argument51

晓天UID: 2755357

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 study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients,all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr.Newland, a doctor who specilalizes 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 grop, all being treated by Dr.Alton,a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taken 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."

In this analysis, the arguer claims that all patients diagnosed with muscle strain should be well advised to take antibiotics. To substantiated the conclusion, the arguer cites the experiment of two groups, which one took antibiotics with being treated by the specilalist in sports medicine, while another had sugar pills in the treatment of a general physician. while the result of the study seems to prove the arguer’s recommendation correct, the argument is problematic in several respects as I mentioned below.
First of all, the arguer unfairly assumes that secondary infections occurs and slow down the process of healing after severe muscle strain. Lacking evidence to confirm the assumption, it is entirely possible that the so-called secondary infections will never happen on the muscle strained patient. Or the infections’ effection on the patients is not the case as what the arguer said. Without considering the accurate relationshilp between the secondary infections and the patients with muscle strained, the arguer cannot convince me of the necessity of the occuration of the secondary infections.
Even if the infections follow as the muscle is strained, it is unreasonable to infer that taking antibiotics should be a part of treatment to the muscle strained patient. There may exist other ways to help the patients heal quickly and the antibiotic is not the unique choice. Besides,the argument overlooks the possibility of the conterproduction of antibiotics. Or perhaps, the expense of the antibiotic is higher than the other medicines that a large groups of people cannot afford. If the fact is true as what I mentioned above, the arguer’ s recommendation acutually sounds not good.
Finally, the absence of the detailed information about the study make the statement questionable. The difference of recuperation time probably is not the result from the medicine. Maybe the methods of the two doctors or other facts lead to it. Another problem with the study is the situation about the two groups of patients. The discrepency of their healthy condition, ages, sex or even the environment can differ the study conclusion. In short, without better evidence that the study is statistically reliable,we cannot accept the arguer’s recommendation.
In conclusion, the recommendation is not well supposed. To convince me that the antibiotics should be popularized among the patients who are diagosed with muscle strain, I would need more information about the relationship about the infections and the patients,and the evdience to support the harmless and the unique of the antibiotic. We also need to come to the conclusion in the same study conditions except for the medicines.