Ethical dilemmas in malaria control

Abstract

Because the term "malaria control" specifies an anti-malaria activity rather than an outcome of that action, progress has been evaluated in terms of the effort expended. Plans that specify goals and time lines tend to lack irreversible endpoints. Anti-malaria interventions that are stimulated by economic considerations focus on sites in which the residents enjoy some employment advantage, while interventions based on humanitarian objectives serve the neediest residents of broad regions. Site-specific interventions are conducted by industrial or municipal agencies, while regional interventions are conducted by public agencies. Industry contributes an element of sustainability by injecting the possibility of gainful employment into the site. Efforts that distribute assets mainly to the richest-of-the-poor may fail to preserve lives that would otherwise have been preserved, while those that serve the poorest-of-the-poor may fail to create sustainable cycles of health and wealth. Progress in relieving the burden imposed by malaria requires economically motivated as well as humanitarian contributions, and both should specify realistically time-limited goals that ultimately permit deintensification.