Datasets:

zeta-alpha-ai

/

NanoArguAna

like 0

test-environment-aeghhgwpe-pro01a

It is immoral to kill animals As evolved human beings it is our moral duty to inflict as little pain as possible for our survival. So if we do not need to inflict pain to animals in order to survive, we should not do it. Farm animals such as chickens, pigs, sheep, and cows are sentient living beings like us - they are our evolutionary cousins and like us they can feel pleasure and pain. The 18th century utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham even believed that animal suffering was just as serious as human suffering and likened the idea of human superiority to racism. It is wrong to farm and kill these animals for food when we do not need to do so. The methods of farming and slaughter of these animals are often barbaric and cruel - even on supposedly 'free range' farms. [1] Ten billion animals were slaughtered for human consumption each year, stated PETA. And unlike the farms long time ago, where animals roamed freely, today, most animals are factory farmed: —crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet adulterated with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in their “prisoner cells” so small that they can't even turn around. Many suffer serious health problems and even death because they are selectively bred to grow or produce milk or eggs at a far greater rate than their bodies are capable of coping with. At the slaughterhouse, there were millions of others who are killed every year for food. Further on Tom Regan explains that all duties regarding animals are indirect duties to one another from a philosophical point of view. He illustrates it with an analogy regarding children: “Children, for example, are unable to sign contracts and lack rights. But they are protected by the moral contract nonetheless because of the sentimental interests of others. So we have, then, duties involving these children, duties regarding them, but no duties to them. Our duties in their case are indirect duties to other human beings, usually their parents.” [2] With this he supports the theory that animals must be protected from suffering, as it is moral to protect any living being from suffering, not because we have a moral contract with them, but mainly due to respect of life and recognition of suffering itself. [1] Claire Suddath, A brief history of Veganism, Time, 30 October 2008 [2] Tom Regan, The case for animal rights, 1989

test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01b

Human evolved as omnivores over thousands of years. Yet since the invention of farming there is no longer a need for us to be omnivores. Even if we wished to we could no longer collect, hunt and eat our food in the same way as our ancestors as we could not support the human population. We have outstripped the pace of our evolution and if we do not want to be turning ever more land over to farming we have get our food from the most efficient sources, which means being vegetarian.

test-environment-aeghhgwpe-con01a

Humans can choose their own nutrition plan Humans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.

test-environment-assgbatj-pro02b

What then is the interest of the animal? If releasing these animals into the wild would kill them then surely it is humane to put them down after the experiment. It must also be remembered that the interest of the animal is not the main and is outweighed by the benefits to humans. [5]

test-environment-assgbatj-pro02a

Animal research causes severe harm to the animals involved The point of animal research is that animals are harmed. Even if they don’t suffer in the experiment, almost all are killed afterwards. With 115 million animals used a year this is a big problem. Releasing medical research animals in to the wild would be dangerous for them, and they would not be usable as pets. [4]. The only solution is that they are wild from birth. It is obvious that it’s not in the interest of animals to be killed or harmed. Research should be banned in order to prevent the deaths of millions of animals.

test-environment-assgbatj-pro05a

It would send out a consistent message Most countries have animal welfare laws to prevent animal cruelty but have laws like the UK’s Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, [10] that stop animal testing being a crime. This makes means some people can do things to animals, but not others. If the government are serious about animal abuse, why allow anyone to do it?

test-environment-assgbatj-pro01b

The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this. Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.

test-environment-assgbatj-pro05b

There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.

test-environment-assgbatj-pro03a

It isn’t necessary We don’t know how we will be able to develop new drugs without animal testing until we end it. We now know how most chemicals work, and computer simulations of chemicals are very good.[6] Experimenting on tissue can show how drugs work, without the need for actual animals. Even skin left over from surgery can be experiment on, and being human, is more useful. The fact that animal research was needed in the past isn’t a good excuse any more. We still have all the advancements from animal testing in the past, but it’s no longer needed. [7]

test-environment-assgbatj-con03b

When a drug is first tested on human volunteers, they are only given a tiny fraction of the amount shown safe to give to primates showing there is another way, to start with very low doses. Animal research isn’t a reliable indicator of how a drug will work in people – even with animal testing, some drugs trials go very wrong [15].

test-environment-assgbatj-con01b

To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing. Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]

test-environment-assgbatj-con04a

Animal research is only used when it’s needed EU member states and the US have laws to stop animals being used for research if there is any alternative. The 3Rs principles are commonly used. Animal testing is being Refined for better results and less suffering, Replaced, and Reduced in terms of the number of animals used. This means that less animals have to suffer, and the research is better.

test-environment-assgbatj-con03a

Testing is needed for really new drugs The real benefit of animal testing is making totally new drugs, which is about a quarter of them. After non-animal and then animal tests, it will be tested on humans. The reason why the risk is low (but not non-existent) for these brave volunteers, is because of the animal tests. These new chemicals are the ones most likely to produce improvements to people’s lives, because they are new. You couldn’t do research on these new drugs without either animal testing or putting humans at a much higher risk.

test-environment-assgbatj-con05b

Just because an animal is treated well as it is brought up doesn’t stop the very real suffering during testing. Stricter rules and painkillers don’t help as the lack of suffering cannot be guaranteed – if we knew what would happen, we wouldn’t do the experiment.

test-environment-assgbatj-con04b

Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort.

test-environment-aiahwagit-pro02b

Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2] [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’

test-environment-aiahwagit-pro03b

Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance. [1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species. [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’

test-environment-aiahwagit-con02a

Fewer human deaths Fewer large beasts will lead to fewer deaths in Africa. Some endangered animals are aggressive and will attack humans. Hippopotamuses kill in excess of three hundred humans a year in Africa, with other animals such as the elephant and lion also causing many fatalities. [1] Footage released in early 2014 of a bull elephant attacking a tourist’s car in Kruger National Park, South Africa demonstrated the continued threat these animals cause. [2] Tougher protection would result in higher numbers of these animals which increases the risk to human lives. [1] Animal Danger ‘Most Dangerous Animals’ [2] Withnall, A. ‘Rampaging bull elephant flips over British tourist car in Kruger Park’

test-environment-aiahwagit-con04b

If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’

test-environment-chbwtlgcc-pro04b

These consequences are often speculation. With such a large and complex system we have no way of knowing what the consequences of climate change. There may well be some tipping points that will accelerate climate change but we do not know when each of these will become a problem and there may also be tipping points that act in the other direction.(See Earth's Resiliency)

