The Phage

Doctor’s Duties To Save Lives

Group 37

In 2005, Mr. Patterson was infected with a super bacterium which is called Acinetobacter baumannii that is difficult to be cured. The most powerful antibiotics Polymyxin E was used while it failed. His wife Strathdee, an infectious disease expert, decided to use Phage therapy to cure her husband. With help of Naval medical research institute, treatment plan was proposed. However, this plan was not approved by FDA (Food and Drug Administration). But Strathdee decided to go on treatment because her husband was at the most dangerous edge. Fortunately, it was approved and finally the treatment was effective and Patterson is recovering gradually.

Phage therapy should be applied to specific patient and widely promoted.

Doctor’s duties to save lives

For the treatment, saving the life is the priority. Although antibiotics is widely used in most kind of bacterium treatment, the bacterium is likely to produce drug resistance if the bacterium is strong enough. Once this situation come up, the antibiotics treatment is useless, which means the patient will face death.  From the perspective of effectiveness, perhaps the Phage therapy is the only way to save patient’s life. Doctor’s duty is to save lives. For doctor’s ethics, an effective treatment should be taken into consideration instead of maintaining the current situation.

No doubt it is hard for patient to accept a new treatment because he will face unknown danger. However, doctor should act as a bridge of communication. The patient has the right to know the possible treatment and decide an optimal one from doctor’s description.  Smith and Longo (2012) thought the majority of patients with terminal illness felt that their treatment course was likely to “cure” them. On one aspect, patients are afraid of death and on another aspect, most patients are eager to live on. Whether it is for saving lives or based on the wishes of patients, Phage therapy should be used, especially for those whose disease cannot be cured by antibiotics.

The PhageAlthough traditional antibiotics cannot achieve the desired results for some rare bacteria, in addition the resistance of pathogens also make antibiotics useless, does phage have the potential to be widely used and even replace some types of antibiotics in the future? That is a fact that phage has already cured some dying patients, however, a phage can only effectively cope with its corresponding bacteria. As a result, the economic benefits are not obvious at present. So, should it invest a lot of resources to develop this unknown area, or to use antibiotics that have been widely accepted?

Currently, the study of phage is in its infancy. For some sponsors, it is possible to make huge profits, however, all the inputs may be lost because of its unknown factors. For patients suffering from illness, antibiotics cannot cure them and phage gives them hope.

If phages wants to have a place in health-care after several decades, there is no doubt that its potential needs further development. As a matter of fact, phage therapy can be used for treating bacterial infections not only in human, but also domestic animals and even biocontrol in food. What is more, in certain regions of world, some medical institutions mix therapeutic phages into cocktails consisting of multiple virus types. This is the combination of two or more types of phage to produce more pharmacologically diverse formulations. It has a greater potential for presumptive treatment compared with individual phage.

The development and promotion of many new drugs have suffered from resistance, even if it has impacted traditional drugs, but in the long run, this is an inevitable trend.

Legitimacy and practicality become the limitations for phase therapy

Despite of listing the advantages of phage therapy above, this therapy has some shortcomings currently.

Legality

One of the most powerful evidence is that both in USA and EU, there is not approved by relevant laws to allow any phage product for human use.

As mentioned above, the development of Phage therapy prospects is great, which can cure super bacterial infection and prevent the emergence of drug resistance. However, because of this treatment is not legal (i.e. This therapy is still unlicensed now). Therefore, both doctors and hospital institutions cannot use phage therapy even if they are faced with a patient who suffers from super bacterial infections and antibiotics cannot be treated, because it is illegal. In addition, even at the risk of illegal use of bacteriophage therapy for patients in critical situations, whether the patient is ensured to cure and also, if the patient died, is it due to the use of this currently illegitimate treatment, and whether doctors and medical institutions are responsible for the death of the patient.

In moral terms, the doctor’s mission is to save lives obviously with following the certain rules and regulations. Otherwise, makes an illegal technology directly apply to the clinic, even if the situation is urgent, it might suffer more deaths.

Thus, this therapy method should be applied to the clinic until it becomes mature and obtain the allowance from the governments.

