Whitney Young Debate 2009-10

[Mercer Island Neg]

MERCER ISLAND NEG
MERCER ISLAND NEG............................................................................................................................................................................1
Counterplan 1NC.........................................................................................................................................................................................2
Counterplan 2NC – Solvency Wall..............................................................................................................................................................3
Counterplan Solvency 2NC.........................................................................................................................................................................4
Counterplan 2NC - Solvency.......................................................................................................................................................................5
Counterplan 2NC - A2: CAM evidence.......................................................................................................................................................6
Medical Rationalization 1NC......................................................................................................................................................................7
Medical Rationalization 1NC......................................................................................................................................................................8
Medical Rationalization 1NC......................................................................................................................................................................9
Medical Rationalization 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................10
Rationalized Medicine 2NC – Bioterrorism (Overview)...........................................................................................................................11
Rationalized Medicine 2NC – Bioterrorism - A2: Lietenburg (Exaggerated Risk)..................................................................................12
Rationalized Medicine 2NC – Bioterrorism – A2: Weather......................................................................................................................13
Rationalized Medicine 2NC – Bioterrorism – A2: Tech Barrier...............................................................................................................14
Rationalized Medicine 2NC – Bioterrorism – A2: Terrorists don’t want deaths.......................................................................................15
Rationalized Medicine – Bioterrorism – A2: Mueller...............................................................................................................................16
Rationalized Medicine – Disease (overview)............................................................................................................................................17

Notes - This aff is retarded.

Strat should be:

T - Medicaid /=/ Means Tested

States Counterplan (Deal with it, it solves, there’s absolutely NO FED KEY warrant to this aff)
Politics (w/medicaid links)
Inflation (w/Medicaid Links
Coercion
Util
Medical Rationalization 1NC
Patriarchy defense (they might be able to claim it in the 2AC, just do it)

Backstory: Their advantage is a Medical Rationalization advantage, their main solvency advocate (Kheel) talks about how we
need to stop the current western medical model of rationalization in the status quo and replace it with a "ethical affirmation of
natural medicine." Or herbal medicine and techniques that don’t require the drug/germ paradigm that pharmaceutical
companies use. The medical rationalization frontline is pretty sweet, it all talks about science based drug prevention and how
that’s key to prevent a crap ton of impacts. They claim to completely wipe out rationalized medicine, so if they say "no link,
western medicine and natural medicine can co-exist" that takes out solvency and their extinction impact, because western
medicine will continue to exist in hospitals, medicaid and around the world. Just be smart about their stupid advantage, you
can literally beat it with analytics. Be careful with ethics impacts, one card in the 1AC hints at ethical rejection, but it’s not
very good, just read util, also they talk about patriarchy a lot, and how western medicine supports dominant hierarchies of
patriarchy. They don’t read a patriarchy impact, but they have internal links, so they may very well read impacts to
patriarchy in the 2AC.

- Marcel

***NEW ADDITIONS*** - Okay I added some 2NC blocks to bioterrorism (i think that’s the only thing that’s in need of blocking
out really, we don’t have any answers to bioterrorism defense), the other stuff (econ and hege) i didn’t bother making 2NC answers to
because we have them in our hege good file, the growth good file, and the econ case stuff we have for PSE

WYDB8 [MR] 1
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
COUNTERPLAN 1NC
The United States fifty state governments and all relevant territories should fully fund the distribution of
herbal medicine through Medicaid.

States have primary responsibility in providing Medicaid services, eligibility standards and service
standards
Stapleton et. al, 9 – of the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research (David C. Stapleton, Andrew J.
Houtenville, Robert R. Weathers II, Richard V. Burkhauser, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research ,“Counting Working Age
People with Disabilities: What Current Data Tell Us and Options for Improvement” ed. By Stapleton, Houtenville, Weathers,
Burkhauser http://www.upjohninst.org/publications/ch1/cwap.pdf)

State welfare agencies have a strong financial interest in helping low income parents with disabilities transfer from Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families to federal disability benefits. State governments also control Medicaid programs within limits set by the
federal government, including eligibility determination, fee schedules, coverage for optional services, and eligibility for optional
populations of workers with disabilities (under the Medicaid Buy-in). Many other services are delivered by, or under the supervision
of, state agencies, even when the federal government provides support. Further, one of the most important disability programs for
working-age people, workers compensation, is state run and receives no federal support or oversight. State leaders and the electorate
need to be informed about how working-age people with disabilities in their state are faring, both absolutely and relative to
comparable people in neighboring states and the rest of the country. National data cannot identify the specific needs of a state’s
population with disabilities, how federal funding to meet those needs is commensurate with that of other states, or the extent to which
efforts to address the needs of the working-age population with disabilities within a state are successful.