test-environment-opecewiahw-pro02b

While it is clear that such an immense project will have an impact we have little idea what that impact might be. Will the builders be local? Will the suppliers be local? It is likely that the benefit will go elsewhere just as the electricity will go to South Africa rather than providing electricity to the poverty stricken Congolese. [1] [1] Palitza, Kristin, ‘$80bn Grand Inga hydropower dam to lock out Africa’s poor’, Africa Review, 16 November 2011, www.africareview.com/Business---Finance/80-billion-dollar-Grand-Inga-dam-to-lock-out-Africa-poor/-/979184/1274126/-/kkicv7/-/index.html

test-environment-opecewiahw-pro02a

An immense boost to DRC’s economy The Grand Inga dam would be an immense boost to the DRC’s economy. It would mean a huge amount of investment coming into the country as almost all the $80 billion construction cost would be coming from outside the country which would mean thousands of workers employed and spending money in the DRC as well as boosting local suppliers. Once the project is complete the dam will provide cheap electricity so making industry more competitive and providing electricity to homes. Even the initial stages through Inga III are expected to provide electricity for 25,000 households in Kinshasa. [1] [1] ‘Movement on the Grand Inga Hydropower Project’, ujuh, 20 November 2013,

test-environment-opecewiahw-pro01a

The dam would power Africa Only 29% of Sub Saharan Africa’s population has access to electricity. [1] This has immense consequences not just for the economy as production and investment is constrained but also on society. The world bank says lack of electricity affects human rights “People cannot access modern hospital services without electricity, or feel relief from sweltering heat. Food cannot be refrigerated and businesses cannot function. Children cannot go to school… The list of deprivation goes on.” [2] Conveniently it is suggested that the “Grand Inga will thus provide more than half of the continent with renewable energy at a low price,” [3] providing electricity to half a billion people so eliminating much of this electricity gap. [4] [1] World Bank Energy, ‘Addressing the Electricity Access Gap’, World Bank, June 2010, p.89 [2] The World Bank, ‘Energy – The Facts’, worldbank.org, 2013, [3] SAinfo reporter, ‘SA-DRC pact paves way for Grand Inga’, SouthAfrica.info, 20 May 2013, [4] Pearce, Fred, ‘Will Huge New Hydro Projects Bring Power to Africa’s People?’, Yale Environment 360, 30 May 2013,

test-environment-opecewiahw-pro01b

It is not the best solution to Africa’s energy crisis. According to a report by the International Energy Agency as an immense dam requires a power grid. Such a grid does not exist and building such a grid is “not proving to be cost effective in more remote rural areas”. In such low density areas local sources of power are best. [1] DRC is only 34% urban and has a population density of only 30 people per km2 [2] so the best option would be local renewable power. [1] International Energy Agency, ‘Energy for All Financing access for the poor’, World Energy Outlook, 2011, p.21 [2] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Congo, Democratic Republic of the’, The World Factbook, 12 November 2013,

test-environment-opecewiahw-pro03a

Will enable the rebuilding of DRC DR Congo has been one of the most war ravaged countries in the world over the last two decades. The Grand Inga provides a project that can potentially benefit everyone in the country by providing cheap electricity and an economic boost. It will also provide large export earnings; to take an comparatively local example Ethiopia earns $1.5million per month exporting 60MW to Djibouti at 7 cents per KwH [1] comparable to prices in South Africa [2] so if Congo were to be exporting 500 times that (at 30,000 MW only 3/4ths of the capacity) it would be earning $9billion per year. This then will provide more money to invest and to ameliorate problems. The project can therefore be a project for the nation to rally around helping create and keep stability after the surrender of the rebel group M23 in October 2013. [1] Woldegebriel, E.G., ‘Ethiopia plans to power East Africa with hydro’, trust.org, 29 January 2013, [2] Burkhardt, Paul, ‘Eskom to Raise S. Africa Power Price 8% Annually for 5 Years’, Bloomberg, 28 February 2013,

test-environment-opecewiahw-con04a

The cost is too high The Grand Inga is ‘pie in the sky’ as the cost is too immense. At more than $50-100 billion it is more than twice the GDP of the whole country. [1] Even the much smaller Inga III project has been plagued by funding problems with Westcor pulling out of the project in 2009. [2] This much smaller project still does not have all the financial backing it needs having failed to get firm commitments of investment from anyone except the South Africans. [3] If private companies won’t take the risk on a much smaller project they won’t on the Grand Inga. [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Congo, Democratic Republic of the’, The World Factbook, 12 November 2013, [2] ‘Westcor Drops Grand Inga III Project’, Alternative Energy Africa, 14 August 2009, [3] ‘DRC still looking for Inga III funding’, ESI-Africa.com, 13 September 2013,

test-environment-opecewiahw-con04b

The difficulty of constructing something should not be considered a good argument not to do it. As one of the poorest countries in the world construction will surely have significant support from developed donors and international institutions. Moreover with the energy cooperation treaty between DRC and South Africa there is a guaranteed partner to help in financing and eventually buying the electricity.

test-health-hdond-pro02b

There are alternatives which are far more palatable means of increasing the rate of organ donation, sparing us the moral quandary associated with denying organs to patients and coercing the populace to donate. An easy example is the opt-out organ donation system, wherein all people are organ donors by default and need to actively remove themselves from the system in order to become non-donors. This alternative turns every person who is indifferent to organ donation, currently a non-donor, into a donor, while preserving the preferences of those with a strong commitment not to donate.

test-health-hdond-pro04b

Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do. People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else. Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious. Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs. This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living. This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs. Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state.

test-health-hdond-pro04a

People ought to donate their organs anyway Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.

test-health-hdond-con02a

This system will punish people for a past decision they cannot now undo Most formulations of this policy involve assessing donor status on the basis of whether the patient was a registered organ donor prior to needing an organ. Thus, a sick person could find themselves in the tortuous situation of sincerely regretting their past decision not to donate, but having no means to atone for their past act. To visit such a situation upon citizens not only meaningfully deprives them of the means to continue living, it subjects them to great psychological distress. Indeed, they are not only aware that their past passive decision not to register as a donor has doomed them, but they are constantly told by the state that this is well and just.

test-health-hdond-con04a

People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs Many major religions, such as some forms of Orthodox Judaism {Haredim Issue}, specifically mandate leaving the body intact after death. To create a system that aims to strongly pressure people, with the threat of reduced priority for life-saving treatment, to violate their religious beliefs violates religious freedom. This policy would put individuals and families in the untenable position of having to choose between contravene the edicts of their god and losing the life of themselves or a loved one. While it could be said that any religion that bans organ donation would presumably ban receiving organs as transplants, this is not actually the case; some followers of Shintoism and Roma faiths prohibit removing organs from the body, but allow transplants to the body.

