Malaria: A Disease Close To Eradication Grows, Aided by Political Tumult in Sri Lanka by Donald G. McNeil Jr. from the New York Times is an article on how the People of Sri Lanka hoped to Eradicate Malaria from the country. Malaria is a mosquito spread disease from a parasite that causes severe fever and flu-like symptoms that can be fatal if left untreated. Sri Lanka is located on an island, which would make the eradication possible. They have come close to it in the past, but, when DDT, an insecticide, was no longer used, the number of Malaria cases shot back up because the mosquitoes were not being killed. “By 1969, there were more than 500,000 cases.” The increase was very dramatic going from 18 to 500,000. Since then, the country has gone through a civil war, all through which Malaria persisted. However by 2005 the country was at less than 2,000 cases. In 2009, last year, political issued resolved and there is hope for Eradication when more clinics are opened, as said by a ministry official.
The article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/health/28global.html?ref=health
Although it is great that people are trying to Eradicate Malaria its sad how, as the article points out, “politics affects the disease more than climate or public health measures do.” Malaria in Sri Lanka has been from being at one million annual cases, down to 18 cases, all the way back up to 500,000 cases. The change in cases of Malaria is being controlled by the political situation of Sri Lanka. This case is unlike most we have dealt with in this class because usually it is the climate or the public health that controls the outbreak rate of a disease. This case deals with politics. It’s not right that the politicians control the spread of the disease. When Malaria was almost eradicated with 18 cases remaining, the government stopped spreading insecticides such as DDT, which caused the cases to rise dramatically. The conflicts or wars are keeping treatment from happening. Hopefully now that the political situation in Sri Lanka is sound, the Malaria cases can be decreased and eradicated.
Maria, I really like your choice in article because it was interesting to see the political side of fighting off epidemic diseases. It is really upsetting that they came so close to eradication, but politics got in the way. It is hard enough to fight a disease and have to deal with the climate or poverty of a country. Political involvement just creates another unnecessary obstacle. I also found the fact that DDT was being used as part of the strategy to eradicate the disease. I did NHD on Rachel Carson sophomore year, and she was the first person to recognize that DDT was a potentially harmful pesticide. It is interesting to see its effectiveness in Sri Lanka.
ReplyDeleteIt's a true shame how government gets in the way of progress. This is evident in the way that it was handled in inadvertently promoting the spread of disease. Other similar case was when the US government banned insecticides and as a result the crop yields for that year were drastically lower. While DDT is known for causing cancer, the probability of getting cancer is far better than the probability of getting malaria. In which case, the government should have found a different alternative instead of banning it all together.
ReplyDeleteI thought that this was a very interesting article. It is sad to see how political agendas get in the way of saving human lives. It seemed to get so close to eradicating the disease, and then reversed directions so dramatically. After hearing so many bad things about DDT it is interesting to see one positive effect it was having.
ReplyDelete