Killing to Save

Question: Please help me with this dilemma. Malaria has caused immense suffering and poverty in the developing world. Two million, four hundred and thirty thousand infants, pending mothers and their untallied unborn die every year due to mosquito bites. Is it permitted to use DDT 1. Repel 2. Irritate 3. If those fail to kill the mosquito to save these lives?

Response: In everything we do, we need to consider not just the immediate results but the long-range consequences as well. Something that appears to do good today, but causes harm in the future is not good.

DDT has been banned in many countries because it is so toxic. It kills not only mosquitoes but other insects, animals, and even humans. It poisons groundwater and the soil. There is still DDT in soil where the use of DDT was banned thirty year ago. Along with many other man-made toxins, DDT collects in the fat cells of humans and other animals. These toxins are believed to be a cause of our increasing rates of cancers and other illnesses.

So before we take any action we need to understand exactly what we are doing and see if there are better alternatives. For example, my knowledge of malaria is limited but I have heard that mosquito nets have helped reduce the number of cases of malaria in children.

Because everything is inter-related our actions do not exist in isolation. By modifying one thing, we start a chain of events that ripple out. We now know that especially in nature; even one minor action will have widespread affects. Our failure to consider this has created many of the environmental problems we are facing today. These environmental problems cause many people to suffer, many people to die.

So before we act, we need to very carefully consider the possible outcomes.