test-health-hdond-con03a

Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive. For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate. This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}. One’s body is one’s most foundational possession. Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory. The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile. This is a gross violation of body rights.

test-health-ppelfhwbpba-con02b

Although many people who are against partial-birth abortion are against abortion in general, there is no necessary link, as partial-birth abortion is a particularly horrifying form of abortion. This is for the reasons already explained: it involves a deliberate, murderous physical assault on a half-born baby, whom we know for certain will feel pain and suffer as a result. We accept that there is some legitimate medical debate about whether embryos and earlier foetuses feel pain; there is no such debate in this case, and this is why partial-birth abortion is uniquely horrific, and uniquely unjustifiable.

test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro02b

It’s not as if the employee can’t tell their employer at present – it’s that he or she could, but doesn’t want to. They get to decide what’s in their best interests (including what’s likely at trial) – and sadly, that will often be keeping quiet about his condition.

test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro02a

It’s in the interests of employees It’s in the interests of the HIV positive employee. Right now, although in many countries it is illegal to fire someone for having HIV [1] prejudiced employers can claim that they didn’t know their employer had HIV when they fired him, so they must have been acting on other grounds. The employee then has to try and prove that they did know, which can be very hard. Furthermore, once informed the employer can reasonably be expected to display a minimum level of understanding and compassion to the employee. [1] Civil Rights Division, Ouestions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS’, U.S. Department of Justice,

test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro01b

It is in the interests of employers not to have to pay their employees. It is in the interests of employers not to offer vacation time. It is in the interests of employers not to spend money on ensuring health and safety measures are complied with. It is in the interests of employers to do many things that violate the rights of their employees and as a society we prevent them from doing these things because the benefit to the business (and the economy as a whole) does not outweigh the harm caused by the violation of those rights. Most people who are being treated for HIV are no less productive than any other worker – 58% of people with HIV believe it has no impact on their working life. [1] [1] Pebody, Roger, ‘HIV health problems cause few problems in employment, but discrimination still a reality in UK’, aidsmap, 27 August 2009,

test-health-dhgsshbesbc-pro04b

All these worthwhile aims can be achieved without employees having to tell their employers of their HIV status on an involuntary basis. The scale of the problem can be easily inferred from national and regional medical statistics. For example, mining companies in South Africa have put in place excellent programmes to combat prejudice and treat sick employees without compulsory disclosure.

test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con03b

Some very few people may do this and it’s the job of the government to attempt to educate people about the enormous dangers of doing so to minimise that. Nevertheless, most people will quite properly prioritise their lives and health over their job, which in any case legislation should safeguard by stopping unfair dismissal.

test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con02a

The risks of ignorance and prejudice are too high This measure could be actively dangerous for HIV-positive workers. Ignorance causes so much bad behaviour towards AIDS sufferers and HIV-positive men and women. A fifth of men in the UK who disclose their HIV positive status at work then experience HIV discrimination. [1] The proposition seeks to institutionalise and widen the shunning and ill-treatment of HIV-positive workers that already happens when people find out about their condition. Even if not motivated by prejudice, co-workers will often take excessive precautions which are medically unnecessary and inflame unsubstantiated fears of casual transmission. In addition, many people who are HIV-positive choose not to reveal their condition for fear of violent reactions to them from their families and the rest of society. If disclosure to an employer is compulsory, then the news will inevitably leak out to the wider community. In effect, they will lose any right of privacy completely. [1] Pebody, 2009

test-health-dhgsshbesbc-con01a

Employers have no right to private medical information Employers have no right to know. This is an arena into which the state has no right to intrude, or to compel intrusion by others. Employers will know if their employee’s work is satisfactory or unsatisfactory – what more do they need to know than that? If employers find out, they might dismiss workers – which is exactly why many employees don’t want to tell them. If workers are forced to disclose the fact that they have HIV, the merit principle will go out the window. Even if not dismissed, their prospects for promotion will be shattered – because of prejudice, or the perception that their career has in any meaningful sense been ‘finished’ by their condition (which is often not the case as sufferers can work and lead fulfilling lives after diagnosis; life expectancy after diagnosis in the US was 22.5 years in 2005 [1] ). Even if not fired and career advancement doesn’t suffer, prejudice from co-workers is likely. From harassment to reluctance to associate or interact with the employee, this is something the employee knows he might face. He has a right to decide for himself whether or not to make himself open to that. Managers may promise, or be bound, not to disclose such information to other workers – but how likely is enforcement of such an undertaking? For these reasons, even problems with huge HIV problems like South Africa haven’t adopted this policy. [1] Harrison, Kathleen M. et al., ‘Life Expectancy After HIV Diagnosis Based on National HIV Surveillance Data From 25 States, United States’, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, Vol 53 Issue 1, January 2010,

test-health-dhiacihwph-pro02b

The use of generic drugs can sometimes fail to bring about a reduced price. For the cost of drugs to decrease, there must be competition within the industry to drive prices down. The switch from patented to generic drugs in Ireland failed to bring about any significant saving for this reason [1] . African countries must therefore ensure competition in order for generic drugs to become truly affordable which could be problematic due to continued protectionism in some states. [1] Hogan,L. ‘Switch to generic drugs fails to bring expected savings for HSE’

test-health-dhiacihwph-pro01b

Greater access of generic drugs can increase the chances of overexposure and misuse. This has a detrimental effect on fighting diseases. Greater access will lead to higher use rates which, in turn increases the chances of the disease developing an immunity to the drug [1] , as is already happening to antibiotics resulting in at least 23,000 deaths in the United States. [2] This immunity requires new pharmaceuticals to counteract the disease which can take years to produce. It is therefore, disadvantageous to produce high quality generic drugs for Africa. [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’ pg.2 [2] National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, ‘Antibiotics Aren’t Always the Answer’, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 December 2013,

test-health-dhiacihwph-pro04b

Pharmaceutical companies investing in R&D deserve to make a return on their investments. Research and development can take a long time and will cost significant sums of money. The cost of creating many new drugs was estimated to be as high as $5 billion in 2013 [1] . There is also a risk that the drug may fail during the various phases of production, which makes the $5 billion price-tag even more daunting. It is therefore necessary for these companies to continue to make a profit, which they do through patenting. If they allow drugs to immediately become generic or subsidise them to some of the biggest markets for some diseases then they shall make a significant financial loss. [1] Herper,M. ‘The Cost of Creating a New Drug Now $5 Billion, Pushing Big Pharma to Change’