State governments can provide medical reimbursement for alternative medicines through CAM
payments
Steyer, Freed, and Lantz 2002 (TE,GL,PM///Full names not listed///- PubMed – National Library of medicine. “ Medicaid
Reimbursement for alternative therapies” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12440844?dopt=AbstractPlus) MFR

CONTEXT: A growing number of complementary and alternative therapies are eligible for reimbursement by third party payers in the
United States. No studies have examined current trends in the use of public funds for the payment of complementary and alternative
medicine (CAM). OBJECTIVE: To determine the reimbursement polices of state Medicaid programs for CAM. DESIGN: Cross-
sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: 46 state Medicaid reimbursement specialists. INTERVENTION: Telephone survey. RESULTS: Of
the 46 states participating in the study, 36 Medicaid programs (78.3%) provide coverage for at least 1 alternative therapy. The most
commonly reimbursed therapies are chiropractic by 33 programs (71.7%), biofeedback by 10 programs (21.7%), acupuncture by 7
programs (15.2%), and hypnotherapy and naturopathy by 5 programs each (10.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Many Medicaid programs are
paying for the use of CAM. Further research is needed to determine if Medicaid recipients are aware of these reimbursement policies
and the extent to which recipients are using CAM for their healthcare.

WYDB8 [MR] 2
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
COUNTERPLAN 2NC – SOLVENCY WALL

1. Counterplan solves 100% of case –

A. Medicaid enforceability – our Stapleton evidence indicates states are able to control Medicaid
programs, expand eligibility determination for optional services that would include herbal medicine
and deliver these services without federal support

B. Alternative Medicine – Steyer indicates that states have been able to provide alternative
medicines such as herbal medicines, chiropractic medicines, biofeedback programs, acupuncture
and hypnotherapy and naturopathy through the Complementary and Alternative Medicine
program. 36 states have at least one program through CAM, empirically proven

2. States can solve alternative and herbal medicines effectively and avoid state budget shortfalls doing it –
Florida proves
Beychok 8 (February, Tina. Associate Editor of Acupuncture Today. “Florida Spearheads Innovative Medicaid Program.”
http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=31655) MFR

There is no question that state Medicare costs are on the rise. A report released in December 2007 by the National Governors
Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers paints a dire picture of state health care budgets. According to the
report, Medicaid spending from all funding sources in fiscal year 2007 was estimated to increase by 7.3 percent, compared to a growth
rate in FY 2006 of 1.7 percent. In addition, the report states that Medicaid costs total about 22 percent of states' budgets, while overall
health care costs make up approximately one-third of spending - the single largest segment of state budgets. On top of this, only
California covers acupuncture care via its Medi-Cal program. In light of this, a pilot program in three Florida counties may offer a
glimmer of hope to low-income Medicare patients with chronic pain who are looking for alternatives to traditional medical care. In
2002, the Florida state legislature mandated creation of an integrative-therapies pilot program . The program required a Medicaid waiver to
cover the services of licensed acupuncturists and massage therapists . The program was to focus on "quality of care and cost-effectiveness of
(an integrated) disease-management initiative." Chicago-based Alternative Medicine Integration Group (AMI) won the contract to develop
and manage the program in three counties in the Tampa Bay area. Since early 2004, AMI has seen up to 500 patients per month out of
the approximately 2,500 eligible Medicare patients. Part of what AMI was to measure was whether the integrative therapies had any
effect on cost for usual and customary care within the chronic-pain Medicare population. Patients were only eligible if they had one of four chronic pain conditions:
fibromyalgia chronic back pain chronic neck pain chronic fatigue Patients in the program were required to have a primary care doctor who wanted to have their

patients participate in the program. In order to accomplish this, AMI began meeting with various PCPs to get them to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Overall, approximately 60 percent to 65 percent of the eligible doctors signed the form. AMI went one step further,
however, and contacted eligible patients directly via a list supplied by MediPass, Florida's Medicare program. Using a direct-mail and a telephone campaign, AMI eventually brought in about two-thirds of eligible patients, according to Tracy Woolrich, RN, HHP, the holistic nurse in charge of the program. Under the AMI program,
participants have up to two visits per month to either an acupuncturist or a massage therapist. As of November 2007, the program includes 55 massage therapists and 23 acupuncture physicians (licensed acupuncturists in the state of Florida). In addition to acupuncture treatments, AMI also offers support groups, patient literature and
condition-specific CDs. In some cases, practitioners may even go out in the field to visit home-bound patients. The real proof, however, is in patient satisfaction. If patients are not happy with the program or do not see desired results, the potential for any cost savings is lost. One patient, Richard Adams, told his story to the Integrator
Blog (www.theintegratorblog.com): "When I started going to my acupuncturist, I was barely out of my wheel chair. I went from a walker to a cane. Now I can move around without anything. That's how much [my acupuncturist] is doing for me. My GI doc, my podiatrist, my endocrinologist - they all think it's a step in the right

They've seen the change. My endocrinologist said: 'Whatever you're doing, keep with it.'" Adams had also lost 15 pounds and
direction.

reduced his need for blood pressure medication after 12 to 15 visits to the acupuncturist. Because patient stories are not enough to convince government agencies, AMI contracted with a researcher to

, AMI administered a quality-of-life assessment questionnaire

conduct a survey of patients as to their satisfaction with the program. As another part of measuring outcomes (called the SF-12) during intake, after the first six months and then

. In looking at 2005 and 2006, patients reported a 16 percent and 20 percent increase in mental function, respectively. Physical
annually thereafter

function was increased 20 percent and 24 percent, respectively, over the same time period.

