Deliberately breeding deadly strains of bacteria to create a market for the next generation of patent Monopoly.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Yikes! I need to write my governmental reps. I'm not a fear monger, but one of the things I'm genuinely worried about in the future is antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
We (and by we, I mean big business) are putting ourselves into a real nasty situation if we keep this sort of thing up.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's scary stuff.
Does Congress have any control over the FDA or are they an independent agency? In other words, would writing my congressman do any good?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Probably not, since you don't have anywhere near the lobbying power that the Big Pharma companies pushing for this do.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The FDA does far worse than that. As a result of this decision, somebody someday might die as an indirect result of this antibiotic use. But they still haven't banned greasy French fries, knowing full well that people will die as an indirect result of eating greasy food. And the DMV...every week the DMV grants licenses to drivers, knowing full well that thousands of people will die, each year, as a direct result of driving.
It is not reasonable to extend the definition of "murder" to include "allowing any conceivable risk to life" -- or else we're all guilty.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Way to go, Will. The famed DOUBLE STRAWMAN Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Will -
Aside from other problems with your argument, there's the issue of personal choice. You can choose not to eat fries. You can choose not to drive. In this situation, you cannot choose to get sick with bacteria that aren't antibiotic resistant.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
It isn't a straw man, of course. The DMV *does* allow people license to drive, and people *do* die as a result. The people you hit when you're driving didn't choose to have you hit them. And a *lot* more people have died from auto accidents than from antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
I'm not arguing that the FDA's decision is best; not sure. But disagreeing with someone over the likelihood of a risk does not constitute murder.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You can choose not to drive
You cannot choose (realistically) to avoid everyone else who is driving.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Know thy fallacies:
quote:A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
It *does* require attributing a position to someone!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:You can choose not to drive
You cannot choose (realistically) to avoid everyone else who is driving.
No, but you can minimize your risk in the extreme, if you really want to. Public transportation, walking, biking, etc. The grand majority of motor vehicle deaths every year are two people driving, rather than hitting pedestrians and the like.
My point I think was made though, this is something that has long lasting long term consequences for people who have zero choice and zero ability to avoid the risk. If we as a group chose to, we could all never drive cars again. But we can't choose what we get infected with.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Will is right, of course. The proper term for his debate technique can be found here.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Deliberately breeding deadly strains of bacteria to create a market for the next generation of patent Monopoly.
This article doesn't seem to actually quote any of the statistics associated with the study... even the polio, hepatitis, and small pox vaccines can cause death amongst humans... but the risk of harm is much less than the benefits they bring to us.
Soh, simply stating that there's "a risk" is not adequate. It must be more concrete.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't know about statistics, but ask anyone who works in a hospital how many times they see people with infections which are resistant to all sorts of antibiotics, and it's frightening.
I took a semester of Pharmacy school, and even in that limited time, the increase in drug-resistant bacteria was stressed.
It's a very frightening topic, once you start to learn about it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Will, Are you okay with the FDA approvign the use of this drug in cattle? I agree that murder is an improper term, but, from what the article said, it sounds like a serious case of willful neglect of the potential consequences, which includes strains of super-resistant bacteria developing, which will kill people who otherwise wouldn't have died. That sounds like exactly the sort of the thing it's the FDA's job to prevent from happening.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Squick just posted more or less exactly what I'd written, although I didn't intend to address Will. For those concerned (as I am) with the FDA's willingness to approve the reckless use of this drug, here is a handy site to use to either write your representative or get their snail mail address (seems to vary from rep to rep whether they can be emailed through the site).
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Know thy fallacy:
quote:Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
I didn't change the subject or divert the argument to a new topic, so it isn't red herring, either. Whether "murder" includes taking an action that might one day risk death for someone is directly relevant to the question of whether murder includes such an action.
The reasoning isn't hard.
A. Deaths of innocents might one day result from decision X -> X is murder. (Assumption) B. To drive is not murder (an assumption I think we all share) C. Therefore it is not true that deaths of innocents might one day result from a decision to drive (B, C, modus tollens) D. But deaths of innocents *do* result from a decision to drive (data)
Contradiction! One of our assumptions must be wrong, A or B.
Squicky, I don't have enough information to know if the decision is right or wrong (which is why I said I didn't know). I've merely shown that this decision is not approval of murder -- unless we agree that driving is murder, too.
[ March 05, 2007, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I don't know about statistics, but ask anyone who works in a hospital how many times they see people with infections which are resistant to all sorts of antibiotics, and it's frightening.
It's a very frightening topic, once you start to learn about it.
The no.1 reason for antibiotic resistant viruses /bacteria: people do not take the full course of prescribed antibiotics, thus leading to a mutation that is often antibiotic-resistant.
That being said, the article doesnt seem to point to anything that raises the fear of anti-biotic resistant infections.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I'd like to be the first to welcome our new Mad Cow Pneumonia-like Overlords.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abhi: The no.1 reason for antibiotic resistant viruses /bacteria: people do not take the full course of prescribed antibiotics, thus leading to a mutation that is often antibiotic-resistant.
What's your source on that? I would imagine that the routine dosing of cattle feed with antibiotics would be at least as large of a contributor to the problem, but I haven't actually done the reading in journals and such that would be necessary for me to make a claim that X was the primary cause of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I think it is worth noting that Europe has already approved and is using cefquinome.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
DK, Are you presenting that as a positive thing for using it as such here? Because, as I understand it, that's actually one of the major reasons why people don't want it done here. That is, there's been a significant increase in bacteria resistant to this type of anti-biotics in Europe while resistance is rare in the U.S.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bacteria is scary, and I don't care. I'm sick and tired of this, we should be actively trying to make our environment more challenging to weed out the weak and strengthen our own species.
In short: Bacteria? Bring IT ON.
p.s. I never understood why the X-Men villain Apocalypse was such a bad guy, he only wants what's best for the species.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think its a very significant and legitimate concern that bacteria will evolve beyond our ability to use antibiotics on them. Theirs is a species that has survived the test of time much more completely then ours has.
I say keep researching stronger and stronger antibiotics but definitely foster alternate treatments for bacteria. I think somewhere or other we will probably hit a brick wall with antibiotics, or at least a point of diminishing returns.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
By then we'll have nanites policing the highways and byways of our bodies. This is just a stopgap measure.
DK -
So your argument is that since Europe is doing it we should do it too? What is that, international medical peer pressure? Europe isn't even the cool kid on the block!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)