Paper details

Paper authors	Natalie Roberts
In panel on	Ebola and accountability
Paper presenter(s) will be presenting	In-Person / Online

Abstract

After the 2013-16 West African Ebola epidemic MSF’s intervention was perceived to have been a success, in comparison to the conspicuous failures of the WHO. In consequence there was little critical reflection on the operational response model promoted and implemented by MSF, despite a lack of evidence that it resulted in a reduction in mortality, disease transmission or the duration of the epidemic.
The same model was deployed in response to the Ebola epidemic that started in Nord Kivu in 2018, where MSF’s approach initially aligned closely with that of the Congolese Ministry of Health and the WHO. It took eight months and three attacks on MSF-led structures for MSF to publicly mount any challenge to the response strategy, a challenge that was initially established on moral indignation, not on medical or operational reasoning.
This paper explores the contradictions in MSF’s positioning and relationships within the ‘Kivu’ Ebola response, including with the Congolese public institutions responsible for implementing it, and how they impacted the capacity for the organisation to deliver a useful intervention. Should MSF continue to intervene in response to Ebola, if it appears that the association’s actions are not likely to improve the situation for people affected by the disease, and in fact risk contributing to making it worse?

Back