MHE507 - Bio-Terrorism, Module 3 - SLP, Bio-Terrorism preparedness and response - Essay Example

Bioterrorism can be undetected at first glance. This is due to the fact that bioterrorism uses tools that are commonly used in everyday lives. Bioterrorism cases had been reported using syringes, which are used in hospitals and other clinical observations. The most common act of bioterrorism through syringes and injections aims at the reemergence of dormant illnesses, or the alleviation of the effects of common diseases. Bioterrorism threats using food and water also exist. In such cases, bioterrorism is hard to detect since food and water are consumed everyday by every individual.

Cases that involve air, however, are much harder to prevent, since air moves freely and unbarred anywhere. The details of certain massive attacks can be enumerated below, as detailed by Hughes (1999):Since late 1992, a number of large, complex outbreaks have occurred in the United States. These include the epidemic of over 400,000 cases of waterborne cryptosporidiosis in Milwaukee, the outbreak of severe, unexplained acute respiratory disease now known as hantavirus pulmonary syndrome in the Spring of 1993, the nationwide foodborne salmonellosis outbreak caused by contaminated ice cream that accounted for an estimated 250,000 cases in the fall of 1994, and the increasing problems posed by antimicrobial-resistant organisms in community and health-care settings.

Epidemics of plague in India, Ebola hemorrhagic fever in Central Africa, avian (H5N1) influenza in Hong Kong, Hendra virus infection in Australia, and Nipah virus infection recently in Malaysia and Singapore required an international response. During the hantavirus, plague, and Ebola investigations, concerns regarding the possibility of bioterrorism were raised early in the investigations, though these concerns were not supported by subsequent findings. Attacks are intentionally created to threaten individuals, or the government, to surrender to the needs and conditions of the attackers.

And with bioterrorism as the tool, nobody is safe; nobody can run away, and nobody can be excluded. Not even the government or other high officials are safe if bioterrorism tools are to be used against them. What does the government do about bioterrorism? And what should be really done? One question at the break of an attack is this: Should the case be isolated, or should the information be disseminated? During an attack, the government has two options: to isolate the case and work on it privately, or to let the public know about it.

The first case is done to prevent massive panic, which can heighten the fear of the masses. However, in the second case, where the people are aware of the threat, people might end up worrying too much and would fail to help in the prevention. Panicky people might want to move to another place, or refuse to take anything which he/she might think harmful. In both cases, the public is concerned, and yet they cannot help with their actions. The government needs to be prepared at all costs. But how can bioterrorism be identified if it uses common tools that we consider helpful instead of harmful?

If one is to be protected against any threat of bioterrorism, then he/she should avoid all the possible sources, which is almost impossible to do. Hence, the government is facing a tremendous problem with regards to bioterrorism prevention: public awareness and safety. Safety precautions are the most important means of avoiding attacks. That one is aware of the risks of being subjected to bioterrorism should aid in preventing it. For instance, make sure that the syringes used for you is sterilized, and that it comes from an authorized individual or group; the food you take should also be observed dutifully, and the air you breathe should be clean.

With this small steps, and collaborative effort by everyone, bioterrorism can be avoided gradually. No matter the efforts of bioterrorists, if the people are aware and prepared, they will not succeed. The people and the government should enter an agreement wherein they are bound to cooperate in trying cases. Reference:Hughes, James M. 1991. The Emerging Threat of Bioterrorism. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no4/hughes.htm