, AMI also claims to indeed be reducing costs. Adrian Langford, AMI's vice president told the Integrator Blog: "Our
In addition to data about patient satisfaction

managed group realized a reduction of (per member per month) costs of over 9 percent while a comparable non-managed population
realized an increase of PMPM costs of 15.1 percent. Pharmaceutical savings during the early months of the program indicate a 20%
reduction in pres cription drug expenditures. Cohort Given all of these positive data, the
populations not managed by AMI experienced a 23% increase in pharmaceutical usage over the same time frame."

state of Florida chose to extend the program last year. Hopefully, other states will look toward Florida for proof that integrated
acupuncture services can help Medicare patients at a reduced cost.

WYDB8 [MR] 3
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
COUNTERPLAN SOLVENCY 2NC
States solve Medicaid reform
Rueben, et al 2007- senior research associate at the Urban Institute, leads their state and local government
research program (Kim, Therese McGuire, chair of the Management and Strategy Department at the
Kellog School of Management, and the ConAgra Foods Research Professor in Strategic Management,
Susan Kellan was a writer-editor at the Urban Insitute, and now a senior communications advisor at
Brookings, “Navigating State and Local Finances,” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 10/07.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001102_Navigating_Finances.pdf) //MH
Likely budget busters going forward Many of the policy choices that states and localities make this year—or have already made—will
influence the major issues of health, pensions, and edu- cation for years to come. “We’re often setting our- selves up for
failure,” said eugene steuerle of the urban institute, “since many policies are pre-set before the relative importance of different
types of pressures and needs of society can be known.” this is particularly evident with the Medicaid program, which has
grown dramatically since its inception in 1965 (see table 1). now providing health benefits to about one-sixth of the national
popula- tion, Medicaid has become the biggest expenditure item for state governments and is a major element in the system of
federal transfers to the states. To illustrate the growth in Medicaid, James Marton and david Wildasin of the Institute for
Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations at the Martin school of Public Policy of the University of Kentucky compared the
health program spend- ing to welfare spending. in 1967 both aid programs were approximately equal in amount. By 1988
Medicaid spending was nearly three times as large as cash welfare spending. by 2003 Medicaid was nearly nine times as large
as what is now called temporary assistance for needy Families. The 1996 landmark welfare reform law, which made welfare
temporary, continues to have a spillover effect on Medicaid. demographics pose another important factor going forward, since
the elderly requiring long-term care are a very large share of current Medicaid spending. Considering the health care pressures
stem- ming from an aging population, and a growing number of uninsured workers, Marton discussed the potential for
Medicaid reform. state experiments may be the key to any national reform effort, he said, as evidenced by the number of states
re- ceiving waivers from federal law to launch innova- tive new systems. this continues the “laboratory of the states,” since the
granting of welfare reform waivers in the early 1990s served as a model for the 1996 reform. Any major Medicaid reforms,
Marton predicted, are likely to involve some change in the intergovernmental fiscal and regulatory relations that now underpin
the program.

States empirically can implement Medicaid and their governing strategies

Thompson 9 - Stanford Law School, Ph.D. Economics, Stanford University (Loyola University Chicago Law Journal “ARTICLE:
OPTIMAL FEDERALISM ACROSS INSTITUTIONS: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL AND
HEALTH CARE POLICIES Spring, 2009 Lexis)

D. Literature on Health Policies In the 1990s, health care reform became an important topic. In particular, the Medicaid program grew
significantly during the 1980s and 1990s, representing forty percent of federal payments to states by [*448] the mid 1990s. n67 In
1993, the Clinton administration proposed a comprehensive health care reform package. n68 Although never enacted, this proposal
spurred further debate on health care reform. After the Lopez decision and the enactment of welfare reform, a number of authors
examined the implications of federalism on Medicaid policy.
One author pointed out that devolution of health policy had been "ongoing" for a number of years. n69 Another explained that the
"impact of new federalism" is that "pursu[it of] our national public health agenda" will depend on utilizing the "means" provided by
our "federalist system of government, namely the police powers of states." n70 A number of analyses were published in Medicaid and
Devolution: A View from the States, edited by Frank J. Thompson and John J. DiIulio. n71 In one chapter, Thompson examines
whether states can accept more responsibility for Medicaid, focusing on their governing and fiscal capacities, along with their
commitment to Medicaid. He concludes that devolution should follow "a more incremental, calibrated approach ... paying particular
attention to implementation ... and assigning a critical scorekeeping role to the national government."