Practicality:

From the perspective of utilitarianism and practicality, antibiotic treatment has been widely used in bacterial therapy, and the therapeutic range of bacteriophage therapy is too limited. Moreover, applying such large cost on its research, but just to meet the requirement of a very small number of people, which is not in conformity with utilitarianism and practicality.

As mentioned above, although this research may contribute to the future of clinical medicine, and may save patients who may be in urgent and need this medical technology. However, in a short period of time, bacteriophage therapy is still only needed by a very small number of people, and this technology is still immature, so it requires a lot of financial and technical investment in the studies of this technology, so the cost is not proportional to the demand of this, which does not fit the central idea of pragmatism, whose fundamental principle is that everything is based on effects and functions. Additionally , in the current shortage of talent and funding, it is most pragmatic to put available resources where they are most needed.

Therefore, the study of bacteriophage therapy should be based on the steady and continuous development under the conditions of available resources, instead of investing a large amount of resources in this research at a time when the demand is minimal.

 

49 thoughts on “Doctor’s Duties To Save Lives

  1. This is an interesting topic, especially given the concern that we may be moving into a post-antibiotic age.

    From the point of the view of the course, you need to develop the ethical arguments.

    An example is: “Doctor’s duty is to save lives.” Obviously, we all want doctors to do this – utilitarianism, duty ethics and virtue ethics all support this principle.

    Currently, there is concern that phage therapy might not work. The issue then becomes do we take risks with patients who are in a desperate situation. There is a clear issue of consent; but we may want to ask ourselves if there are other ways to investigating if phage therapy works.

    I would look into the issue surrounding the growth of antibiotic resistant viruses and then look to examine the issues surrounding phages.
    Where so get phages from?
    What happens if we don’t use them?
    What are the drawbacks if we do use them?

    1. From the theory of utilitarianism: The behavior that benefits the most people is “correct” behavior. From the current point of view, we can’t deny that a small proportion of patients that cannot be treated by traditional method(antibiotic), so it has been suggested that treatment technologies (phage) that do not meet the interests of most people for such a high cost and it should not replace antibiotics. However, from the perspective of the future, the limitations of phage technology treatment are increasing. For example, there are more and more patients with infectious diseases in hospitals in Australia, and it seems that other antibiotics cannot treat patients except for a small amount of antibiotics that can treat these patients. The patient faces an incurable desperation. The future phage therapy technology is expected to spread to most people. There has been such progress: the combination of two or more types of phage to produce more pharmacologically multiple tablets. So in the long run, it is our ethical responsibility to study phage technology and apply it to patients.

    2. Thank you for your comment and I’d like to answer your questions.
      1. Phage is a ubiquitous organism and is often accompanied by bacteria. Bacteriophage can often be found in places full of bacterial communities, such as dirt and internal organs of animals.
      2. If we do not use them, a large drug-resistant bacteria will increase because of the long-term use or abuse of antibiotics, which will lead to more and more antibiotics fail to resist bacteria and human life will be threatened.
      3. If we use them, the drawbacks are
      i. The great specificity of phages is a disadvantage when the exact species of infecting bacteria is unknown or if there is a multiple infection;
      ii. phages that are injected into the bloodstream are recognized by the human immune system and some of them are quickly excreted and, after a certain period, antibodies against the phages are produced by the body, thus, it appears that one type of phage can only be used once for intravenous treatment,;
      iii.phages are complex organisms that can transfer toxin genes between bacteria.

    3. There is no doubt that the ethical debate in the title of the article is not clear. As I summarized, the background story of this article can summarize two ethical issues. One is to start with the medical aspect, and the other is to start with phage. According to the ethical requirements of surgical treatment, the medical staff must make a judgment before surgery,Whether or not surgery is the most ideal method;Any method that takes precedence over surgery or surgery may accelerate the deterioration of the patient’s condition or may not have the surgical condition, then no surgery should be performed. The patient in this article met these criteria, but his wife still gave him an operation and the result was positive. However, her behavior obviously does not meet the ethical requirements of surgical treatment.
      When phage was mentioned, although it proved to be successful, it was not allowed to use it because of the lack of clinical data and legal support. On the one hand, the doctor needs to follow his professional ethics, but he needs to save lives. The argument here is whether a drug that is not allowed by the law can be used, especially for treating dying patients.

