[YB-2]7月2日作业 by忘了密码的E

忘了密码的EUID: 2354139

word下载版在最后

Issue 180: "Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system because moral behavior cannot be legislated."

立场:同意观点
只想到两个原因
1. moral law通常比较泛而无强制性 法律则相对的少而有强制性
2. 这俩经常有冲突的

(这篇因为参考了网上的文章 所以语言可能还好 但是逻辑就不知道了)

The fast development of science has brought many new problems to our society and past laws and legal systems can no longer solve them since science not only improved our lives, but also brought morality questions. I agree that moral behavior cannot be legislated and this causes many problems’ failure of being solved.

First of all, generally accepted moral behaviors are not as strict as written laws, but at the same time, these moral laws cover a much wider range of behaviors and there objects are not always all of the citizens in a country. Moral laws are normally rules of behavior an individual or a group may follow out of personal conscience and that are not necessarily part of legislated law in the whole country. What one “ought” to do and what one “ought not” to do is different between tribes, religions, and even communities. However, the country needs a set of law that can regulate the basic behaviors of human beings and people are forced to abide it. For some people moral law is synonymous with the commands of a divine being. For others, moral law is a set of universal rules that should apply to everyone. But as long as some people are citizens of the same country, they have to follow the country’s legislation and behave within the limit of it. In another word, while moral law is a wider system of guidelines for behavior and may or may not be part of a religion, codified in written form, or legally enforceable, legislation is the basis of the harmony of a country, usually well written, and always has the enforcing power.

Moreover, moral behaviors are sometimes hard to be legislated because moral laws and legislations such as the Constitution can be conflicting sometimes. Passing laws is relatively easy when public policy makers can unanimously identify behavior that is socially unacceptable. Policy makers can then attempt to enforce socially correct behavior through legal channels. However, in many other situations especially in modern times, it is far more difficult to determine what behavior the government should promote, if any. Abortion, for example, is an area where legal and moral principles converge and often conflict. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that a woman’s decision to have an abortion is a private choice that is protected by the Constitution, at least until the end of the first trimester of pregnancy. After a fetus is viable (able to survive outside the womb), the state may regulate the woman’s pregnancy and prohibit abortion except if the woman’s life is in danger. The current legal situation is believed to be inadequate. To protect either the rights of the pregnant woman or the rights of the fetus is a moral question that individuals decide themselves. Yet the extent to which people should be allowed to act on their beliefs and exercise their rights is debated in the arena of legislative and judiciary decision making. Similar questions also happen in harvesting organs over the objections of family, and whether to include HIV status on autopsy reports. Despite of medical science, many public policy issues are happening from a crossroad of legal and moral law, including Euthanasia, same-sex marriages, and Capital Punishment.

In sum, the reasons why many new problems arose from science and social science areas cannot be solved are that moral law and legislation have different coverage and are sometimes conflicting.



=========================


A51 secondary infections, muscle strain, antibiotic (7/2)

1. 试验本身的问题：1)试验组和对照组不是单一变量 2)未知是不是double-blind 3)sugar pills能否被作为安慰剂
2. secondary infections在两组病人里到底存在吗 比例有多少
3. 无根据的把injuries推广到muscle strain



The recent study results in this paragraph seems to have proved the long suspected idea that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. However, there are several arguable problems exist in the experiment that the results came from, which made this entire reasoning not as perfect as it seems to be.



Firstly, the test group (first group) and the control group (second group) are different in at least three factors while scientific researches usually need controls to eliminate alternate explanations of experimental results. These two groups of patients were treated by two different doctors and the two are not even experts in the same area. Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine, which makes him more familiar with treating muscle strains than Dr. Alton, who is a general physician. Moreover, the author pointed out that the first group of patients was being treated for muscle injuries while he or she provides no information about the second group. We do not know if the two groups are made up of people who have the same kind of muscle strains. The third difference in these two groups was the antibiotics and sugar pills difference. To test if antibiotics help fasten muscle strain treatment, the researchers should have conducted a double-blind study in which neither the patients nor the doctor know which group receives the real drug, i.e. antibiotics. However, the paragraph gave no information about whether the doctors know about what was given to his or her patients, nor did it talk about if sugar pills were qualified to be used as placebos.  



Even if we ignore all the incompleteness in the experiment design, the results were still lack of credibility because while secondary infections do happen sometimes after severe muscle strain, there was no specific number about the percentage, or how they slow down the recovery in this argument. We do not even know if the patients in these two groups did have secondary infections and the first group’s recuperation time was shorter because the antibiotics the patients took was effective in curing the infections. Does antibiotics have any other effect than dealing with infections? Was the shortened recuperation time one result of its other effects? While the researchers failed to offer any information of secondary infections among the two groups of patients, the experiment became less logical.



Lastly, even if the secondary infections did happen and the antibiotics did work to help the first group not suffer from the infections, we still cannot say that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics because the patients in the first groups had muscle injuries. Injury, as one severe kind of strain, is much more likely to cause secondary infections than other muscle strains. Should everyone who is diagnosed with muscle strain take antibiotics? Would the side effect actually hurt the patients rather then helping them because they do not even have the chance to get a secondary infection?  



To sum up, the experiment that this paragraph referred to needs improvements in its completeness before it can be used as a proof of “secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain”. Also, detailed information like what kinds of muscle strain are usually followed by secondary infections should be provided.

sunxcintUID: 2654472

对修改有什么想法可以再讨论，正如你说的第一篇issue读起来有些吃力，不过逻辑基本正确。

The fast development(advances) of science has brought many new problems to our society and past laws and legal systems can no longer solve them since science not only improved our lives, but also brought morality questions. I agree that moral behavior cannot be legislated and this causes many problems’ failure of being solved.

