A new word has entered our vocabularies – “Zika” -- the mosquito-borne virus first identified in the Zika forest in Uganda in 1947, that has since spread across southern Asia to the Pacific islands, and now to the Americas. What do we actually know about this virus? First, it is carried by the same tropical mosquitoes that carry dengue fever, yellow fever, and the West Nile virus. Second, it is a virus, a primitive form of RNA that can only replicate inside living cells. It is not a germ or a parasite, therefore it is not susceptible to antibiotics. When the virus gets inside living cells, it alters their function. Although there’s no conclusive proof yet, the World Health Organization accepts a link between the Zika virus and microcephaly. Microcephaly simply means “small head.” Lots of people have small heads. But when a newborn’s skull is several sizes smaller than normal, it usually means that the brain has failed to develop properly in utero. In an extreme form, this becomes anencephaly -- babies born with little or no brain. Depending on the size of the brain, or lack of it, death is almost inevitable. Reports from Brazil suggest that many afflicted babies die within days. No one knows yet what life will hold for those that survive.
Unknown causes It’s possible that the Zika virus has had these effects all along. But western medicine tends to pay attention to health issues in Africa and Asia only when the risk affects Europe and America. No one knows how the virus reached Brazil. Perhaps someone got bitten by an infected mosquito in the Philippines or Polynesia, and got bitten by a Brazilian mosquito while on a business trip. Maybe a wandering mosquito got trapped inside some traveller’s suitcase. Regardless of cause, the disease spread rapidly among a population who had never built up any immunity to it. On the other hand, microcephaly may not be caused by mosquitos at all. A group of Argentine doctors note that the incidence of microcephaly has been highest in Brazil’s Pernambuco state, where governments injected the larvicide Pyriproxyfen into drinking water supplies. Ironically, to control mosquitos.
Global threat At over 200 million people, Brazil is the world’s fifth most populous country, surpassing every European nation. It is also the world’s fifth largest country by land area. Economically, it ranks seventh, just behind Russia. And because it will host the Olympic Games this summer, Brazil has a huge potential to infect visitors. If we needed any proof that we live in a globalized context, the Zika virus provides it. Now there’s evidence that the Zika virus can also spread through sex. So travellers to the tropics are urged to avoid unprotected sex, to stay indoors, to wear clothing that covers them from head to heels, and to slather themselves night and day with insect repellent. Not quite why northerners head south. But what of those who are not travellers? The poorest of the poor, who live in Brazil’s favelas, can’t afford gobs of insect repellent. Or screened windows. Or gallons of bug spray.
Institutional sin Brazil has the world’s largest Roman Catholic community -- 65 per cent of the people are Catholic -- but their church continues to forbid abortions. “Increased access to abortion and abortifacients [abortion-inducing drugs] is an illegitimate response to this crisis,” the Vatican declared last week. “Since it terminates the life of a child it is fundamentally not preventative.” Instead, women are warned to avoid getting pregnant. But for how long? Until mosquitos are totally eradicated? Until a vaccine is developed and tested? In a patriarchal culture where males feel entitled to sex, and expect women to provide it? I can sympathize, to some extent, with Catholic opposition to abortion. It is, after all, the killing of a living being. But I wonder why death before birth is considered morally more heinous than death soon after. Surely it’s better to have neither -- to prevent unwanted conceptions likely to lead to untimely death. In that context, I consider the Catholic Church’s opposition to contraception a mortal sin. The Catholic Church has its own definitions of mortal, venial, and eternal sins. But I call it a sin because it causes unnecessary suffering, and mortal because it causes unnecessary deaths. The sin is not an individual woman’s use of contraception. It is the institution’s refusal to help that woman avoid an unwanted pregnancy. Thank God for Pope Francis! He stated on Wednesday that there is a clear moral difference between aborting a fetus and preventing a pregnancy. Let’s hope the Brazilian church was listening.