“More than an intensive care phenomenon”: Religious communities and the WHO Guidelines for Ebola and Covid-19

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This article draws on anthropological fieldwork conducted during the West African Ebola outbreak (2014-2016) and reports of the ongoing Covid-19 crisis to discuss the role played by religion in infectious disease control. While much separates Ebola and Covid-19, the religious practices prevalent in both contexts produce similar challenges to hospital staff and caregivers. In West Africa, at least 20 % of all infections were suspected to be related to the burial of deceased Ebola victims; yet at the same time, local communities at times reacted very negatively to infectious disease control measures. This article discusses how, based on this recognition, a systematic exchange began between anthropologists, faith-based organisations (FBOs) and humanitarian organisations active in the provision of healthcare, culminating in a WHO protocol for the “safe and dignified” burial of Ebola victims. The model of ‘contactless’ adaptations of religious practices it put forth may have significantly contributed to the control of the epidemic. In the second part, this article turns to the Covid-19 pandemic to show how religious communities have responded to the risks associated with many religious practices, and how the WHO, drawing on its experience with Ebola, developed comparable guidelines aimed at religious leaders and faith communities. As the experience in West Africa has shown, it is argued, the active involvement of religious actors in the formulation of public health measures may not only help to provide safe comfort in the midst of a profoundly alienating experience, but significantly reduce the spread of the virus.</jats:p>

What Did Chaplains Do During the Covid Pandemic? An International Survey

“…The social and economic impact will not become clear for years. However, one unintended outcome of the pandemic was widespread recognition of the value of health workers ( Winiger, 2020 ). All were universally honoured as ‘heroes’: the doctors, nurses, cleaners – all those who ensured in particular that the overburdened ICUs would be able to provide their care ( Schutz & Shattell, 2020 ).…”

The roles of chaplains in dispelling cancer myths in Nigeria: A narrative review

“…Spiritual healing as a form of alternative treatment to reduce anxiety, achieve well‐being, and improve overall patient condition has been well documented 73 , 74 but its integration and progression in health for holistic and total human care despite World Health Organizations' (WHO) recommendation have been confronted with barriers from the public, healthcare practitioners, policymakers, and so forth. 75 , 76 These barriers include but are not limited to spiritual care ambiguity, inadequate training of healthcare providers, limited time and resources, and so forth 77 , 78 leading to the noncomprehensive provision of chaplain care. These challenges are described below.…”

“Faith-Sensitive” Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Pluralistic Settings: A Spiritual Care Perspective

“…Including "faith-sensitivity" in MHPSS hence brings a host of practical challenges, in particular the risk of inadvertently promoting behaviour suspected to be dangerous, stigmatising or otherwise "maladaptive coping", contradicting the cardinal humanitarian principle of "doing no harm" (Ager et al 2019). Certain burial rituals, for instance, may provide a central source of spiritual support during crises, but create the conditions for worsening the same, as reported during the 2014-15 Ebola response in West Africa, or the burial ceremony of a senior bishop in Montenegro during the COVID-19 pandemic, which sparked a major "super spreader" event (Winiger 2020). Moreover, the role of providers is often unclear; while MHPSS programs seek to empower local communities to draw on their own cultural resources, aid workers are confronted with normative decisions-for example, on the agreement of specific behaviour associated with "local beliefs", such as female genital mutilation, with human rights standards-contravening another core tenet of international humanitarian law, that of impartiality (Ager et al 2019;Koski and Heymann 2019;van den Berg et al 2011).…”