  2. It indeed needs to expand ethical topics and the title might not be suitable for this article because the whole article is talking about the Phage therapy. However, due to this technology of treatment, not immature,there is a little relationship with doctor’s duties. It could be better to change a title and dig deeper ethical issues regarding phage therapy.

  3. This is a controversial issue. It’s hard to say whether doctors should consider more ethical problems or focus on saving lives. Since I’m not a doctor, I would say ethics is more important. Those who are desperate for survival will mostly rely on doctors and do what they are told, and if doctors use what is not yet approved to their patients without explaining the danger within, they don’t respect human lives properly. Although saving lives sounds more urgent, there are still plenty of things that could be judged as right or wrong in ethics.

  4. It is an interesting topic about doctor’s ethics point. I have also heard of another therapy, DHCA (deep hypothermic circulatory arrest), that has not been used or widely used in clinical. For doctors, they need to follow the rules strictly. However, when they face a critical situation, unconventional methods could fix this problem. But this does not meet the requirements. It is a dilemma, use or not use this kind of therapy. I think this ethical question from doctor’s duty has been analyzed well. If you can discuss about more detail about phage therapy itself, it will be perfect. For example, although phage will not have problem of drug resistance, it also have disadvantages. This needs to be expanded.

    1. Your comment is more about showing the development of phage therapy. Certainly, this is based on your moral judgment that doctors should not use phage therapy for patients. In fact, with this growing number of drug-resistant bacteria, we should also focus on the development of bacteriophage therapy technology to prevent the death of antibiotics that cause a large number of deaths. However, it seems that there is no clear moral tendency in this article, and it is more inclined to state the facts. After all, this is an article on the debate on moral issues. The authors should develop more moral arguments and clarify their moral orientation.

  5. The structure of the article is very interesting. The use of a phage therapy and the use of bacteriophage therapy are directly described using an interesting story.
    The theme of the article is divided into two aspects: the advantages of supporting phagosome therapy and the disadvantages of phagocytosis.
    I have seen the author’s point of view in the article is to maintain the existing research and input.
    I think that Kant theory can be added to the analysis part. Doctors are all for the purpose of saving people and treating them regardless of whether or not their methods are approved.

    1. However, Kant’s theory is based on a wide range of circumstances, and only a small percentage of patients encounter this condition, which is almost negligible. As far as phage therapy itself is concerned, this is illegal. Therefore, morally, I support even the doctor refused to use phage therapy for patients even in critical situations. This also reflects the professionalism of doctors.

  6. Both traditional antibiotics and bacteriophages are used to treat humans against germs. This does not show obvious ethical conflicts in the medical field. The conflict manifested in this paper is mainly reflected in whether the phage is worth long-term development and then widely used. In fact, if the bacteriophage is an unstable factor, even if it has unknown side effects, this ethical issue will be even stronger.

  7. This essay is about the ethic and duty about the doctor, but actually it should depends on condition. If this new treatment solution will bring more negative effects than positive, then this treatment will still remain to be discussed. Although in this essay is seem like the Phage therapy would be the first choice if the traditional Antibiotic treatment is invalid as a results of resistance to drug. There are still some unknown sides of this solution is to be investigated. For example, the specific metabolic status of bacteriophages after oral or injection into humans and animals is unclear by now. Also, bacteriophage composition is not single, it is also hard to define quality standards. Therefore, doctors and government need to consider the multifaceted effects of this new therapy.

  8. This article is about whether doctors should use phage therapy to save lives. To be honest, it is my first time to touch this topic. After reading the whole passage, I know the phage therapy is a therapeutic treatment like antibiotic, but I am still confused about how phage therapy works and where can we get the phages.