test-health-dhiacihwph-pro03a

Reduce the prominence of bad and fake drugs The increased availability of high quality generic drugs will reduce the numbers of bad and fake pharmaceuticals on the markets. The cost of patented drugs has forced many to search for other options. This is exploited by the billion dollar global counterfeit drug trade [1] . Fake drugs are the cause of around 100,000 deaths in Africa every year. Bad drugs, which are substandard, have also found their way in to Africa; one in six tuberculosis pills have been found to be of a poor quality [2] . The widespread introduction of low cost, high quality drugs will hopefully ensure that consumers do not turn to sellers in market places. [1] Sambira,J. ‘Counterfeit drugs raise Africa’s temperature’ [2] Ibid

test-health-dhiacihwph-pro04a

Unfair to apply same patent laws universally It is unrealistic to expect poorer countries, such as those in Africa, to pay the same price as the developed world’s markets. Current patent laws for many countries dictate that prices for buying patented drugs should be universally the same. This makes it extremely difficult for African countries to purchase pharmaceuticals set at the market price of developed countries. In the US there are nine patented drugs which cost in excess of $200,000 [1] . To expect developing African states to afford this price is unfair and reinforces the exploitative relationship between the developed and developing world. Generic drugs escape this problem due to their universally low prices. [1] Herper,M. ‘The World’s Most Expensive Drugs’

test-health-dhiacihwph-con03b

These vital drugs will become outdated. Diseases often have the ability to build a resistance to treatment, making many of these currently generic drugs impotent. In Tanzania, 75% of health workers were providing lower than recommended levels of anti-malaria drugs which resulted in a drug resistant form of the disease becoming prominent [1] . Giving recently developed drugs to Africa will have a greater impact against diseases such as HIV than giving them twenty year old drugs to which a disease is already immune. [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’

test-health-dhiacihwph-con01b

Some countries, such as India and Thailand, have specialised in producing generic drugs. These states provide the majority of generic drugs to Africa. This removes the burden of other countries to supply Africa with their own drugs whilst potentially damaging their own research companies. India has managed to create a very profitable industry based around cheap generic drugs which it mainly exports to the African continent [1] , decreasing the necessity of other states to contribute vast resources. Providing generics to Africa will not damage development by the big pharmaceutical companies as at the moment these countries cannot afford the drugs so are not a market. The drugs are researched on the assumption that they will be sold in the developed world. What matters therefore is to ensure that generics for Africa don’t get sold back to the developed world undercutting patented drugs. [1] Kumar,S. ‘India, Africa’s Pharma’

test-health-dhiacihwph-con02a

Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers The differences in price between generic and patented drugs can be disconcerting to those wishing to buy pharmaceuticals. As with other product, logic generally follows the rule that the more expensive option is the most effective. There are reports from the USA of generic drugs causing suicidal tendencies [1] . These factors, combined with the lower levels of screening for drugs in Africa, mean that cheaper drugs are generally distrusted [2] . [1] Childs,D. ‘Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?’ [2] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’

test-health-dhiacihwph-con03a

Most vital drugs are already generic Many drugs which are used in the treatment of HIV, malaria and cancer are already generic drugs which are produced in their millions [1] . This removes the necessity to provide further high quality generic drugs as there is already an easily accessible source of pharmaceuticals. Effective treatments for Malaria, in conjunction with prevention methods, have resulted in a 33% decrease in African deaths from the disease since 2000 [2] . The drugs responsible for this have been readily available to Africa, demonstrating a lack of any further need to produce pharmaceuticals for the continent. [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’ [2] World Health Organisation ’10 facts on malaria’, March 2013

test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro02b

What those statistics mean could be questionable – did the ban make people stop, or only provide an extra incentive or assistance for those who already want to stop to do so? It could be suggested that this would simply lead to increased smoking within the home. Even so, other measures could be more effective, if the goal is a simple reduction in smoking numbers.

test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro05a

Nip the problem in the bud Smoking rates in Africa are relatively low; a range of 8%-27% with an average of only 18% of the population smoking 1 (or, the tobacco epidemic is at an early stage 2 ). That’s good, but the challenge is to keep it that way and reduce it. A ban on smoking in public places at this stage would stop tobacco gaining the widespread social acceptability that caused it to thrice in the 20th century in the Global North. The solution is to get the solutions in now, not later. 1 Kaloko, Mustapha, 'The Impact of Tobacco Use on Health and Socio-Economic Development in Africa', African Union Commission, 2013, , p.4 2 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, “What we do: Tobacco control strategy overview”, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, no date,

test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro01b

The argument that states will save money due to less people smoking based upon healthcare costs from treating smoking related diseases is over-simplistic. While smoking does cause medical costs, taxation can counterbalance this – in 2009, the South African government gained 9 billion Rand (€620 million) from excise duties on tobacco 1 . Paradoxically, less people smoking could lead to less money for other projects. Indeed, some countries in Europe raise the amount of health expenditure it causes from tobacco taxation 2 . 1 American Cancer Society, “Tobacco tax success story: South Africa”, tobaccofreekids.org, October 2012, 2 BBC News, “Smoking disease costs NHS £5Bn”, BBC News, 2009,

test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro05b

Is it really the job of African states to stop smoking? Africans have the same amount of personal responsibility to choose to smoke or not – policies should reflect that.

test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro04b

Yes, tobacco is harmful – but is it really a benefit to remove economic activity, which people choose to do? Labour abuses occur in other industries – but that’s an argument for increased labour protections and economic development, not economic self-inflicted wounds.