First of all, generally accepted moral behaviors are not as(so) strict as written laws, but at the same time, these moral laws cover a much wider range of behaviors and there objects are not always all of the citizens in a country. Moral laws (Morality)are normally rules of behavior an individual or a group may follow out of personal conscience(without consciousness) and that(that 改为 thus) are not necessarily part of legislated law in the whole country. What one “ought” to do and what one “ought not” to do is different between tribes, religions, and even communities. However, the country needs a set of law that can regulate the basic behaviors of human beings and people are forced to abide it. (改为：However, the country needs a set of laws, which are compulsory, to regulate the basic behaviors of human beings ) For some people moral law(morality) is synonymous with the commands of a divine being. For others, moral law is a set of universal rules that should apply to everyone. But as long as some people are citizens of the same country, they have to follow the country’s legislation and behave within the limit of it. In another word, while moral law is a wider system of guidelines for behavior and may or may not be part of a religion, codified in written form, or legally enforceable, legislation is the basis of the harmony of a country, usually well written, and always has the enforcing power.

Moreover, moral behaviors are sometimes hard to be legislated because moral laws and legislations such as the Constitution can be conflicting sometimes. Passing laws is relatively easy when public policy makers can unanimously identify behavior that is socially unacceptable. Policy makers can then attempt to enforce socially correct behavior through legal channels. However, in many other situations especially in modern times, it is far more difficult to determine what behavior the government should promote, if any（whether the government should promote a behavior or not）. Abortion, for example, is an area where legal and moral principles converge(converges) and often conflict(conflicts). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that a woman’s decision to have an abortion is a private choice that is protected by the Constitution, at least until the end of the first trimester of pregnancy. After a fetus is viable (able to survive outside the womb), the state may regulate the woman’s pregnancy and prohibit abortion except if(if 改为 that) the woman’s life is in danger. The current legal situation is believed to be inadequate. To protect either the rights of the pregnant woman or the rights of the fetus is a moral question that individuals decide themselves(which could only be determined by individuals themselves). Yet the extent to which people should be allowed to act on their beliefs and exercise their rights is debated in the arena of legislative and judiciary decision making. Similar questions(controversies) also happen in harvesting organs over the objections of family and whether to include HIV status on autopsy reports. Despite of (Besides)medical science, many public policy issues are happening from a crossroad of legal and moral law, including(such as) Euthanasia, same-sex marriages, and Capital Punishment.

In sum, the reasons why many new problems arose from science and social science areas cannot be solved are that moral law and legislation have different coverage and are sometimes conflicting.


The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."

The recent study results in this paragraph seems to have proved the long suspected idea that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. However, there are several arguable problems exist in the experiment that the results came from, which made this entire reasoning not as perfect as it seems to be.



Firstly, the test group (first group) and the control group (second group) are different in at least three factors while scientific researches usually need controls to eliminate alternate explanations of experimental results. These two groups of patients were treated by two different doctors and the two are not even experts in the same area. Dr. Newland specializes in sports medicine, which makes him more familiar with treating muscle strains than Dr. Alton, who is a general physician. Moreover, the author pointed out that the first group of patients was being treated for muscle injuries while he or she provides no information about the second group. We do not know if the two groups are made up of people who have the same kind of muscle strains. The third difference in these two groups was the antibiotics and sugar pills difference. To test if antibiotics help fasten muscle strain treatment, the researchers should have conducted a double-blind study in which neither the patients nor the doctor know which group receives the real drug, i.e. antibiotics. However, the paragraph gave no information about whether the doctors know about what was given to his or her patients, nor did it talk about if sugar pills were qualified to be used as placebos.  （我觉得这一段在第一点应该说明文章为提到经验丰富的医生是不是还用了其他治疗方法，并且不同的医生对恢复的定义不同； 第三点应该说明实验是否为白盒的可能会影响医生对恢复的判断）



Even if we ignore all the incompleteness in the experiment design, the results were still lack of credibility because while secondary infections do happen sometimes after severe muscle strain, there was no specific number about the percentage, or how they slow down the recovery in this argument. We do not even know if the patients in these two groups did have secondary infections and the first group’s recuperation time was shorter because the antibiotics the patients took was effective in curing the infections. Does antibiotics have any other effect than dealing with infections? Was the shortened recuperation time one result of its other effects? While the researchers failed to offer any information of secondary infections among the two groups of patients, the experiment became less logical.



Lastly, even if the secondary infections did happen and the antibiotics did work to help the first group not suffer from the infections, we still cannot say that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics because the patients in the first groups had muscle injuries. Injury, as one severe kind of strain, is much more likely to cause secondary infections than other muscle strains. Should everyone who is diagnosed with muscle strain take antibiotics? Would the side effect actually hurt the patients rather then helping them because they do not even have the chance to get a secondary infection? (我觉得we still cannot say that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics 这个结论是对的，但是理由是否正确有待商榷，因为我不了解Injury, as one severe kind of strain, is much more likely to cause secondary infections than other muscle strains.这个结论是不是对的。我觉得因为得出结论是因为这个实验之比较了antibiotics 和sugar pills，没有进一步的实验，所以不能说antibiotics是最优的治疗方案)



To sum up, the experiment that this paragraph referred to needs improvements in its completeness before it can be used as a proof of “secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain”. Also, detailed information like what kinds of muscle strain are usually followed by secondary infections should be provided.