The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ImmanuelKant
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

better to not treat sick people?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 518 times Debate No: 80555
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

the limitation of intentionally treating diseases is that the outcome is less healthy beings by derailing evolution.. if we took care of all diseases with medication, eventually kids immun systems would be 1 with machine for them to be healty


ImmanuelKant

Con

I would like to thank vi_spex for allowing me the opportunity to debate them on this topic. I will be arguing against the resolution that it is "better to not treat sick people", and will argue that it is better, both morally and scientifically, to treat the sick. Before I attack my opponent's case, I will construct my own case:

Definitions:
human right - As defined by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."

Observation 1:
The use of "we" in my opponents argument, and the absence of any actor in the resolution, either refers to the government (who in many cases is the primary facilitator of medical treatment internationally) or society as a whole. This means we cannot judge the round based on an individual's responsibilities, but rather what our responsibilities as a greater society are. When casting your vote, please consider that this is not on an individual level, but on a societal level.

---

Contention 1: There is a human right to medical treatment.

States and societies have a legal obligation to uphold every person's inalienable human rights. As the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights argues, "human rights entail both rights and obligations. States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfill human rights...the obligation to fulfill means that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights." (2) This obligation to fulfill is the same obligation that compels state actors to promote medical treatment for all peoples as a fundamental right. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 25, clause 1 that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and *medical care* and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, *sickness*, *disability*, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." (3, emphasis mine) States therefore have the obligation legally to fulfill every person's basic need for medical treatment, and can be punished for not complying.

We as a society must protect and promote this right to medical treatment or else we risk becoming morally unjust for denying others their rights as human beings.

Contention 2: Treating the sick helps prevent the spread of disease.

In any disease scenario, from the 2014 West African Ebola epidemic to the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, it is imperative that the sick be treated immediately by professionals and kept isolated from healthy people that they could infect. This graph (http://cdn.static-economist.com...) published by the World Health Organization and featured in The Economist (4) displays the total new cases per week in the countries most affected by the 2014 West African Ebola epidemic- Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. All of these outbreaks peaked in number of reported cases in late 2014, which coincides with the World Health Organization's 15 October 2014 announcement (5) of a comprehensive plan to control and then reverse the endemic in just 90 days (by 1 January 2015). This is no mere coincidence. WHO's influx of trained medical personnel, equipment, and facilities into the region contributed to the ending of this endemic. By the treatment and isolation of infected individuals, new cases could be reduced until 3 September 2015, when the WHO declared that the outbreak in Liberia was over (6). It is vital for our species' survival to treat these infected cases, or else we all could be killed off in one fell swoop by a new black plague.

---

I will now move on to attack my opponent's case.

First, my opponent's claim that intentionally treating diseases is "derailing evolution" is completely false. If anything, the fact that we as human beings use medical treatment is a step in evolution, not a fall from it. We are progressing to the point where we can preserve more and more of our gene pool and our genetic diversity for future reproduction, which allows for further survival of the species.

Second, not all treatments harm the human body's immune system. Radiation and antibiotics do, but other treatments for illness, such as aspirin, do not actually tackle disease head on but instead treat symptoms until the immune system itself can finish off the infection. My opponent makes broad arguments here that do not apply to all forms of medical treatment, and thus they are not actually significantly supporting their own resolution.

Finally, my opponent's impact scenario is completely impossible because we can never take care of all diseases. Viruses are rapidly mutating and multiplying every day, some becoming more and more lethal, others more and more infectious. With the current state of technology, miraculous as it is, there is no way to prevent all disease. Therefore, my opponent's result of kids becoming "1 with the machine" is completely infeasible and should not be valued when making your voting decision.

I thank you all for reading and hope that you vote CON in this debate. Thank you for the debate, vi_spex.

---

Sources:
1) http://www.ohchr.org...
2) http://www.ohchr.org...
3) http://www.un.org...
4) http://www.economist.com...
5) http://apps.who.int...
6) http://www.who.int...
Debate Round No. 1
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i have proof only
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
*sigh* typical vi_spex. Allowed ImmanuelKant to finish off you're entire assertion and make one of his own.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
blocked
Posted by ImmanuelKant 1 year ago
ImmanuelKant
It's not my fault you didn't elaborate at all. Stop arguing about the debate when you should have added rounds for rebuttals and let's let the voters decide the winner.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
you dont understand my argument
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
dude go read it again
Posted by ImmanuelKant 1 year ago
ImmanuelKant
"evolution is natural"

And survival of the species isn't?

"there is only 1 way to percieve it unless you dont understand it"

There is no actor in the resolution, there is no quantification of what "better" means; I'm pretty sure its up to interpretation. But let's stop arguing. Please. You should have added extra rounds for rebuttals if you want to argue so much.
Posted by ImmanuelKant 1 year ago
ImmanuelKant
Really? Because I'm pretty sure my entire second contention was on a benefit of treating diseases, and so too was my first contention on why we *have* to treat diseases. If that isn't Con to me, I don't know what is.

In any case, let's stop arguing in the comments. It's up to the voters to decide the winner, not us.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
there is only 1 way to percieve it unless you dont understand it
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
evolution is natural
No votes have been placed for this debate.