"Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas in which the disease is detected.However since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations,we cannot permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered."
Everything has possibilities and inoculations against cow flu are not an exception. This was a heated debate between people in the past. In these situations, evaluations decisions and considering all aspects of negatives and positives effects are required. Especially when it regards to humans lives.
A numerous of people hold the opinion that they would not have inoculations for combating diseases since it has a little likelihood of death. They believe that by a strength health, boosting immune system, working out and using protection tools, they will resist the infection of a dangerous disease. For example, food that contains a lot of different vitamins will boost a person's immune system.
In addition, not all people are able to exercising and getting a force health. Some of them have already a disease, such as diabetes and cancer. In fact, there is also a high possibility when a person does not inoculate against cow flu to die. From my viewpoint, It is a difficult determination between two sides that both of them are seeking for the same result. However, reviewing the case could come up with reasonable solutions, and ignoring the disease would not be a solution. I would believe that inoculation with its possibility of death is less danger from having cow flu than depending on strength health.
In conclusion, the original idea of discovering inoculations was for saving humans lives. Despite of the fact that it has a probability of risk, it is much better than believing on other ideas, such as being healthy or use a protection tools that might prevent a person from disease. Moreover, some people are unable to follow a diet system or exercising. The point is that both of sides have a possibility of death, however; inoculations have less risk than the other side. This is my perspective on how to evaluate hard decisions.
Everything has possibilities and inoculations against cow flu are not an exception. This was a heated debate between people in the past. In these situations, evaluations decisions and considering all aspects of negatives and positives effects are required. Especially when it regards to humans lives.
A numerous of people hold the opinion that they would not have inoculations for combating diseases since it has a little likelihood of death. They believe that by a strength health, boosting immune system, working out and using protection tools, they will resist the infection of a dangerous disease. For example, food that contains a lot of different vitamins will boost a person's immune system.
In addition, not all people are able to exercising and getting a force health. Some of them have already a disease, such as diabetes and cancer. In fact, there is also a high possibility when a person does not inoculate against cow flu to die. From my viewpoint, It is a difficult determination between two sides that both of them are seeking for the same result. However, reviewing the case could come up with reasonable solutions, and ignoring the disease would not be a solution. I would believe that inoculation with its possibility of death is less danger from having cow flu than depending on strength health.
In conclusion, the original idea of discovering inoculations was for saving humans lives. Despite of the fact that it has a probability of risk, it is much better than believing on other ideas, such as being healthy or use a protection tools that might prevent a person from disease. Moreover, some people are unable to follow a diet system or exercising. The point is that both of sides have a possibility of death, however; inoculations have less risk than the other side. This is my perspective on how to evaluate hard decisions.