Two Steps Back: America’s Reluctance to Welcome Home Ebola Patients

The Democratic Republic of Congo is struggling with its largest-ever Ebola outbreak, and a familiar pattern has emerged: another American citizen infected with the virus will be sent to Germany for treatment rather than being repatriated to the United States. This decision reflects a broader trend in US policy that prioritizes caution over compassion.

The Trump administration’s response to Ebola outbreaks has been marked by strict travel restrictions and an apparent desire to keep infected citizens abroad. However, this approach raises more questions than answers. Why are those in need being sent elsewhere when the US has multiple facilities capable of safely monitoring and treating Ebola patients? The answer lies not only in public health policy but also in a cultural reluctance to confront and care for those who have contracted the virus.

The Bundibugyo strain of Ebolavirus responsible for this outbreak may be lesser-known, but its impact on global health is catastrophic. With 1,926 reported cases and 702 deaths as of July 12, this is already one of the largest Ebola outbreaks in history. Despite having a robust healthcare system capable of handling such situations, the US has chosen to isolate itself from those in need.

This isolationism reflects a pattern that has become increasingly prevalent under the Trump administration: prioritizing national interests over global cooperation and compassion. The decision to send American Ebola patients abroad is not just about public health policy but also about politics. By keeping infected citizens out of the country, the US can avoid confronting the very real risks and challenges associated with treating such cases.

For families who have lost loved ones or are struggling to cope with a diagnosis, the lack of repatriation options is heartless. It speaks to a broader societal issue: we are increasingly willing to outsource our responsibilities and problems rather than facing them head-on. The Frankfurt hospital where this American patient is being treated has been praised for its state-of-the-art facilities and expert care. However, what about the patients who remain stranded in the DRC, without access to such resources? What about their families, navigating a complex web of bureaucratic red tape just to get medical attention?

The decision to send American Ebola patients abroad is not just about public health policy; it’s also about our collective values as a society. Do we prioritize compassion and care for those in need, even when the risks are high? Or do we opt for caution and isolationism, leaving behind those who require our help most? The answer will determine not only how we respond to Ebola outbreaks but also what kind of country we want to be.

As the outbreak continues to spread, it’s clear that the US must re-examine its approach to repatriation and treatment. We have the facilities, expertise, and resources to safely monitor and care for those infected with Ebola. More importantly, we have a moral obligation to do so. Anything less would be a betrayal of our values as a nation – and a dereliction of our duty to those in need.

The man in Frankfurt is reportedly doing well, but how many others will not be so fortunate? The US has an opportunity to show that it stands for something more than just caution and isolationism. It’s time to take the first step towards a different approach – one that prioritizes care over fear, compassion over politics.