Taking Sides Analysis Report

Rebecca Miner
Biology 1090
Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Health and Society
Issue number: 4
Title of issue: Are We Winning the War on Cancer?

1. Author and major thesis of the Yes side: John R. Seffrin believes that there have
been many major medical advances that have aided in the eradication of cancer. He
believes that cancer could be eliminated completely if the government and chief medical
establishments worked together to provide treatment for all Americans.
2. Author and major thesis of the No side: Reynold Spector does not believe that
there has been significant success in treating cancer, or eliminating the disease, and that
there should be more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to create effective treatment
and medications for the disease, with less on emphasis on so called smart drugs.
3. What fallacies of question-framing are made by the authors of the text? Sefferin
frames his question properly, and provides sufficient evidence for defending his points.
Spector asks the audience to consider what has been gained by the millions of dollars that
have been spent in cancer research and treatment, then goes on to state many failures that
do not justify such spending.
4. Briefly state in your own words two facts presented by each side.Yes side:
Seffrin provides evidence of more than 2,200 communities in the United States have
enacted smoking bans in public places as of 2006. This is important, as Seffrin believes
the number one cause for many types of cancer to be smoking. Seffrin believes this to be
a success, because the anti-smoking laws protect the health of millions of Americans.
This, of course, has many economic and medical benefits, as many cancer patients
acquire the disease in middle age, when they are most productive leading them to not
behind families, as well as racking up insurmountable debt. He also states that the World
Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco has been proven to work in
diverse cultures around the world and that the US has adopted the treaty, but has not
ratified it. This means that big tobacco companies have been able to carry on business as
usual, especially using their marketing to appeal to younger and younger generations. The
FCTC treaty would restrict their insidious and immoral marketing tactics and gives
nations powerful tools to protect citizens from marketing schemes.
Spector states that cancer death rates, adjusted for size/age of the populace, has
decreased by only 5 percent since 1950. This means that despite the many different
types of cancer some have a lower mortality rate we have not come very far in finding

effective treatment, or especially a cure, in the last half a century. This is important to
recognize, as many organizations and pharmaceutical companies have claimed great
successes and advancement of technology in the matter of eliminating the disease.
Spector also states that, 60 to 80 percent of oncologists revenue comes from infusion of
anti-cancer drugs in their offices. This is important to realize because in the last decade
many claims have been made around supposedly smart anti-cancer drugs that have
been created to specifically target tumors/affected areas. What is not stated is that these
drug are incredibly expensive an average middle class American could not afford
treatment and that there are many devastating side effects on the patient who is
prescribed them. There has been less focusing on creating measures to make care
affordable and as safe as possible, and instead there has been an increase of ineffective
and often unnecessary drugs to treat patients.
6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the Yes side as you can. John R. Seffrin does not
provide sufficient evidence to make that claim that we are winning the war on cancer.
He has no statistical information regarding his claims.
7. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can. Perhaps the No side could
be said to contain appeal to false authority, as the author references many articles
throughout his piece that may not be considered authorities on the subject.
8. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or
her thesis? Why? I believe overall the No side of the argument was more empirical. It
appeared to have less bias than the Yes side, as there was very little statistical information
given to the reader on the Yes side.
9. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? If so, why do they have these
biases? John R. Seffrin perhaps has more reason to be biased, as he the president of the
American Cancer Society. If he stated that there truly were no progression in the fight
against cancer, he would be acting against his own self-interests. Reynold Spector I
believe has less reason to be bias, as it is simply stated that he is a physician.
10. Which side (Yes or No) do you personally feel is most correct now that you have
reviewed the material in these articles? I believe that the No side of the argument is more
correct. Given the statistical data it is hard to argue that we have made significant
progress in the areas of treating or eradicating cancer. The fact that it is projected to
become the number one cause of death by 2018 is evidence enough. The reality is that
health care is a business, and as long as that is the case, there will be no significant
improvements in any area of medicine that does not directly increase the profitability of
drug companies. This is explored in Spectors article, and states there has been too much
of a reliance on smart drugs that do not improve quality of life for patients, nor are the
effective in treating cancer. I do agree with the Yes side of the argument, however, that
there should be more focus from the government and medical companies that focus on
getting treatment to communities nation wide. Even if we had made significant progress
and there was a cure-all for cancer, what good would that do if it were unavailable to the
people who needed access to them the most?