    From the perspective of ethic and duty, I think the doctor should not use phage therapy since it is not legal nowadays. The story told at the beginning is not very appropriate for support the use of phage therapy although the treatment was effective finally and Patterson was recovering gradually. Because the people the doctor saved is her husband. Just think, if the phage therapy leads to the death of a live, who need to shoulder the responsibility? the doctor or the hospital? or the patient itself? Moreover, think about what will happen if we don’t use phage therapy. Are patients unable to recover from pains?

    1. Thank you for your comments, I agree with the comments you mentioned, the lack of laws and regulations, and the immatureness of phage therapy will be the biggest obstacles at this stage that hinder phage application in the clinic. What can be done at this stage is only the enhancement of phage research.

  9. In fact, both phage and antibiotics are used to treat human diseases and there is no contradiction in this regard. The ethical issues in this article are manifested in the development or use of phages and the ambivalence of the issues in terms of both law and interests. So who should stand up and act, whether it is a doctor or a government or legal worker? In addition, in terms of moral values, it is not enough. For dying patients, phage must be used. This is a black and white strategy, but more generally, phage is not the only choice. It is a substitute. In addition, what are the benefit groups for phage use, and are there any investors or shareholders who can benefit from it? Use reasonable moral judgments to make it easier understand.

  10. I think that restricting the development of bacteriophage therapy is the limitation of the scope of application. Few investors are willing to invest in products in small markets. What’s more, the safety of this therapy has not been widely recognized. But I think that this therapy has great potential in a world where antibiotics are being used in large quantities. Because bacteriophage therapy is undoubtedly a better choice in dealing with those bacteria that already have drug resistance. Therefore, I think that this type of therapy should be further developed to ensure that it can be used safely. It should not be studied because of the small market demand. The method that can cure a patient has its existence value.

  11. This articles shows an interesting point of view regarding doctor’s ethic problem. As the article says the duty of doctor is to save lives, so I do not think doctors should give the priority to the phage therapy when treating the patients. This is because of the fact that the reason why the phage therapy is illegal is that the reliability of phage therapy has not been demonstrated widely. The responsibility for patients would be considered firstly by doctors, although the phage therapy shows certain advantages in some cases.
    In my opinion, the method of therapy should be conservative before the phage therapy becomes developed.

  12. The topics discussed in this article are very interesting, but I have some questions. First of all, what is the relationship between the use of bacteriophage and the doctor’s responsibility? What’s more, in some cases, the use of phage therapy is still illegal, which is no longer issue at the level of morality.
    Secondly, I think that the topics you are discussing are somewhat too narrow, because there certainly will not be only two treatments in medicine: the use of antibiotics or bacteriophages. Therefore, when discussing this issue, it seems impractical to blame doctors who are not suitable for bacteriophages. Of course, doctors can use other treatments for patients, and patients also have the right to multiple choices.

    1. If there are other treatment options, that moral issue will not exist. If the antibiotic fails, either the more potent antibiotic or the bacteriophage treatment is used. This time I re-emphasize the background that bacteriophage therapy is illegal but that antibiotics have failed and that the number of resistant bacteria is increasing.

  13. The real ethical debate should be where the phage and the antibiotics harm the human body. The effectiveness of antibiotics over time is less and less obvious, because most types of antibiotics have developed resistance, and phage are not allowed by law. The reason was not explained clearly. Whether the phage is harmful to the human body or its instability, it needs to draw its harm to elicit controversy.

  14. The research of phage is a new topic. For the doctor, the responsibility is to save people’s lives. And it will not emerge any argument,however, is phage a perfect choice to replace antibiotics?The answer is not sure. While phage will also become harmful when it is out of control. For example, it will release the toxic substance when it is injected into human’s body. So many uncertain factors, that is the article should focus on. When it comes to the moral or ethical issue, should doctors apply a uncertain or something out of control to patients? That is a big issue.

  15. Abused of antibiotics is already become a new problem recently. Obviously the human body might have drug resistance and the phage therapy is quite efficient way to save people’s life. However the succeeded of one person cannot represent the phage therapy is 100% safe. Therefore it is better not to promoted the therapy before it can be officially admitted by law and FDA.