test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro03a

Easy to introduce A ban on smoking in public places would be simple to enforce – it is an obvious activity, and does not require any form of complex equipment or other special techniques . It would largely be enforced by other users of public places and those working there. If it changes attitudes enough, it could be largely self-enforcing – by changing attitudes and creating peer pressure 1 . 1 See Hartocollis, Anemona, “Why Citizens (gasp) are the smoking police), New York Times, 16 September 2010,

test-health-ahiahbgbsp-pro04a

Reduces growth of tobacco Less people smoking means less tobacco being purchased – something that would contribute to the reduction in the tobacco industry. The industry is known for its exploitative labour practices, from child labour (80,000 children in Malawi work in tobacco farming, can result in nicotine poisoning – 90% of what is grown is sold to American Big Tobacco 1 ) to extortionate loans. 2 Reducing the size of such an industry can only be a good thing. 1 Palitza, Kristin, “Child labour: tobacco’s smoking gun”, The Guardian, 14 September 2011, 2 Action on Smoking and Health, p3

test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con03a

Ban would harm the wider economy A ban could harm the wider economy – from bars to clubs, if smokers are unable to smoke inside, they may be more likely to stay away. According to some critics, this lead to the closures of bars in the UK when such a ban was brought in 1 . Research in the United States has shown drops in employment in bars of between 4 and 16 percent. 2 1 BBC News, “MPs campaign to relax smoking ban in pubs”, BBC News, 2011, 2 Pakko, Michael R., 'Clearing the Haze? New Evidence on the Economic Impact of Smoking Bans', The Regional Economist, January 2008,

test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con01a

Paternalistic Personal autonomy has to be the key to this debate. If people want to smoke – and the owner of the public place has no issue with that – it is not the role of the state to step in. While smoking is dangerous, people should be free in a society to take their own risks, and live with their decisions. All that is required is ensuring that smokers are educated about the risks so that they can make an informed decision.

test-health-ahiahbgbsp-con04b

Each has its own disadvantages. A growing form of tobacco sales in Africa – Nigeria in particular – is the “single stick” 1 . If retailers break packets of cigarettes apart, customers won’t see the packets containing health warnings or similar. Cost increases can lead to increased use of rollups 2 , or even counterfeit cigarettes, 3 both of which have happened in South Africa as a result of taxation. At any rate, it’s not a zero sum game – more than one policy can be introduced at the same time. 1 Kluger, 2009, 2 Olitola, Bukola, “The use of roll-your-own cigarettes in South Africa”, Public Health Association of South Africa, 26 February 2014, 3 Miti, Siya, “Tobacco tax hikes 'boost illegal traders'”, Dispatch Live, 28 February 2014,

test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro02b

Given all the responsibilities our society has transferred from parents onto schools and educators in the 21st century, is it really sensible to include caring for nutritional choices to this already bloated and unmanageable list? We need to ask ourselves, is it actually right that kids turn to schools and peers about lifestyle advice, when this is so clearly a domain of parents and families and so obviously a burden on an already taxed public school system.

test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro02a

Schools are the best place to create lasting lifestyle changes. Schools are playing an increasingly formative role, in the sense that they’re being tasked with not only knowledge transfer, but also the creation of behaviors and placing emphasis on teaching students how to apply their knowledge. [1] Given this expanded mandate, the schools are not only obliged to therefore offer choices that would go hand in hand with healthier behavior, but also the perfect pressure point for lawmakers to go about introducing healthier lifestyles. The simple reason is that our kids are increasingly looking not to their parents, but schools and the environments they provide, for advice on how to live their lives. They are also the traditional environments for youth to continuously invent and reinvent themselves and therefore hold immense potential for behavior modification. [1] Fitzgerald, E., 'Some insights on new role of schools', New York Times, 21 January 2011, , accessed 9/11/2011

test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro03b

Again, if this is in fact true, then the incentives are already in place for better choices both on the side of students as well as schools. What the government should do is through subsidizing healthier meals and educational campaigns help both of them make those choices on their own, and not force an unnecessary ban on them.

test-health-hgwhwbjfs-pro01b

Media sensationalism is a poor justification for any state intervention of any kind. What histrionic television documentaries usually provide nothing more than a warning that our kids are in danger, along with a list of all the diseases obesity might cause. But there is absolutely nothing that would explain how exactly something as drastic as a ban would do anything to begin solving this problem. These observations highlight a distressing truth about contemporary western society – we are unable to accept that the state is unable to solve problems without the assistance and support of civil society. We have a hard time accepting the fact that responsibility will have to fall on the shoulders of parents to enforce (or, more likely, to adopt in the first place) a healthy and active lifestyle in their families. Advice provided by the Mayo Clinic explains that just talking isn’t effective. Kids and parents should go together for a brisk walk, ride on the bike or any other activity. It is important for a healthy lifestyle that parents present exercise as an opportunity to take care for the body, rather than a punishment or chore [1] . Finally, there is absolutely nothing stopping schools from offering healthier options alongside existing ones. In fact, many schools are choosing a healthier path already, without being forced by governments or regulatory bodies. [1] MayoClinic.com, 'Fitness for kids: Getting children off the couch', , accessed 09/10/2011

test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con01b

We would be truly hard pressed to find a student, who isn’t very well aware of all the reasons we call certain food “junk food” and what the consumption of those does to the human body. We already have fantastic mechanism of nutritional education in place and many very publicized campaigns stressing the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Yet what we don’t have are the results – obviously educating the public is not enough. When we are faced with an epidemic that has such an immense destructive potential, we truly must face it head on and forget about well-intended yet extremely impractical principled arguments – such as the one proposed by the opposition. What we need is results, and armed with the knowledge won from the war on tobacco, we now know that limiting access is a key mechanism of taking on childhood obesity.

test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con03a

“Junk food” sales are an important source of funding for schools. An important issue to consider in this topic is the constellation of incentives that actually got us to the place where we are at today. With the environment designed to incentivize improving schools’ performance on standardized tests, there is absolutely nothing that would motivate them to invest their very limited resources into non-core programs or subjects, such as PE and sports and other activities. [1] Ironically, schools turned to soda and snack vending companies in order to increase their discretionary funds. An example cited in the paper is one high school in Beltsville, MD, which made $72,438.53 in the 1999-2000 school year through a contract with a soft drink company and another $26,227.49 through a contract with a snack vending company. The almost $100,000 obtained was used for a variety of activities, including instructional uses such as purchasing computers, as well as extracurricular uses such as the yearbook, clubs and field trips. Thus it becomes clear that the proposed ban is not only ineffective, but also demonstrably detrimental to schools and by extension their pupils. [1] Anderson, P. M., 'Reading, Writing and Raisinets: Are School Finances Contributing to Children’s Obesity?', National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2005, , accessed 9/11/2011

test-health-hgwhwbjfs-con01a

Schools should educate about healthy choices, not make them on the students’ behalf. Although it might be very tempting for the government to try and attack the problem of childhood obesity by attempting to change, in essence, the very choices our kids can make, this is the wrong way of going about doing it. The purpose of schools is education – the genesis of active and useful members of society. A large extent of what schools do is imprinting the ideas the society values. In most western countries those would be the ideas of fairness, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. The other side of the coin is the transference of knowledge, knowledge of mathematics, history, but also of biology, health and nutrition. We see thus that the proposed ban on specific choices one makes in school, whether be it choices regarding food or choices regarding the clothes one wears, the ideas one expresses, and so on, is truly meaningless in the existing concept of education. What the schools should be doing is putting more emphasis on getting the message of the importance of a healthy lifestyle across. Our kids should be taught that this lifestyle consists of more than just whether or not we chose to eat a hamburger and fries for lunch. In short, this ban falls short of truly educating the children about how important physical activity, balanced meals and indulging in moderation are. They should also focus on the importance of choice, since in the case of childhood obesity, making the right nutritional and lifestyle choices is of paramount importance. But they should also focus on the importance of choice for a society and how all should take responsibility for their choices in such a society.

