The Instigator
Eboladebator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
9spaceking
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Is it ethical to fudge the data for the experimental drug that saved two Americans from Ebola?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 700 times Debate No: 61934
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Eboladebator

Pro


  1. The experimental drug has already saved two Americans infected with the virus one of which was an older lady and was serverly infected ,almost at death.

  2. Your telling me you rather lets billions of people die because you don't want to tell a little white lie?

  3. Ebola is a highly contagious virus.

  4. This virus has also infected animals so when people eat infected animals they will get sick .If you give out the vaccine it will eliminate all of that in advanced.



"Ebola Survivor Dr. Kent Brantly Shares Blood with Infected American Doctor as Treatment." Fox News. FOX News Network, 11 Sept. 2014. Web. 18 Sept. 2014. http://www.foxnews.com....

Sutton, Joe, Jeremy Grisham, Carma Hassan, Laura Smith-Spark, and Journalist Aminu Abubakar in Nigeria. "Second American Infected with Ebola." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 18 Sept. 2014. http://www.cnn.com....
9spaceking

Con

My opponent has told the wrong side of the topic. If you fudge up the data you are telling the white lie, and not giving the epic information that might save millions, and thus, it is not moral to fudge up such important data. Try again, PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
Eboladebator

Pro

In my opinion there is a such thing as good lies and bad lies in this case this is a good lie. What's going to save millions of people and money is fudging the data. If you fudge it your saving and preventing lives. Plus you have to remember that these are not everyday people here these are well educated scientist from all over the world with many different degrees/diplomas. When the people receive the vaccine they will know everything about it because even if they fudge the data the drug still has to go through the FDA process which requires them to know everything about the drug.
9spaceking

Con

My opponent is being ridiculous. There is no reason to fudge the data. Fudging up the data would not let people know at all how much people are being saved. My opponent mentions round one how much people this drug has saved... "two Americans...". Thus, this shows the success. If people don't know how good this drug is, they will never buy it, and thus never be saved.
Debate Round No. 2
Eboladebator

Pro

There is no need to call names. (9spaceking)

If you read back over my previous comment I mentioned reasons why fudging the data is right and remember this is nothing serious. When you fudge the data that means that the FDA sees "okay maybe they need a little more time ".Now these scientist have more time. Also given money is an issue that will also speed up the process. Furthermore the people will not know that the data is fudged nor the FDA. However you have to remember the people infected are on their death beds. The people don't have a lot of money which means foundations will donate money to the people so they can have the vaccine. For example Australia promises $6.4 million to fight Ebola and the U.S. Is to provide $75M to expand Ebola care centers.

Now take a look at this, imagine you are someone with Ebola and want to live for children you might leave. You won"t care how many people the drug has saved. All you know is that those people are still living today, it won"t hurt to try. What do you have to lose?

On the other hand you are right when you say, "Fudging up the data would not let people know at all how much people are being saved."
But in fact it will because while they will be the vaccine and over time they will heal while others will do the same.

Let alone always remember "Prevention is always better than a cure"

Sources Cited:
"US to Provide USD 75 Mn to Expand Ebola Care Centers." Zee News. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2014. <http://zeenews.india.com...;.

"U.S. to Provide $75M to Expand Ebola Care Centers." Northwest Herald. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2014. <http://www.nwherald.com...;.

"Australia Promises $6.4 Million to Fight Ebola." ABC News. ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2014. <http://abcnews.go.com...;.
9spaceking

Con

My opponent doesn't make any good and logical points. Even if most people don't care about the data, there is still no reason to fudge it up for the people that do care. The data does not harm anyone. It does not change how effective it really is in its core. And as we know, the statistics my opponent show hint that Ebola is tough, but we do our best to fight it. If nobody knows how much people are being saved, or that we're trying to stop Ebola, they will complain and probably even revolt against the "seemingly-doing-nothing" government.
Debate Round No. 3
Eboladebator

Pro

Eboladebator forfeited this round.
9spaceking

Con

Extending...
Debate Round No. 4
Eboladebator

Pro

I'm not sure which people your talking about but I think I've gotten my point across it was fun debating with you .I use this as fun I do not take it seriously. Thank you!
9spaceking

Con

I win.
VOTE ME.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Hmm... I think I'll track this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Eboladebator9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Eboladebator9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I need to know what fudging the data is. Pro kept on asserting that it does no harm, but this flies in the face of every story I've ever seen on the matter, especially with regards to treatments like this. Perhaps Pro is simply discussing the portrayal of data on publications, which has a different set of consequences, but he never makes that clear, nor am I to believe that if that is the case, there would be any reason that the researchers would have any problem with also lying to their patients. Pro needed to show that there was some demonstrable benefit and no substantial harm to his case, and he simply doesn't manage either of those feats.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Eboladebator9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never really made a case of any substance--what kind of fudging was he talking about? Con seemed to take it as fudging of data regarding effectiveness, a valid interpretation, and rightly noted that if you fudge it we don't know if it's really effective. Otherwise, Pro's case was just...non sensical, in a rather literal sense. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.