    1. Thanks for you comment, It should be said that in stage, bacteriophage therapy is still in its infancy, and the safety and efficacy of bacteriophage preparations remains to be further studied. Apart from it, the relevant regulation should be developed to limit the abuse of antibiotics.

  16. Since the phage was first discovered, it has been considered as a good thing for bacteriostasis, but why is it ultimately not put into use? The discovery of antibiotics and the development of antibiotic-related industries have brought the market closer to saturation. However, this only deals with the problem from the economic point of view and has not caused ethical and moral discussions. In fact, all drugs, especially fungus drugs, have certain risk factors. If they are used improperly, they will cause serious consequences. This needs attention.

  17. This article provides a more comprehensive dialectical analysis of phage therapy, and I can clearly understand the current development stage of this technology.

    I agree with one of the arguments in the article that the doctor’s duty is to save people, but it seems to me that using a legitimate way to save people is also a basic ethical conduct of a doctor. It is not only compliance with medical ethics but also responsibility for patients.

    At the same time, I also learned that bacteriophage therapy does have its irreplaceable advantages. For instance, it does not produce antibodies like antibiotics. So I think that national government departments can invest in research here, and when the technology is feasible, it can be achieved. When it comes to standards, I think it’s not too late to apply this technology to the human body.

  18. For example, people use bacteriophages to kill harmful germs like the introduction of wolves, dogs and other carnivores to treat rats and pests. The function of bacteriophages is relatively single, but there are many types of bacteria, so there is no advantage in the development of bacteriophages to a certain extent. There was once a patient with severe burns. More than 80% of the entire body was burned. The condition was very serious and the doctor had almost given up. However, the use of bacteriophages and the efforts of the relevant treatment personnel actually made him alive. This is a miracle, a miracle created by bacteriophages. But why is the protagonist who creates miracles not allowed in many countries? First of all, the types of bacteriophages on earth are scary. That number is 10 times the Nth power. It is very difficult to find effective phage in a short time.Second, many types of bacteriophages have only been tested on mice and lack of clinical trial support, which raises concerns about whether they have side effects.Phage is a bacterial virus. It adheres to bacterial cell walls and self-propagates with the raw materials in the bacteria. It is a disintegration of bacteria. There are generally three types of bacteriophages, an icosahedron without a tail structure, an icosahedron with a tail structure, and a linear body. There is a T-series phage, and phages are generally not used for sterilization.

  19. The article describes the doctor’s duties and the legality and practicality of phage therapy. This is a very controversial topic. In my opinion, the use of bacteriophage is still subject to the circumstances, and it cannot be determined purely by the advantages or disadvantages of the bacteriophage whether it can be used as a therapy on the human body. Therefore , the multifaceted effects of this new therapy should be considered before using this therapy.

  20. Bacteriophages achieve the purpose of treatment by killing pathogens. This kind of killing is of a physical nature, so the problem of drug resistance is solved. But its use is very narrow, because a phage can only eliminate a corresponding pathogen. In fact, bacteriophages had some research in the middle of the 19th century but were replaced by better therapeutic drugs. Its advantage lies in its remarkable efficacy and strong pertinence. Not only can bacteriophages be used to treat human diseases, they can also be used on poultry. Some of the objections are that the bacteriophage will change in some way and begin to attack human cells, but in fact this is very unlikely, and bacteriophages will attach themselves to different bacteria that have different protein and carbohydrate components.

  21. It is an interesting article. Before reading this article, I only knew a little about the phage therapy. I only knew it has risks, but I never thought about it from the doctor’s moral point. But as the title said, to save lives is doctors’ duties. Therefore, phage therapy as a new method to treat diseases should be used in the medical field. But we may need to consider two things: to let patients make decisions, and to develop a rational planning of the usage.

  22. I like the dialectical thinking of this article. On the one hand, from utilitarianism, he should use bacteriophage therapy, because it is effective, there is no resistance like antibiotics, it can give more dying people the chance to live. However, from an ethical point of view, it also has a negative effect. As you said, this is not in conformity with the law. The application of an unknown, immature treatment program is likely to lead to unpredictable risks. Who is responsible for the death of the patient? Is there any other legal treatment method?