WYDB8 [MR] 4
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
COUNTERPLAN 2NC - SOLVENCY
State governments should be in charge of health services, the federal government should devolve
Medicaid
Nivola, 07 - Vice president and Director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution (Pietro, “Rediscovering
Federalism”, April, http://www3.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/07governance_nivola/07governance_nivola.pdf

The long-standing premise that social programs such as welfare and health insurance are best centralized needs to be reconsidered.
Great progress in economic stabilization, political transformations of state government, and the respectable performance of the states
under the TANF law have all weakened the argument for centralization.
So has another fact: The federal government will not be able to sustain the impending demographically-induced bulge of the nation’s
extant welfare state without either imposing Draconian tax increases or sacrificing essentials, starting with national security.21 The
costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are projected to corner most of the federal budget, and claim around a fifth of the
gross domestic product by 2040.
This is not an acceptable prospect. The answer to these circumstances is not to keep loading budget-busting entitlement obligations on
an undisciplined government in Washington but to lodge more social servicing in the states, whose governments have at least some
institutional capacity for self-restraint.22
A natural point of departure, of course, is Medicaid, the federally co-sponsored health program that is smaller than Medicare but that
also is ballooning and, unless further devolved, can only aggravate Washington’s long-term fiscal overreach.23 Currently, 50 percent
to nearly 80 percent of Medicaid’s expense are paid by the federal government, and its liabilities are open-ended.24 With this sky-is-
the-limit approach to matching state outlays, states lack adequate incentive to cut costs and innovate—for example, by buying services
more cheaply, investing efficiently in information technology, reducing fraud, establishing different benefit packages for different
populations, and encouraging people to buy private long-term care insurance.25

WYDB8 [MR] 5
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
COUNTERPLAN 2NC - A2: CAM EVIDENCE
No -

1. This evidence is not in the context of Medicaid – we have specific solvency evidence on how states
have federal jurisdiction over Medicaid, their evidence doesn’t contest this

2. Not a solvency deficit – look at the card after the round, it doesn’t even say states can’t solve
Medicaid integration or provide herbal medicine, just that the Federal government is good at
providing alternative medicines, it doesn’t matter if the plan solves 120% if the counterplan solves
100%.

3. Extend Steyer – State Medicaid programs can provide alternative therapy and medicines, 36
states already do at least 1, expanding it to include herbal medicine would solve western medicine’s
patriarchal relationship with nature.

WYDB8 [MR] 6
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
MEDICAL RATIONALIZATION 1NC
1. No Solvency – Plan doesn’t prevent Medicaid from rationalizing medicine, even if you allow it to give herbal medicine, they
will still give rationalized medicine external to herbal medicine benefits.

2. Double bind either they can’t solve and non unique, western rationalized medicine will continue post plan through
Medicare, the upcoming public option, hospitals, and other nations entrenched in a rationalized mindset taking out their
extinction impact or they link to our turns.

3. Rationalized Medicine is good –

A. Bioterrorism
Gillis, 2001 (Justin Gillies, Writer for Washington Post, “Scientists Race for Vaccines,” Lexis, November
8, 2001,)
U.S. scientists, spurred into action by the events of Sept. 11, have begun a concerted assault on bioterrorism,
working to produce an array of new medicines that include treatments for smallpox, a safer smallpox vaccine and a painless anthrax vaccine. At least one major drug company,

Pharmacia Corp. of Peapack, N.J., has offered to let government scientists roam through the confidential
libraries of millions of compounds it has synthesized to look for drugs against bioterror agents. Other
companies have signaled that they will do the same if asked.These are unprecedented offers, since a drug company's chemical library, painstakingly assembled over
decades, is one of its primary assets, to which federal scientists usually have no access."A lot of people would say we won World War II with the help of a

mighty industrial base," said Michael Friedman, a onetime administrator at the Food and Drug Administration who was appointed days ago to coordinate the pharmaceutical industry's efforts . "In
this new war against bioterrorism, the mighty industrial power is the pharmaceutical industry."Researchers say a generation of
young scientists never called upon before to defend the nation is working overtime in a push for rapid progress. At laboratories of the National Institutes of Health, at universities and research institutes across the land,
people are scrambling.But the campaign, for all its urgency, faces hurdles both scientific and logistical. The kind of research now underway would normally take at least a decade before products appeared on pharmacy

the
shelves. Scientists are talking about getting at least some new products out the door within two years, a daunting schedule in medical research. If that happens, it will be with considerable assistance from

nation's drug companies. They are the only organizations in the country with the scale to move rapidly to
produce pills and vials of medicine that might be needed by the billions. The companies and their powerful lobby in Washington have been working
over the past few weeks to seize the moment and rehabilitate their reputations, tarnished in recent years by controversy over drug prices and the lack of access to AIDS drugs among poor countries. The companies have
already made broad commitments to aid the government in the short term, offering free pills with a wholesale value in excess of $1 billion, as well as other help. The question now is whether that commitment will extend over
the several years it will take to build a national stockpile of next-generation medicines. A good deal of basic research is already going on at nonprofit institutes that work for the government under contract, and scientists
there say they are newly optimistic about the prospects of commercial help. "The main issue is, can we get the facilities?" said John Secrist III, vice president for drug discovery and development at Southern Research
Institute in Birmingham, which is looking, under federal grant, for antiviral drugs to treat smallpox. Given the new mood in the country, he said, "if we come up with a molecule that's going to be of help, then I have no doubt
that we could very rapidly convert that into doses for humans." Many of the projects that could lead to new drugs and vaccines were underway before Sept. 11, thanks partly to an extensive commitment NIH made two years
ago. Others, like the smallpox project Eli Lilly initiated, have been started from scratch in recent weeks. Before Sept. 11, NIH had planned to spend $93 million on next-generation bioterrorism research this budget year. That
was nearly double the amount in the prior year, but now the actual figure is likely to jump by tens of millions. Other parts of the government, including the Department of Defense, are spending millions as well, often in

