Argument51 抗生素与肌肉拉伤

FrostmournUID: 2179616

TOPIC: ARGUMENT 51 - 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."
WORDS: 531          TIME: 0:28:00          DATE: 2006-8-8

In this argument, the arguer concludes that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To support this claim, the arguer cites a result of a study of two group of patients--one group treated by a doctor specialized in sports medicine and they took antibiotics; the other group treated by a general physician and didn't take antibiotics. This argument, be it seemingly plausible, suffers from a salvo of unsubstantiated assumptions which render it wholly unpersuasive as it stands.

First of all, the arguer does not provide any information concerning the condition of the two groups of people involved in the study. He/she simply assumes that these two groups were identical, however, he/she fails to consider the possible differences between the two groups. The arguer provides no evidence on the age, geographic distribution, profession, and physical constitution of the two groups of people, leaving open the possibility that the first group of people are younger that the second group, therefore can rehabilitate more quickly than the second group; or perhaps the first group of people are all athletes and have more experience on recuperation. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer's claim is unjustifiable.

Further, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the recuperation time and taking antibiotics. We are not informed whether the patients were suffered from secondary infections, and even they really did, we are still uninformed about whether antibiotics can effectively eliminate the secondary infection. Moreover, the arguer's study is poorly controlled: The doctors treated the patients were not the same person, so we have good reason to advance another explanation from the different recuperation time that it is the different treatment of the two doctors, rather than the antibiotics, that resulted in the discrepancy of recuperation time. It is well known that a doctor specialize in sports medicine may have more experience on treating muscle strains. Unless the arguer can rule out this alternative explanation, the study lends little support to what the arguer claims.

Finally, even if taking antibiotics can really reduce the recuperation time of muscle strain, it is still too hasty to conclude that all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. The antibiotics can be efficacious only if secondary infection occurs, however, the arguer does not prove that all patients would suffer from secondary infection. Therefore, advising a patient with less severe injure and not infected may of little help for the recuperation time. Additionally, the arguer fails to take into consideration of the side-effect of antibiotics, perhaps antibiotics would also result in other disease. Consequently, advising all patients to take antibiotics indiscriminately would lead to negative consequences.

To sum up, this argument is not convincing as it stands. To strengthen this argument, the arguer would have to conduct another study that is well-controlled or prove that the two groups of people were the same in all other aspects. To better evaluate the argument, the arguer should establish a direct causal relationship between the recuperation time and taking antibiotics. In addition, the side-effect of antibiotics should be taken into consideration.