test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro02b

Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting. [1] [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.

test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro03b

Man is also a social being. While we have a right to our own body, we also have duties to those around us. If we choose to terminate our lives, we must consider the consequences for those who depend on us, physically or emotionally. Can we really judge whether our own life is less worth than that of the recipient? Human beings also often make decisions without all the relevant information. The choices we make may very well be ill-informed even if we believe otherwise. Part of the problem here is that all the consequences of our decisions can never be fully understood or anticipated.

test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro01a

It is a natural thing to do We are biologically programmed to want to preserve our species. As such, our offspring will often be more important to ourselves than our own persons. Many doctors hear parents tell them how they wish that they could “take over” their child’s terminal illness rather than have the child suffer. [1] It is therefore natural and right for the older generation to sacrifice itself where possible to save the younger generation. As crass as this might seem, they are statistically more likely to die earlier than their offspring in any event and stand to lose less. They have had the chance to experience more of a life than their child. They are furthermore the cause of the child’s existence, and owe it to the child to protect it at any cost. [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.

test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro01b

Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated.

test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro05b

It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue. Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.

test-health-hpehwadvoee-pro03a

The right to individual self determination is a fundamental human right, equal to that of life itself It is a fundamental principle of the human being is that every human is born autonomous. Therefore, we believe that every person has a right to his or her own body and is thus competent to make decisions about it. This is because we recognise that whatever decisions we might make about our bodies, stem from the knowledge that we have about our own preferences. Nobody can tell us how to value different goods and therefore what matters to one person might matter less to another. If we were to undermine this right, nobody would be able to live their life to its fullest as they would be living their life to someone else’s fullest. The extension of this right is that if someone values another person’s life over their own it is their informed decision to sacrifice themselves for that person. It is not for others to decide, and in particular not for the State.

test-health-hpehwadvoee-con03b

The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied. Modern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1] [1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4.

test-health-hpehwadvoee-con01b

This argument is selfish and ignores how love might push a person to make great sacrifices. We might have imperfect information about our importance, but whatever information we have, gives us an idea of how to assess complicated situations. If we were to follow this logic, self-determination would be impossible

test-health-hpehwadvoee-con02a

The recipient is forced to receive the sacrifice of another In many cases, the recipient is not in position to consent to the donation. Thus, even if it saves his or her life, it is comes with an intrusion on his or her moral integrity that he or she might value higher than survival. If we are to receive such a drastic sacrifice from someone that we love – surely we must have a right to veto it? [1] This means that to enable the choice of the donor the choice of the receiver has been ignored, there seems to be little reason to simply switch those two positions around as is proposed. [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.

test-health-hpehwadvoee-con04a

The role of society is to save lives not to assist in suicide The purpose of society, the health sector and more specifically the doctors is to preserve health, not to be damaging health or even assisting in the ending of a life even if voluntarily. As part of this, death is sometimes something that must be affected. However, it is not in line with the purpose of medical professionals to kill a healthy person. The solution is to focus every possible effort on curing the sick person, but society cannot be complicit in killing a healthy person [1] . [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013).

test-health-hpehwadvoee-con01a

Self-preservation is our primary moral duty Many people, especially those who belong to religious groups believe that we have a duty to preserve our own lives. They would argue that suicide is never justified, even if the reasons might appear to be good. It is impossible to sacrifice your life for others, because you cannot know how important your life is to others in relation to how important other people’s lives are. Either life is invaluable and it is thus impossible to value one life higher than others, or it can be valued, but it is impossible for us to assess our life’s value in relation to others. Therefore, while we accept that some might die, it is not for the individual to take matters into his or her own hands and accelerate the process, as this decision might be made on the wrong grounds, but cannot be reversed.

test-health-dhghwapgd-pro03b

Allowing the production of generic drugs will only increase production of drugs currently on the market. Without the profit incentive that patents provide, pharmaceutical companies will not invest in the expensive process of developing new drugs in the first place. It is a necessary trade-off, as patents are essential to incentivize innovation. Furthermore, many states have mandatory licensing laws in states requiring companies to license the rights to the production of drugs so as not to precipitate shortages.

test-health-dhghwapgd-pro05a

You cannot own an idea, and thus cannot hold patents, especially to vital drugs An individual's idea, so long as it rests solely in his mind or is kept safely hidden, belongs to him. When he disseminates it to everyone and makes it public, it becomes part of the public domain, and belongs to anyone who can use it. If individuals or firms want to keep something a secret, like a production method, then they should keep it to themselves and be careful with how they disseminate their product. One should not, however, expect some sort of ownership to inhere in an idea one has, since no such ownership right exists1. No one can own an idea. Thus recognizing something like a property right over something like a drug formula is contrary to reason, since doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their asset. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to everyone. This should apply all the more with vital drugs that are fundamentally for the public good by improving health. 1Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company.

test-health-dhghwapgd-pro01a

The current patent system is unjust and creates perverse incentives that benefit large pharmaceutical companies at the expense of ordinary citizens The current drug patent regime is largely designed to benefit and shield the profits of large pharmaceutical companies. This is due to the fact that most of the laws on drug patents were written by lobbyists and voted upon by politicians in the pay of those firms. The pharmaceutical industry is simply massive and has one of the most powerful lobbies in most democratic states, particularly the United States. The laws are orchestrated to contain special loopholes, which these firms can exploit in order to maximize profits at the expense of the taxpayer and of justice. For example, through a process called "evergreening", drug firms essentially re-patent drugs when they near expiration by patenting certain compounds or variations of the drug1. This can extend the life of some patents indefinitely ensuring firms can milk customers at monopoly prices long after any possible costs of research or discovery are recouped. A harm that arises from this is the enervating effect that patents can generate in firms. When the incentive is to simply rest on one's patents, waiting for them to expire before doing anything else, societal progress is slowed. In the absence of such patents, firms are necessarily forced to keep innovating to stay ahead, to keep looking for profitable products and ideas. The free flow of ideas generated by the abolition of drug patents will invigorate economic dynamism. 1 Faunce, Thomas. 2004. "The Awful Truth About Evergreening". The Age. Available:

test-health-dhghwapgd-pro05b

Ideas can be owned, to a certain extent. The creative effort involved in the production of a drug formula is every bit as great as the building of a new chair or other tangible asset. Nothing special separates them and law must reflect that. It is a fundamental violation of property rights to steal from drug companies the rights they own to drugs by allowing the production of generic knock-offs.

