Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected. However, since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations, we cannot permi

The argument that inoculations against cow flu have the potental to save lives but cannot be given because of their fatal risks is unsound because it relies on assumptions without evidence. The author of this argument provides general sweeping statements without any concrete support and contradicts him or herself.

The first assumption of this argument lies in the belief that "many" lives would benefit and could potentially be saved from this inoculation. Providing evidence of successful administrations of this inoculation would greatly strengthen the argument. It is also claimed that the inoculation must be give "routinely" in order to be effective but the effects of a more sporadic inoculation are not given. If there have been many trials in which lives have been saved from this inoculation, the author should insert them here. There is no other statement in support of the inoculations, conversely, the author almost refutes him or herself in stating that the inoculations could be fatal and should not be given to humans.

The author of this argument states that giving the inoculation to all people in areas where cow disease is prevalent would save lives. Research to support the claim that every citizen in a region could benefit from an inoculation that would make this statement valid. The author must prove that the disease is so contagious it is necessary to inoculate any and everyone in harm's way. However, it is possible there is research that depicts certain individuals more susceptible to this disease than other indiviudals. Over-inoculating could blight a civilization and should be avoided at all costs.

Furthermore, the author of this argument claims the inoculation cannot be given because there could be fatal side-effects. No statistics are provided in this argument, the only quantifiable words presented are "small possibility". There is no evidence provided stating that the inoculations were undoubtedly the reason of death in those cases. While the author states that the chance of dying from this inoculation is not high, he or she does not provide examples. If in the past there were ares in which all individuals of a region were inoculated, perhaps the ones that died were given an inoculation that they did not need.

With its basis purely on assumptions, the argument in favor of inoculating people who are near areas of cow flu often is unwarranted. Were the author to provide more specific information on research that has already been done on this subject, his or her argument would be greatly strengthened. Perhaps beginning a trial in which small doses of cow flu inoculations were ethically given to plants or animals would further this author's argument.