The second paragraph does a good job of summing up ethical concerns related to this particular outbreak (standard ethical concerns also apply):
"The first two patients to be treated were Americans. Prior to this came the old (and historically justified) fear of testing potentially dangerous new treatments on vulnerable populations in developing countries rather than on privileged first world patients. The first ever treatment was not given to an African doctor because of this concern [1]. After Westerners were treated, complaints rose about giving infected Westerners access to a new drug while infected Africans went without. These two concerns are obviously mutually exclusive. People are concerned, they are just not sure about what, sometimes even voicing both concerns in the same article [2]."
This is an argument for animal testing?
Not all drugs effective for humans will be safe for animals, and not all drugs effective for animals will be safe for humans. Animal testing aims to operate in the middle-ground between the two, where things work similarly in both animals and humans.
Think about it, how would you work on potential cures of ebola in the (several times many year long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ebola_outbreaks) gaps between ebola outbreaks? Deliberately infect humans to be used as test subjects? Put all research on hold until the next outbreak came around?
You'd be able to find plenty of human test subjects for diseases like malaria or HIV, but for many diseases you would rapidly exhaust your supply of sick humans.
For example, bombing military forces using human shields as cover. Very practical, considered unethical and hence not practiced. (Same applies to the inverse, using civilians as shields.)
Eugenics, practiced to advance the human genome by artificial selection. Practical, not ethical!
During war, placing people of the same race as the enemy into concentration camps. Practical, no longer considered ethical, thankfully!
Testing drugs on the clinically insane and on criminals, or of humans of different races. Practical, not ethical.
Enslaving people of a different race to work plantations. Practical! No longer considered ethical!
-------------
For testing between outbreaks, how about instead of your strawmen, we try infecting lab-grown specimens of non-sentient tissue with Ebola? This is the 21st century, we can grow entire organs [1]. Even barring that, tissue from organ donor cadavers can be used.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10275996/The...
-------------
And one more thing:
Deliberately infect humans to be used as test subjects?
Why do you see this as different/worse than deliberately infecting other primates?
Is it because they do not have advanced technology?
Is it because they do not speak our language?
Is it because they cannot resist us?
Is it because they are not chosen by your God?
Is it because they look different than you?
Is it because you have no social links with them?
Is it because, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, you believe them not to be capable of thought and feeling?
Something else I haven't listed?
Everyone who downvotes me, I challenge you to answer this question. It's the least you can do if you don't doubt yourself.
> "Why do you see this as different/worse than deliberately infecting other primates? Is it because they do not have advanced technology?"
Sure, let's go with that one. Humans are able to research and eradicate diseases, but monkeys are not. Humans therefore have a greater inherent worth.
Go proselytize somewhere else.
So would you agree with the statement that Westerners have greater inherent worth than Australian aboriginal adults? After all, they don't have the technology or knowledge to research and eradicate diseases.
How about vs. the Amish? They choose not to engage in such research.
How about a normal human adult vs. an invalid?
I'm curious where you draw the line.
> "Why do you think that it is okay to kill poor hapless ebola?"
> Go proselytize somewhere else.
I feel sorry for you, that you are both so easily offended and lacking in debate skills that your response is so childlike.
I was hoping you'd could provide a level-headed counterargument to mine, as I'm open to challenges to my worldview. Sadly it seems you're little more capable of checking your emotions than everyone else who downvoted because they disagree with me.
Treating an ebola patient who has a bunch of weird side effects caused by an experimental drug makes a sub-optimal situation much worse.
I guess the OP's point was how much more sub-optimal can the situation get if the alternative to not trying the experimental drug is the death of the patient.
A bad drug could also cause suffering beyond what Ebola causes: even if the patient was going to die anyway, it could make their death even more painful.
The first four paragraphs describe what happened: different decisions were made by different doctors, and the drug did not "get out of the shadow only when there was a need to cure an American".
that is exactly my point. It is a discernible trait of the system level behavior with many different people involved.
Sounds like they're already doing precisely that.
EDIT: Very curious whether the downvoters (a) don't get the sarcasm, (b) get the sarcasm and are offended that I question their religious tenets, (c) think animal testing is justifiable beyond reproach, (d) disagree that monkeys are sentient, (e) think that monkeys consent to testing, or (f) just don't like how I worded things.