test-health-dhghwapgd-con01b

Dangerous generic drugs are rare, and when they are found they are quickly pulled from the market. Arguments against generics on the grounds of safety are no more than alarmist nonsense. When people go to the drug store they have a choice between expensive brand name drugs and cheaper generics. It is their right to economize and choose the less glossy alternative.

test-health-dhghwapgd-con04b

Research and development will continue, irrespective of intellectual property rights. The desire of firms to stay ahead of the competition will drive them to invest in research regardless. That their profits will be diminished by the removal of intellectual property rights is only natural and due to the fact that they will no longer have monopoly control over their intangible assets, and will thus not be able to engage in the rent-seeking behavior inherent in monopoly control of products. The costs of commercialization, which include building factories, developing markets, etc., are often much higher than the costs of the initial conception of an idea1 these are areas where competition will force down costs. Furthermore, there will always be demand for a brand name over a generic product. In this way the initial producer can still profit more than generic producers, if not at monopolistic levels. 1Markey, Justice Howard. 1975. Special Problems in Patent Cases, 66 F.R.D. 529.

test-health-dhghhbampt-pro02a

Although there are many accounts of the efficacy of alternative cancer treatments, not one has been demonstrated to work in a clinical trial The National Centre for Conventional and Alternative Medicines has spent over $2.5bn on research since 1992. The Dutch government funded research between 1996 and 2003. Alternative therapies have been tested in mainstream medical journals and elsewhere. Not only have thousands of research exercises failed to prove the medical benefit ”alternative” treatments for severe and terminal diseases, serious peer-reviewed studies have routinely disproved them. It’s all well and good to pick at mistakes in individual studies. Indeed, this tactic often forms the mainstay of pleas for legitimacy made by members of the alternative medical community. However, the odds against such consistently negative results would be extraordinary. By contrast, conventional medicine only prescribes medicines and treatments that are proven, and vigorously proven, to work.

test-health-dhghhbampt-pro03b

Statistics for alternatives are difficult to generate as patients will often move between practitioners and frequently self-medicate. Clearly there are also conditions that any responsible practitioner would refer to a specialist in that particular field. However, many people are mistrustful of so-called conventional medicine and the alternative medicine sector has proven both popular and has often brought about changes in lifestyle as well as direct health benefits, if anecdotal evidence is to be believed. Responsible practitioners have welcomed the actions of those governments who have licensed and regulated the Complementary and Alternative sector. Although science may struggle to explain the benefits of these therapeutic technics, as they do not lend themselves to the tools of commercial medicine.

test-health-dhghhbampt-pro01a

Many alternative remedies, such as homeopathy, offer nothing but a false hope and can discourage patients from consulting a doctor with what may be serious symptoms There are good reasons why new therapies are tested in scientific trials first, rather than just released on the public that it might work. The first is to weed out side-effects but the other is that if you give most people a medicine they will, not unreasonably, expect it to make them better. An entire industry has grown out of alternative medicines. No doubt many alternative practitioners are well meaning, but this does not change the fact that people are making money out of something that, as far as anyone can determine, is basically snake oil. Although many people take both alternative and established treatments, there are a growing number of patients who reject conventional medical wisdom ( there’s an account of one such case here [i] ) in cases that prove fatal the availability of alternative medicines raises serious ethical and legal concerns, and also undermines the stringent regimes of monitoring and supervision that qualified medical professionals are subjected to.. [i] David Gorski. “Death by ‘Alternative Medicine”: Who’s to blame?”. Science-Based Medicine 2008.

test-health-dhghhbampt-pro01b

The overwhelming majority of practitioners of alternative therapies recommend that they be used in conjunction with conventional medicine. However, the rights and opinions of the patient are foremost and should be respected. In the case of cancer, since that is the study considered by proposition, there are many sufferers who decide that chemotherapy, a painful and protracted treatment, which rarely yields promising or conclusive results, may well be worse than the disease. Of course there is a cost associated with alternative medicine, although it is as nothing compared with the cost of many medical procedures, notably in the US but also elsewhere. There are plenty of conventional practitioners willing to prescribe medications that may not be necessary or, at the very least, select medications on the basis of financial inducements from pharmaceutical companies. Despite legal rulings [i] , such practices still take place; it would be disingenuous not to explore the extent to which commercial dealings influence the practice of conventional medicine. Clearly advice should always be given on the basis of the needs of the patient. However, there are many circumstances in which conventional medicine fails to adhere to this principle. Venality and petty negligence are not behaviours that are exclusive to the world of alternative therapies. [i] Tom Moberly. “Prescribing incentive schemes are illegal says European Court”. GP Magazine. 27 February 2010.

test-health-dhghhbampt-con03b

his is of course an excellent argument for more and better funded clinics, especially in parts of the world (including much of the West) where access to medicine is difficult. It is also evidence that when people are genuinely worried about their health they tend to consult providers of conventional medicine who are, as a result, extremely busy. It perhaps says more than anything else about many practitioners of alternative medicines that they have time to sit around bonding with their patients. Unsurprisingly, such a luxury is rare in an A and E ward or even in the average GP’s surgery.

test-health-dhghhbampt-con01b

This comes down to the ‘well it can’t hurt, can it’ approach to alternatives. There is simply no serious medic – or any other scientist for that matter who would suggest that it’s a good idea to ingest products that are of dubious origin and purport medical benefits without having been tested. In many cases these have been shown to be at least irrelevant and at worst actively harmful. Of course it is painful to deny treatment to a patient on the basis that the medication has yet to complete its trial stage but there is a reason for doing that in that it allows doctors to be 100 percent sure of a product before they’re prescribed.

