Prevention and Treatment Consequences of Infectious Diseases (Research Paper Sample)

Prevention and Treatment Consequences of Infectious Diseases
Name
Institution
Prevention and Treatment Consequences of Infectious Diseases
Infectious or communicable diseases pose a major health crisis globally. Attempts to eradicate most of these infections, for example, poliomyelitis, smallpox among others, have prevailed, however, there are still other different types of infections, which have proven quite difficult to curb. Statistics from the United States National Institute of Health indicate that over 15 new contagious ailments have emerged in the course of the last twenty or so years. There are also those diseases that have been identified as recurring (McIntyre & Newell, 2000). The fight against these contagious diseases has been a resolute one, despite the many challenges that diminish the hopes of effectively controlling them. Communicable diseases continue to be the prime causes of death in many parts of the world, with national governments, bearing budgetary strains in a bid to fund eradication campaigns. This paper seeks to highlight the consequences that arise from the prevention and treatment of such ailments.
The world health organisation reckons that at one point in time, infectious diseases accounted for 32% of the fatalities globally. Sixty eight percent of this figures occurred in Africa alone, whereas South East Asia recorded a 37% fatality rate. Further reports indicate that the annual global death toll amounts to approximately over 13 million people, out of which causalities from developing countries account for about 90%. National governments and other health policy makers have relentlessly established efforts in attempts to save the lives of their citizens. Establishments of intervention programs such as the global immunization campaigns have played a vital role in this regard. However, these eradication efforts have not succeeded without adverse consequences that have been felt on a psychological, economic and environmental scale (Isham & Medley, 1996).
First is the economic effect felt on a nation’s economy and the world at large. Health foundations and organisations require funds to steer head their eradication campaigns. These funds are siphoned from the national budget. Most of these campaigns require ample resources to run effectively, which can prove to be quite costly. In the case of developing countries, there are challenges that further constrain the effective implementation of the control strategies put in place. Examples are internal economic and social issues that result to disintegration or even seize of existence of authorized health systems that are supposed to oversee health security in the country or region. In such cases, where an outbreak emerges, the affected nation has to outsource aid from external parties, which cripples their financial plans especially if the budget fails to account for emergency funds. As a result, there is risk of re-emergence of formerly controlled contagions, which leads to even further erosion of the budget as the authorities try to regain control of the situation (Beaglehole & Yach, 2003).
Another significant consequence is the psychological impact that they have on involved individuals. Whether one is the infected person or a medical practitioner, a psychological unrest befalls them. The reason for this is the fear that arises from knowing that these diseases are invisible, communicable and imminent. The devastating effects previously witnessed from some outbreaks such as the AIDS pandemic or the SARS epidemic are reason enough to spread panic among the health professionals and the public alike. People tend to have ‘germ panic’ brought about by the fear of contracting the contagious disease, for example, when administering treatment to the infected, as in the case of health workers. Furthermore, cases of stigmatization have even occurred in the past where fear, anxiety and frustrations of persons infected have impeded rational behaviour. Measures that are e...