cooperation with NIH. Much of the immediate focus is on better defenses for smallpox and anthrax, two bioterror agents
theoretically capable of killing millions. Smallpox was eradicated from the United States in 1949 and from the rest of the world in 1978. The last remaining stocks of virus are
supposedly secure in two repositories in the United States and Russia . Some terrorist groups are feared to have gotten their hands on virus

samples from Russia, and if that's true, they could set off a worldwide epidemic. Stopping such an outbreak would require mass
vaccinations. The government has a stockpile of old smallpox vaccine, but the supply is limited. It is, moreover, a primitive product, not substantially different from the vaccine discovered by English physician
Edward Jenner in 1796

WYDB8 [MR] 7
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
MEDICAL RATIONALIZATION 1NC
Extinction
Ochs 02 – MA in Natural Resource Management from Rutgers University and Naturalist at Grand Teton
National Park [Richard, “BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS MUST BE ABOLISHED IMMEDIATELY,”
Jun 9, http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articles/abolish.html]

Of all the weapons of mass destruction, the genetically engineered biological weapons, many without a known cure or vaccine, are an extreme danger to the continued survival of
life on earth. Any perceived military value or deterrence pales in comparison to the great risk these weapons pose just sitting in vials in laboratories. While a "nuclear winter," resulting from a
massive exchange of nuclear weapons, could also kill off most of life on earth and severely compromise the health of future generations , they are easier to control. Biological
weapons, on the other hand, can get out of control very easily, as the recent anthrax attacks has demonstrated. There is no way to guarantee the security of these doomsday weapons
because very tiny amounts can be stolen or accidentally released and then grow or be grown to horrendous proportions. The Black Death of the Middle Ages would be small in
comparison to the potential damage bioweapons could cause. Abolition of chemical weapons is less of a priority because, while they can also kill millions of people outright, their persistence in the environment
would be less than nuclear or biological agents or more localized. Hence, chemical weapons would have a lesser effect on future generations of innocent people and the natural environment. Like the Holocaust, once a
localized chemical extermination is over, it is over. With nuclear and biological weapons, the killing will probably never end. Radioactive elements last tens of thousands of years and will keep causing cancers virtually
forever. Potentially worse than that, bio-engineered agents by the hundreds with no known cure could wreck even greater calamity on the human race than could persistent radiation. AIDS and ebola viruses are just a
small example of recently emerging plagues with no known cure or vaccine. Can we imagine hundreds of such plagues? HUMAN EXTINCTION IS NOW POSSIBLE.
Ironically, the
Bush administration has just changed the U.S. nuclear doctrine to allow nuclear retaliation against threats upon allies by conventional weapons. The past doctrine allowed such use only as a last resort when our
nation’s survival was at stake. Will the new policy also allow easier use of US bioweapons? How slippery is this slope? Against this tendency can be posed a rational alternative policy. To preclude possibilities of
, "patriotism" needs to be redefined to make humanity’s survival primary and absolute. Even if we lose our cherished
human extinction
freedom, our sovereignty, our government or ourConstitution, where there is life, there is hope. What good is anything else if
humanity is extinguished? This concept should be promoted to the center of national debate.. For example, for sake of argument, suppose the ancient Israelites developed defensive bioweapons of mass destruction when they were enslaved by Egypt. Then suppose these weapons were released by
design or accident and wiped everybody out? As bad as slavery is, extinction is worse. Our generation, our century, our epoch needs to take the long view. We truly hold in our hands the precious gift of all future life. Empires may come and go, but who are the honored custodians of life on earth? Temporal politicians? Corporate

Now that extinction is possible, our slogan should be

competitors? Strategic brinksmen? Military gamers? Inflated egos dripping with testosterone? How can any sane person believe that national sovereignty is more important than survival of the species?

"Where there is life, there is hope." No government, no economic system, no national pride, no religion, no political system can be
placed above human survival. The egos of leaders must not blind us. The adrenaline and vengeance of a fight must not blind us. The game is over. If patriotism would extinguish humanity, then patriotism
is the highest of all crimes.

