In his Perspectives piece (June 27, p 2192), Arthur Caplan questions whether disease eradication should be eschewed for “aggressive and effective disease management”. Emphasis is placed on defining eradication, but not on clarifying how these two concepts would differ in practice. Herein lies the problem: in developed countries, a single episode of poliovirus transmission would be cited as a failure of effective disease management. The logical endpoint of Caplan's proposal is that, in abandoning eradication, we should accept that poliovirus transmission will occur, not in developed communities, but elsewhere.Caplan argues that eradication would mean exchanging vigilance for indifference, but is quiet on the human suffering associated with diseases such as poliomyelitis and HIV/AIDS. Vigilance, prophylaxis, research, and surveillance are not ends in themselves; they are the means for preventing disease. Health-care structures would not lose capacity for future disease control despite stopping training in how to recognise and treat the specific target disease. Caplan's concern is not supported by history: eradicating smallpox has in no way hindered polio control or containment of severe acute respiratory syndrome.Relaxing polio eradication will result in more cases and greater costs. The diversion of funds from local problems is an argument for better primary health care globally, not for halting eradication efforts. Resurgent polio would be a major local problem globally if allowed to re-establish a foothold.With poliovirus type 2 gone for a decade, we should take heart that, having invested for only 20 years in serious eradication efforts, with much success, a world without poliomyelitis is not only possible, but ethical.