  23. In fact, in this ever-changing era of biotechnology, we have explored many new treatments. I think that even in an emergency situation, the doctor cannot use the rescue excuse to use the treatment that has not been approved by the government. This reason is ridiculous and doctors have no right to make such a decision that implement their own ideas on patients.Because the doctor is not a researcher, his expertise does not allow him to make ideas beyond the results of laboratory research.
    The fact that phage technology is immature. It is also a fact that doctors use phage illicit laws and regulations in treatment. There is no excuse for changing the fact of unethical behavior.

  24. From the heading, this article is intended to express medical-related issues. Medicine is to serve human health. Because of this particular nature of medicine, medical science has become more humanistic than other laws. It is the fundamental purpose of protecting citizens’ health. Correspondingly, when it comes to legal medicine, we must not talk about medical ethical issues. Law and morality are inseparable. So, does phage have relevant legal literature and what are its relevant regulations? This needs to be based on facts, not individual subjective ideas, and this article lacks them.

  25. Whether this article’s title doctor saves human life is without a doubt. The article mainly mentions two kinds of drugs that are used to save human life or treat human diseases. However, in terms of utilitarianism and other aspects elaborated in the text, the subject is without any consideration. Because it is always true to save people. This cannot cause ethical problems. It is not clear what the article wants to say. As far as stakeholders are concerned, whether it is the patient or the doctor, this cannot be argued. However, if there is a side effect of the bacteriophage application species, then it will cause ethical problems, unfortunately, this is the missing part of this article

    1. 这篇文章先通过一则实例引出了主题,即噬菌体治疗的研究及开发的合理性问题。在该文章中,作者从合法性、实用性等方面将如今广泛应用的抗生素疗法和噬菌体疗法进行了比较,分析了开发、推广噬菌体疗法的利弊,并最终得出现如今噬菌体疗法还不适合投入大量资源进行研究的结论。

      1. Sorry about that use Chinese to reply directly,.This article first elicited the topic, the rationality of the research and development of bacteriologic therapy, through an example. In this article, the author compares the widely used antibiotic therapy and phage therapy in terms of legitimacy and practicality, analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of developing and promoting bacteriologic therapy, and eventually emerges that phage therapy is not suitable for investing in large quantities. Resources for research conclusions.

  26. Personally, I personally think that the focus of this article in talking about is not very accurate. From the perspective of the title, it should be a discussion of the problems faced by doctors in the treatment of patients and moral problems. However, the entire article has spent A great deal of space was devoted to the treatment of bacteriophages. Personally I think it may be more appropriate to change the ethical considerations of the bacteriophage treatment. It may also be possible to reduce the length of the bacteriophage and return to the ethical issues doctors face when using phage therapy. My personal opinion after reading the article at the same time is that if the patient knows the consequences and risks of the therapy, he can appropriately relax such regulations.

    1. First of all, I agree with you about this article’s lack of moral argument. Indeed, the article spent a lot of space describing phage therapy and ethically little. At present, even if phage therapy is legal, it can only meet the interests of a small number of patients, which is not in conformity with utilitarianism. Moreover, there are currently no powerful means to advance the research and development of phage therapy. Personally, the interests of this small group of patients can only be sacrificed.

  27. This problem is actually very similar to the euthanasia we mentioned before. It is from the perspective of medical treatment to discuss human nature and moral issues. My personal point of view is that in the face of life, morality can be used as a concession. Nothing is more important than life. Morality can only exist when people are alive. If we can save a person’s life, we can choose to give up. It is irresponsible to life and equally immoral. I think that phage should be considered for legal use in medical treatment.

  28. This is an interesting article, but the scope of moral arguments is very narrow. Personally, from the doctor’s point of view, the treatment itself is illegal and does not meet the morality of the virtues (the doctor’s professionalism). At the same time, this method may not necessarily restore the patient’s health. If the patient receives this therapy, is there death? The doctor is responsible.