B. Disease
I.F.P.M.A. 3 (International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations – non-profit, NGO
representing more than 60 national industry organizations, Dec., “Neglected Diseases and the
Pharmaceutical Industry” http://www.ifpma.org/Documents/NR235/Brochure_Neglected
%20Diseases.pdf, 2003)
Nevertheless , neglected diseases definitely require adequate actions and solutions. These diseases impose a great social burden on
the poorest populations, impairing their already very low economic productivity . Consequently, we should all argue for a solution that would best utilise the existing capacities and

. The pharmaceutical industry, as a unique source of new medicines, has initiated and participated in
mobilise all the stakeholders

numerous programmes and partnerships aiming at improving health outcomes in developing countries. These
initiatives can serve to develop an adequate approach to tackle the problem of neglected diseases. . The They are briefly discussed below

pharmaceutical industry is an unquestionable pillar of the medicinal innovation. Over decades, it has discovered and
developed treatments for all major diseases affecting the world’s population. Infectious diseases have always been one of
the key components of pharmaceutical companies’ R&D budgets. Because of new infectious diseases emerging and old
ones mutating, the pharmaceutical industry has never stopped its R&D efforts to discover and develop new needed
treatments.

Extinction
Steinbruner 98, (John D., Senior Fellow @ Brookings Institution “Biological weapons: A plague upon all
houses.” Foreign Policy Winter97/98 Issue 109, p85, 12p, EBSCOhost, 1998)
and undoubtedly a key to our
It is a considerable comfort the human body has
survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have not depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution,

developed physical barriers and a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design
or as yet even fully understand. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt.
Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale. An infectious agent believed to

, some 20 variations of the HIVvirus

have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981

have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying of aids each year. Malaria,
tuberculosis, and cholera-once thought to be under control-are now making a comeback. , changing conditions have enhanced As we enter the twenty-first century

the potential for widespread contagion. The rapid growth rate , the unprecedented freedom of movement of the total world population across international borders,

all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future
and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens are . The than it has ever been in the past

WYDB8 [MR] 8
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a fundamental security problem for the species as a
whole.

WYDB8 [MR] 9
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
MEDICAL RATIONALIZATION 1NC

C. Competitiveness
Marketwatch, 12-15-08, Online
"It has become increasingly clear that continued leadership in medical innovation has a direct correlation to job growth and U.S.
competitiveness, as well as the health of all Americans ," said Former Congressman Dick Gephardt, who moderated the discussion.
"This region is home to some of the country's most innovative universities and biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies
who together employ hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians - making it an ideal place to discuss how we can ensure
continued health and economic security through medical innovation."

That’s key to hegemony.

Segal, 2004, (Adam Segel, Is America Losing its Primacy? Foreign Affairs)
The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than
anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's
economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal
computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for
granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased
investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian
governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of
patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian
companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and
managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage
in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced
technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of
manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development
is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways:
it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to
prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone
else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering
technological entrepreneurship at home.

Nuclear war
Khalilzad ’95 (Zalmay, director of Strategy and Doctrine Program at RAND, US ambassador to
Afghanistan; “Losing the moment? The United States and the World after the Cold War,”
Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995, p. ln)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not
as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First,
the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.
Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear
proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help
preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another globa l cold or hot
war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global
stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

