Respecting the Dead in a Public Health Disaster

Sometimes public health imperatives conflict with deep human needs. Take respect for the dead: during the Ebola outbreak in Kikwit, Democratic Republic of Congo in the mid-1990's, international teams collected the dead in full protective gear, wrapped them in thick plastic bags, and unceremoniously buried them in pits. As Pulitzer prizewinner Laurie Garrett pointed out, traditional Congolese burial rites -- including washing the body of the deceased by family members -- helped spread this terrifying disease. Respect for the dead had to give way to epidemic control. Villagers could only watch as fearful aliens in bodysuits carted their dead loved ones away.

But it is not always the case, as the World Health Organization has pointed out this week. Dead bodies from natural disasters do not pose the same health risks as the corpses of those who have died from Ebola, though they are sometimes treated in analogous ways: doused in antiseptic, covered in lime, and dumped in mass graves. This, states the WHO, is totally unnecessary as far as disease spread is concerned, and undermines the mental health of the survivors. In an unintentionally amusing passage, the World Health Organization reassures the public that fatal victims of natural disasters are harmless, because they are really, really dead:

Those killed by natural disasters are generally healthy at the time of their death, and therefore very unlikely be a source of infection to others. The micro-organisms responsible for the decomposition of bodies are not capable of causing disease in living people. Most infectious agents of public health concern that may be present at the time of death will themselves die within hours of the person dying.

As far as post-disaster disease outbreaks go, survivors are far more likely to be their source than the dead are. That is why after a natural disaster occurs, the priority is to secure clean water and food for the living, rather than disposing of the dead in hasty and rude ways. Those who are doing this, please stop.
- Stuart Rennie

Labels: , , ,

contribute a comment

Comments have been closed for this post.

what is this?

A 'Nature Top 50' science blog by the editors, staff and friends of The American Journal of Bioethics. Science writes: "To follow the latest twists in ... science stories with social impact, dive into this Web log"

The original story behind this blog

What people are saying about blog.bioethics.net

recently on blog.bioethics.net

Is Hope a Culprit in Cancer Clinical Trials?

A recent study conducted by Emory University School of Medicine found that therapeutic misconception is alive and well in Phase I cancer research. According to... (more)

Gingrich on IVF: Bad for Families, Bad for Bioethics

Scientists, reproductive specialists and andrologists had better prepare. If Newt Gingrich has his way (and wins the Presidency), he will have a whole new world... (more)

Canadians have Bieber Fever...For Organ Donation

Yes, it's true. Bieber Fever has spread far and wide. But it isn't just tweens who are following the pop star, Justin Bieber's, every move.... (more)

Caplan: Say No to Sterilization, Forced Abortion

Art Caplan discusses a troubling case regarding a 32-year-old pregnant woman known as "Mary Moe" who is pregnant for the third time and who suffers... (more)

Rallying Around Amelia: A Debate on Disability

The blogosphere and the airwaves are filled with indignation regarding what has happened to Amelia Rivera, a three year old who has a rare genetic... (more)

this blog's feed

  • Subscribe
    • XML
    • Google Reader or Homepage
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • Add to My AOL
    • Convert RSS to PDF
    • Add to Technorati Favorites!
    • Add to your phone
    • Get RSS Buttons

info

archives

tags