences.

Q4. Do you think that President Obama’s response to the Ebola epidemic was too
cautious, sufficient, or too ambitious? What policy would you have followed if you were in
his position? Explain your reasoning. in short

President Obama's response to the Ebola epidemic can be seen as a balanced and cautious approach. He
did take steps to address the crisis, including sending military personnel and aid to affected regions and
implementing measures to screen travelers. However, some criticized the response as not ambitious
enough.
If I were in his position, I would have focused on the following policy approach:

**Balanced Response: ** I would aim for a balanced response that combines caution with ambition. This
would involve:

1. **Immediate Aid:** Swiftly providing financial and material aid to affected countries to bolster their
healthcare systems and support treatment efforts.

2. **International Collaboration: ** Collaborating with international organizations, neighboring

countries, and global partners to coordinate a unified response and share resources and expertise.

3. **Public Health Measures: ** Implementing rigorous public health measures at home, including
traveler screenings and preparedness plans, to minimize the risk of Ebola entering the U.S.

4. **Transparent Communication: ** Ensuring transparent and accurate communication to inform the

public about the situation, risks, and preventive measures.

5. **Research and Development: ** Investing in research and development of Ebola treatments and
vaccines to address the long-term threat.

Such a policy would aim to strike a balance between addressing the immediate crisis and minimizing
risks at home, while also contributing to the global effort to combat the epidemic.

Q5. Many of the medical treatment facilities that were built by the American military were
never utilized to treat Ebola victims. How, if at all, does this outcome affect your
judgment of President Obama’s response? in short

The fact that some medical treatment facilities built by the American military were never utilized to treat
Ebola victims could be seen as an aspect of logistical planning that didn't fully align with the scale of the
outbreak. However, this outcome alone should not significantly impact the overall judgment of President
Obama's response. Evaluating the response should consider a broader range of factors, including the
allocation of resources, coordination with international partners, and the effectiveness of measures
taken to prevent the spread of Ebola within the United States. The decision not to utilize certain facilities
may have been influenced by changing circumstances and priorities during the crisis.