WYDB8 [MR] 10
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
MEDICAL RATIONALIZATION 1NC
D. Economy
Davy, 2002 (Gale Daavy, Executive Director of WABRE - Wisconsin Association for Biomedical Research
and Education, Biosciences Wisconsin, http://www.wabre.org/report_two/bio13.html, 2002)
Most economists, businesspeople, politicians and members of the public now recognize that innovation and new technology are
vital to economic development in the 21st century. The concept of a new economy is based upon growth in high technology sectors and a lessening reliance on primary
production and manufacturing industries. When we think of the new economy, we might think of computers, dot coms, and internet billionaires. But the new economy is based upon more than just these factors.
The true new economy is built upon innovation and its greatest impact is felt in technology sectors . Innovation is the process of creating
new applications and products from existing technologies and it leads to the invention of new systems, oftentimes combining technologies, to accomplish new tasks. Innovation in data processing technologies and
home-computing led to the first economic wave of the new economy. Communications technologies, the second wave, coupled with computing led to the internet and changed the way we work, communicate, do
business, purchase goods, learn and utilize our leisure time . Bioscience innovation may not be as obvious to the general public, but it figures to
have just as great an impact. In one sense, bioscience innovation has been with us since early civilization. Man has made a habit of learning about living organisms and manipulating them to
his benefit. That process was slow and steady and gave us almost all of our food and fiber crops and livestock. Much of Wisconsin's old economy is based upon almost ancient bioscience technology. Beer, cheese
and bratwurst all represent ancient food manufacturing technologies. Today bioscience is contributing to a third wave of development in the new economy. At the same time, medical device manufacturers were
able to combine computer imaging and bioscience technologies into new products. Most of the basic research into imaging technologies was conducted at research universities, medical schools and teaching
hospitals. In the 1970s University-based biomedical researchers and pharmaceutical companies began an exploration into what would become known as biotechnology. Their goal was to create new ways of
manipulating living organisms in order to take advantage of biological traits in plants, animals and humans. That work has led to an explosion in biotechnology information - to new treatments and cures for human
illness - and to new crops and improved livestock. Biotechnological research and development techniques and applications have been thoroughly integrated into academia and industry. The traditional leaders in
bioscience industry, pharmaceutical and agricultural companies, were quick to adopt biotechnology techniques and applications. During the two decades following these early advances in biotechnology,
pharmaceutical companies proliferated and grew. Traditional agricultural companies grew as well and hundreds of small companies were formed to develop and market new agricultural products and techniques.
From 1980 to 1993, the US witnessed an explosion in these primary areas of Bioscience industry - biotechnology (pharmaceutical and agricultural) and medical device (particularly imaging) manufacturing. While
scientific discovery fueled this explosion, it took a legislative catalyst to set it off. In 1980 Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act which gave universities the right to license discoveries that were based upon
federally funded research. Prior to Bayh-Dole, companies faced difficult hurdles in getting new discoveries into application. The Bayh-Dole act allowed academic research institutions to benefit from their
scientific discoveries and it paved the way for technology transfer - allowing companies to license technology for development and marketing. Prior to 1980, fewer than 250 U.S. patents were issued each year to
universities. In 1998, more than 2,500 patents were issued to universities. Discovery, innovation, and the creation of new technologies are directly related to the magnitude of sponsored research conducted at
universities. The 1998 licensing survey conducted by the Association of University Technology Managers found that 132 U.S. universities received 9,555 invention disclosures and filed 6,518 patent applications
(O)ne invention disclosure was received for approximately every $2 million of expenditures and one patent application was filed for every $3 million of expendtures.(Rayburn). While the Bayh-Dole act was not
limited to bioscience innovation, it has been most effective at ensuring that bioscience technologies, including medical, pharmaceutical and biotechnological products and services have been developed to the
public's benefit. After a downturn and a period of mergers and acquisitions in the early 1990s, the pharmaceutical, medicinal and botanical industries (as they are known to economists) experienced a rebound in
the last half of the decade. A growth in research and development investment subsequent to consolidation has resulted in new products, a growing workforce and increased revenues for this segment of the
bioscience economy. In 2001, research-based pharmaceutical companies will invest $30.5 billion in R&D. This represents an 18.7
percent increase over expenditures in 2000 and more than triple the investment in 1990. This year, $23.6 billion in R&D
will be spent within the United States by both U.S.-owned and foreign-owned companies. The pharmaceutical industry
is increasingly multinational in scope. Most major research-based companies market products throughout the world.
Historically, the centers of global research have been in large countries that foster free markets and thus innovation . Approximately 36 percent of pharmaceutical R&D
conducted by companies worldwide is performed in the United States followed by Japan with 19 percent of global R&D. Of 152 major global drugs developed
between 1975 and 1994, 45 percent were of U.S. origin, 14 percent orignated in the U.K., and 9 percent were of Swiss origin. During 1980-1995, innovative U.S. firms were
able to globalize (launch in the U.S., Europe, and Japan) their new drug products at a rate more than quadruple that of European
companies. In the rapidly growing field of biotechnology, U.S. firms have a commanding lead in patenting their innovations.Of the 150 genetic engineering health-care patents issued by the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office in 1995, U.S. applicants received 122.

Nuclear War
Mead 92 (Walter Russel, Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy at Council on Foreign Relations,
“Depending on the kindness of strangers,” New Perspectives Quarterly, Summer, p. 28, Academic
Search Elite)
If so, this new failure--the failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression--will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions--

billions have pinned their hopes on the international

--of people around the world

market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles—and drawn closer to the West--because they believe that our system can work for

What if the global economy stagnates--or shrinks

them. But what if it can't? even ? In that case,

we will face a new period of international conflict : South against North, rich against poor. Russia,

with nuclear weapons

China, India--these countries their billions of people and their will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and
Japan did in the '30s

WYDB8 [MR] 11
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
RATIONALIZED MEDICINE 2NC – BIOTERRORISM (OVERVIEW)

1. Extend Gillis – Rationalized medicine, the use of pharmaceuticals and drugs to prevent germ spread
and disease promoting readiness from a bioterrorist attack will prevent mass casualties and
extinction.

2. Bioteror risk is high and neg takeouts are wrong – qualified experts confirm.
Deutch ’05 (John Deutch, qualified inside this piece of evidence, is now at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology – Meeting the Bioterrorism Challenge:
Testimony before U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness -- May 11,
2005 -- http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/deutch/policy/72MeetingBioterroism2005.pdf)

