I personally do feel that the United States should do more to fight Ebola in West Africa. I believe that every human being should have access to adequate health care and that it is the moral responsibility of individuals to help those who cannot help themselves. However, I can understand why nations do not feel that they need to donate money in order to help another nation’s health care. It makes sense that they believe that each country should take care of itself.
After all, America is so much in debt that it probably cannot actually afford to help another entire nation. That being said, when a nation agrees to donate a certain amount of money, that nation should be able to keep up to their word. It is already clear that West Africa is an area filled with poverty and do not have the financial means to improve their water quality. Therefore, when a nation pledges to donate a certain amount of money, I feel that they should keep up to their word.
When the United States promised to donate $572 million to fight Ebola, they should be able to pay that much money, not just 43% of that amount. Furthermore, by not investing money to contain Ebola in West Africa, the United States is further risking the spread of the disease. As mentioned in the article by Fran Quigley, Ebola has already found a way to the U. S. , thus sparking the creation of non-profit community programs in Africa and an interest in finding a treatment to the disease.
Sadly, when Ebola was solely in Africa, the U. S. did not care quite as much about finding a cure. Like several other social issues, this discrepancy finds its root in race relations. The United States has had a long-standing reputation of high racial tensions. By working on creating programs that halt the spread of Ebola or by treating patients of color, the United States can earn a better reputation and become a more respected nation. Question: What programs, specifically, has the U. S. implemented in West Africa to combat the spread of Ebola and how successful have these programs been?