Difference between revisions of "Prophylaxis is wrong"

From arguably.io
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 20: Line 20:
|Dependency of=-
|Dependency of=-
}}
}}
[[Dependent on::Prophylaxis works]]

Revision as of 03:19, 16 January 2022

A prophylactic medical treatment is defined as any treatment or procedure which seeks to prevent illness rather than treat it. These might include:

- childhood vaccines against potential future diseases (both common and rare) - booster doses of vaccines (e.g., a tetanus shot given after possible exposure to the pathogen) - antibiotics (e.g., when given to a patient undergoing surgery) - antiviral therapies (e.g., drugs that are meant to prevent transmission of HIV) - preemptive surgical removal of body parts in healthy individuals (e.g., circumcision, appendectomy, mastectomy) - taking of nutritional supplements to prevent illness

Avoiding behaviours that pose a risk of illness will not be considered (e.g., not smoking to avoid lung cancer). Only active interventions will be considered as prophylactic.

Arguments for and against prophylaxis, both from a deontological (rule-based) and consequentialist perspective will be weighed against each other.


Claim
Statement of the claim Prophylaxis is wrong
Level of certainty {{{Level}}}Property "Level" (as page type) with input value "{{{Level}}}" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.
Nature Ethical
Counterclaim Prophylaxis is right
Dependent on
Dependency of