better to not treat sick people?
Debate Rounds (1)
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
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."
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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.