  29. Of course, I do not agree that doctors use phage therapy to treat patients. From another perspective, the increase in the number of resistant bacteria is due to the abuse of antibiotics. Then, when doctors prescribe drugs to patients, can they reduce the use of antibiotics to prevent the abuse of antibiotics, thereby reducing the increase in resistant bacteria.

  30. The interesting topic drew my attention. I can clearly know from the article what is bacteriophage therapy, the prospects and limitations of the therapy. Their analysis is critical. The content of the article is clear, but I think the title is not match the content. If the title can be changed, the article will be better. And It will also be better to have the final conclusion for the article.

  31. This article starts from the actual case and analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the bacteriophage therapy promotion from aspects such as legitimacy and practicability, and explains more comprehensively the reasons why phage therapy is not suitable for investigating large resources at present. But perusing the article can be found that some of the arguments listed by the author are still lacking a certain degree of persuasion. Especially when analyzing the legitimacy and practicality, the author spent a lot of time describing his own point of view, but there is no instance to support it. For example, the author believes that phage therapy is “not in conformity with utilitarianism and practicality” because phage therapy “can only satisfy the needs of a few people”, but looking at the entire development history of modern medicine, diseases that are difficult to overcome tend to have low morbidity. Formally, these “minorities’ needs” are promoting the progress of the entire discipline and human society, because in the 21st century, the major diseases that have plagued the entire human society are few, and it is not only modern medicine but also the restoration of health for those few. Sociological focus.

  32. Considering the stability of the society and the values of the general population, although everyone is likely to become a patient, compliance with the law is more universal and can yield greater benefits. The patient in this article belongs to a special case. He is not universal, so doctors have the responsibility and obligation to refuse to use phage therapy.

  33. The structure of this analysis is to first describe the case, then make comments on it, and the review is very organized. Secondly, the author’s analysis has a clear-cut view, which makes it clear at a glance that the author supports phage therapy. However, there are some logical flaws in this analysis. For example, if the bacteria are strong enough, they will develop drug resistance, and drug resistance will lead to death. This is absolutely absolute. At the same time, “phage therapy is the only way to save lives”, and more evidence is needed to support this conclusion.

  34. Through case analysis, readers can more easily understand the author’s ideas, have a clear hierarchy, and jump out of traditional antibiotic treatment, propose novel phage therapies, and raise questions of biological ethics that are currently being actively discussed. However, the therapeutic effect of bacteriophage therapy and the use of promotion and demonstration are insufficient. At present, one case of successful phage therapy is used to conclude that this therapy should be used, and the conclusion is too sloppy.

  35. The structure of the analysis is clear. Firstly, phage therapy and its corresponding hot topics are proposed through comparison with traditional antibiotics. At the beginning, a question is asked. After that, the advantages and disadvantages of bacteriophage are demonstrated from both positive and negative sides. Finally came to the conclusion at the end. After the conclusion of the conclusion, giving corresponding suggestions will make the analysis more perfect.

  36. Through this case, I learned that the application of phage therapy in the medical field is both an opportunity and a challenge. From the perspective of treatment, the use of bacteriophage therapy may have a chance of survival, but this therapy is also not legalized because of its unknown and dangerous nature. Here, in considering the development potential and practical application of bacteriophage therapy, choosing to use limited resources to study the therapy may be a better way.

    1. Yes, one way to solve this ethical problem is to vigorously research and develop bacteriologic therapy. This technology is made legal by promoting the development of technology. Of course, every technology has two sides, and phage therapy also has side effects. But now, just from the standpoint of utilitarianism, this technique is only applicable to a small subset of patients and is as small as almost negligible. So from a macro perspective, this is a long process.

  37. I have heard a news about that in year 2001, Weber used bacteriophage therapy in 20 cancer patients and 27 bacterial infections and found all patients with purulent, traumatic, pneumonia, etc. and found that the elephants disappeared quickly. It seems that this kind of method can be used in human beings and it is effective from this case. Although it has some shortcoming, I think if we can overcome some problems, It can replace the antibiotic.

Leave a Reply