Argument51【0906G 文以载道三月四月作文小组】第二周第一作业 by paooozhixia163

paooozhixia163UID: 2588527

[fly]Argument51
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."
医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr. Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。
论点：
1.
比较1：患者的情况比较是否一致？(伤情是否一样？年龄分布是否一致？如果老人或小孩比较多的话，得出的结论就很片面、不具一般性。患者康复时选择的就诊地点是否一样？有的地方比较适合休养，有的地方比较让人更易生病。)
2.
比较2：医生的不一样？(前组是运动医学专家，后组是综合医师，大家都知道，医师的主攻方向不一样，会对患者的治疗信心有很大的影响，并且两医师在医学界是否权威也会影响到患者的恢复信心。就算这些都没影响，那么运动医师也许会安排患者在治病期间进行适当的户外运动，这样会有利于病情的恢复，所以会比通常预期的快)
3.
比较3：最后，就算讨论的那些假设都不可能发生，那也没有说明清楚，虽然前组康复的快，但是他们康复了之后，会复发吗?而后组就算很慢的康复，但是如果康复了之后，复发的可能性很小的话，也不失为一种值得提倡的治疗方式。
The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. After all, by making the comparison of the first group who took antibiotics regularly with the second group who actually didn’t take, the argument appears logical. However, the conclusion that taking antibiotics as treatment may masks some potentially significant reasons and may inspires people to over invest financially and psychologically in antibiotics rather other medicines which can really work.
To start with, as mentioned in the argument, the arguer doesn’t show obviously the differences between the two groups. Are the severity of the injured patients same? Are their ages in equilibrium distribution? If the study is limited to a few senior citizens or children, the results might not beseem to all. Even if the study is broader, one must consider whether it was limited in certain ways. For instance, do the two groups take the same location for recovery? Are the recovery places they choose are suitable for relaxation and benefits for their injuries? Factors such as those could explain the differences between the two groups and could undermine the generalizability of the study.
Even if one accepts the results, the argument above is weakened by the facts that it doesn’t take into account the inherent differences between the doctor who majors in sports medicine and the doctor who is a general physician. Patient’s confidence to doctor is based on the doctors’ reputation, acquirement and experiment. If the patient does not trust his doctor, his treatment must be affected. Even if we assume that the effects don’t work, maybe the doctor who specializes in sports medicine encourages his patients to take outside sports that can be favor to the treatments. But the
general physician will not to.
Finally, the most essential factor, which the passage ignore to consider, is even though we accept all the assumptions we have discussed, there is absolutely no evidence provided that the relapse of the patients after their treatment. Although the first group’s recuperation time was quicker than typically expected, are they prone to relapse or suffer even more severe muscle strain before long. If so, we also won’t to recommend the method that takes short time in recuperation but takes even longer time in relapse treatment.
The argument for antibiotics used to treat muscle strain could provide important information and potentially sever for the patients. Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investment that should be made in the antibiotics are reached, however, a more complete understanding of what causes the recuperation time shorted. After all, a false confidence in antibiotics could just be dangerous as no medicine at all.[/fly]