test-health-dhghhbampt-con03a

Alternative medical practitioners tend to spend more time with their patients and get a better understanding of them as a whole, as a result they are more likely to treat the person than the symptom Modern medicine tends to treat an individual symptom without putting it in the context of the whole person and so will often fail to see it as part of a wider pathology. Alternative practitioners tend to spend more time with their patients and so are better placed to asses individual symptoms as a part of the person as a whole rather than just dealing with symptoms one as a time as the crop up.

test-health-dhghhbampt-con02b

Absolutely nobody questions that many remedies can be drawn from nature- penicillin provides one example- but there is something of a jump that happens between chewing on a piece of bark and a regulated dose of a chemical. Let’s deal quickly with the cost of medications – the second pill may well ‘cost pennies’; the first one, by contrast, costs hundreds of millions of dollars in research. On the basis that there is probably more than one medicine in the world that procedure will need to be repeated. As for the idea that there are older or more traditional remedies and that these are still frequently used in much of the world, that is, indeed true. They are the same periods of history and parts of the planet were the bulk of humankind died – or continues to die – agonizing deaths from relatively commonplace diseases that modern medicine is able to cure with ‘a pill from a man in a white coat’. It is admittedly regrettable that more of the world isn’t covered by the protection science offers but that is scarcely the fault of science.

test-health-dhpelhbass-pro02b

Modern palliative care is immensely flexible and effective, and helps to preserve quality of life as far as is possible. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very end of the course of their illness. It is always wrong to give up on life. The future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of course terrifying, but society’s role is to help them live their lives as well as they can. This can take place through counselling, helping patients to come to terms with their condition.

test-health-dhpelhbass-pro01a

Every human being has a right to life Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgements are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions. [1] This was particularly evident in the case of Daniel James. [2] After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to decide when you wish to die. While the act of suicide does remove option to choose life, most cases in which physician assisted suicide is reasonable, death is the inevitable and often imminent outcome for the patient regardless if by suicide or pathological process. The choice for the patient, therefore, is not to die, but to cease suffering and tto chose the time and manner of their death. [1] Derek Humphrey, 'Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individual's right to choose to die', assistedsuicide.org 1 March 2005, (accessed 4/6/2011) [2] Elizabeth Stewart, 'Parents defend assisted suicide of paralysed rugby player', guardian.co.uk, 17 October 2008, (accessed 6/6/2011)

test-health-dhpelhbass-pro01b

There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent, you may change your mind at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second chance. Arguments from pro-life groups suggest that nearly ninety-five percent of those who kill themselves have been shown to have a diagnosable psychiatric illness in the months preceding suicide. The majority suffer from depression that can be treated. [1] If they had been treated for depression as well as pain they may not have wanted to commit suicide. Participating in someone’s death is also to participate in depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is therefore immoral. [1] Herbert Hendin, M.D., Seduced by Death: Doctors, Patients, and Assisted Suicide (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998): 34-35. (accessed 4/6/2011)

test-health-dhpelhbass-con03b

Were the disposal of human life so much reserved as the peculiar province of the almighty, that it were an encroachment on his right for men to dispose of their own life, it would be equally criminal to act for the preservation of life as for its destruction' [1] . If we accept the proposition that only God can give and take away life then medicine should not be used at all. If only God has the power to give life then medicines and surgeries to prolong people's life should also be considered wrong. It seems hypocritical to suggest that medicine can be used to prolong life but it cannot be used to end someone's life. [1] David Hume, Of Suicide, cited in Applied Ethics ed. Peter Singer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) p.23

test-health-dhpelhbass-con01b

At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide. [1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org (accessed 4/6/2011)

test-health-dhpelhbass-con02a

If someone is threatening to kill themselves it is your moral duty to try to stop them Those who commit suicide are not evil, and those who attempt to take their own lives are not prosecuted. However, it is your moral duty to try and prevent people from committing suicide. You would not, for example, simply ignore a man standing on a ledge and threatening to jump simply because it is his choice; and you would definitely not assist in his suicide by pushing him. In the same way, you should try to help a person with a terminal illness, not help them to die. With the exception of the libertarian position that each person has a right against others that they not interfere with her suicidal intentions. Little justification is necessary for actions that aim to prevent another's suicide but are non-coercive. Pleading with a suicidal individual, trying to convince her of the value of continued life, recommending counseling, etc. are morally unproblematic, since they do not interfere with the individual's conduct or plans except by engaging her rational capacities (Cosculluela 1994, 35; Cholbi 2002, 252). [1] The impulse toward suicide is often short-lived, ambivalent, and influenced by mental illnesses such as depression. While these facts together do not appear to justify intervening in others' suicidal intentions, they are indicators that the suicide may be undertaken with less than full rationality. Yet given the added fact that death is irreversible, when these factors are present, they justify intervention in others' suicidal plans on the grounds that suicide is not in the individual's interests as they would rationally conceive those interests. We might call this the ‘no regrets' or ‘err on the side of life’ approach to suicide intervention (Martin 1980; Pabst Battin 1996, 141; Cholbi 2002). [2] [1] Cholbi, Michael, "Suicide", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), #DutTowSui (accessed 7/6/2011) [2] Cholbi, Michael, "Suicide", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), #DutTowSui (accessed 7/6/2011)

test-health-dhpelhbass-con01a

It is vital that a doctor's role not be confused The guiding principle of medical ethics is to do no harm: a physician must not be involved in deliberately harming their patient. Without this principle, the medical profession would lose a great deal of trust; and admitting that killing is an acceptable part of a doctor’s role would likely increase the danger of involuntary euthanasia, not reduce it. Legalising assisted suicide also places an unreasonable burden on doctors. The daily decisions made in order to preserve life can be difficult enough; to require them to also carry the immense moral responsibility of deciding who can and cannot die, and the further responsibility of actually killing patients, is unacceptable. This is why the vast majority of medical professionals oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide: ending the life of a patient goes against all they stand for. The Hippocratic Oath that doctors use as a guide states 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.' [1] [1] Medical Opinion, religiouseducation.co.uk (accessed on 4/6/2011)

test-health-dhpelhbass-con02b

Society recognises that suicide is unfortunate but acceptable in some circumstances – those who end their own lives are not seen as evil. It seems odd that it is a crime to assist a non-crime. The illegality of assisted suicide is therefore particularly cruel for those who are disabled by their disease, and are unable to die without assistance. For example, in March 1993 Anthony Bland had lain in persistent vegetative state for three years before a Court Order allowed his degradation and indignity to come to a merciful close. [1] It might cause unnecessary pain for people if they make an attempt at suicide themselves and subsequently fail. Rather than the pain-free methods that could be available through doctors and modern medicine. [1] Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000 (accessed 6/6/2011)