Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flue 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 perm

The author stated that the discovery of inoculations against cow flu can save many lives if it were routinely administered to all the people in areas where the disease is detected. However, the problem is there could be a small chance of people dying as a result of inoculations. Therefore the treatment cannot be routinely administered. I disagree with this assumption; because without real evidence that the inoculations have serious adverse side effects, the treatment would save more lives than kill.

The text did not mention any side effects for this medical treatment. So let's assume that the worst adverse side effect would be that inoculations kill. The text stated that the treatment has to be routinely administered. The key word is: routinely. That means, it has to be carried out repeatedly throughout a certain span of time. The small possibility of a person dying as a result of the inoculations could be interpreted that the treatment was not carried out routinely.

Take tuberculosis for example. When a person is effected with TB, they are given a drug that they have take everyday for an extended amount of time until the disease is cleared up. The person does very well for the first 2 months, and then he/she begins to skip taking the medicine or stop all together. This action causes the TB bacteria to become more virulent than before and gain back the strength against the medicine, and become immune to it. This misjudgment breaks down the patient's system and he/she has a higher chance of dying than before. Does this mean we should not care for people who are infected with TB or does this mean we have to keep a closer track of the people we are caring for?

By not administering inoculations against cow flu, the government will do more harm than good for the people. A risk of a handful of people dying is better than having an endemic. We also don't know if the cow flu is an infectious disease are not. And if it it, it is even more of an incentive to risk the .05% of people who are sensitive to the drugs than to risk the lives of the whole town.

In conclusion, I believe that it is better to treat the disease and risk the small chance of it causing ill fate on some and save the majority. However, without much concrete evidence we cannot assume that the inoculations will kill anyone at all.