I base my views on my experience as Director of Central Intelligence and Deputy Secretary of Defense in the first Clinton administration,
as a member of President George H.W. Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, as chairman of the Commission on the Organization of the
Government to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, and from the mid-seventies, my service on many Defense Science Board and other
government advisory committees, that addressed various aspects of the weapons of mass destruction threat. My views align closely with most
who have studied the threat of bioterrorist and our biodefense preparedness. At the World Economic Conference this January I served on a panel
with Majority Leader Frist, a member of this subcommittee, that addressed bioterrorism and I believe our views on this important subject are quite
similar. My assessment of the threat is as follows: for producing biological agents and dispersal mechanisms is well known and easily
within the capacity of terrorist organizations. Thus the threat is real. We are fortunate that the United States, our allies, and our
deployed military forces have not yet been subject to a large-scale biological attack. The likelihood of an attack, our vulnerability to an
attack, and the need to prevent catastrophic consequences, means that biodefense deserves to be a national priority. Despite the many warning, and
some progress by the various involved government agencies, including Health and Human Services (HHS) and its Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health, (NIH), and the new
Department of Homeland Security (DHS),our territory, citizens, agriculture and livestock remain unacceptably vulnerable to a catastrophic biological agent
attack. State and local government cannot possibly deal with these events without significant technical and financial help from the federal government. In the near term, the agents of greatest
concern are anthrax and smallpox. In the longer term, it is entirely possible that new classes of pathogens will be developed based on modern
molecular biology and biotechnology techniques that will be more virulent and more difficult to detect and to treat. To my knowledge, no
comprehensive multi-year program plan exists that integrates the efforts of the various agencies required to improve our nation’s biodefense posture.

3. Minimizing the death toll is crucial – large casualties ensures a US response that escalates to nuclear
war.
Conley ’03 (Lt Col Harry W. is chief of the Systems Analysis Branch, Directorate of Requirements,
Headquarters Air Combat Command (ACC), Langley AFB, Virginia. Air & Space Power Journal - Spring
2003 -- http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/conley.html)
The number of American casualties suffered due to a WMD attack may well be the most important variable in determining the
nature of the US reprisal. A key question here is how many Americans would have to be killed to prompt a massive response by the United States. The bombing of marines in
Lebanon, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 each resulted in a casualty count of roughly the same
magnitude (150–300 deaths). Although these events caused anger and a desire for retaliation among the American public, they prompted
no serious call for massive or nuclear retaliation. The body count from a single biological attack could easily be one or two orders of magnitude higher than the casualties caused by these
events. Using the rule of proportionality as a guide, one could justifiably debate whether the United States should use massive force in responding to an event that resulted in only a few thousand deaths. However, what if
the casualty count was around 300,000? Such an unthinkable result from a single CBW incident is not beyond the realm of possibility:
“According to the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 100 kg of anthrax spores delivered by an efficient aerosol generator on a large urban target
would be between two and six times as lethal as a one megaton thermo-nuclear bomb.”46 Would the deaths of 300,000 Americans be enough to trigger a nuclear
response? In this case, proportionality does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons. Besides simply the total number of casualties, the types of casualties- predominantly military versus civilian- will also affect the nature and
scope of the US reprisal action. Military combat entails known risks, and the emotions resulting from a significant number of military casualties are not likely to be as forceful as they would be if the attack were against
civilians. World War II provides perhaps the best examples for the kind of event or circumstance that would have to take place to trigger a nuclear response. A CBW event that produced a shock and death toll roughly
equivalent to those arising from the attack on Pearl Harbor might be sufficient to prompt a nuclear retaliation. President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki- based upon a calculation
that up to one million casualties might be incurred in an invasion of the Japanese homeland47- is an example of the kind of thought process that would have to occur prior to a nuclear response to a CBW event. Victor Utgoff
if the original attacks had caused
suggests that “if nuclear retaliation is seen at the time to offer the best prospects for suppressing further CB attacks and speeding the defeat of the aggressor, and
severe damage that had outraged American or allied publics, nuclear retaliation would be more than just a possibility, whatever
promises had been made.”48

WYDB8 [MR] 12
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
RATIONALIZED MEDICINE 2NC – BIOTERRORISM - A2: LIETENBURG (EXAGGERATED RISK)

1. Factually incorrect – 9/11, Madrid, and bombings in the middle east prove risk is high

2. Leitenberg is wrong – top experts think so

National Journal ’05 (April 23, 2005 – lexis)
Other experts are less generous. Milton Leitenberg, a biological-weapons expert and a scientist at the University of Maryland's School of Public
Policy, speaks of the "huckstering of an imminent biological-warfare threat." Since 9/11, "high-end scenarios, if not science-fiction ones,
were the rule in studies prepared for U.S. government agencies, even by competent contractors," he wrote in The Problem of Biological Weapons,
published last year. Portraying the Threat The perspective of Leitenberg and other critics is controversial, because it challenges views
strongly held and repeated throughout the federal government and the biological-defense community. "This is a very dangerous
question," says Dr. Tara O'Toole, the chief executive officer of the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical
Center, the co-developer of Atlantic Storm and Dark Winter, and a leading, if unnamed, target of the critics. "I think biological-weapons attacks --
specifically, covert bioterror attacks -- are the single most terrifying security threat facing the world, not just the United States, far more
frightening and potentially damaging than a nuke going off in American cities," she said. Warned retired Air Force Col. Randall Larsen, a
prominent biodefense advocate who co-developed the Atlantic Storm and Dark Winter exercises, " We could lose a million people in a week in
this country from a sophisticated biological attack."

WYDB8 [MR] 13
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]

WYDB8 [MR] 14
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
RATIONALIZED MEDICINE 2NC – BIOTERRORISM – A2: WEATHER
Some pathogens do not rely on weather and terrorist would release many strains to maximize death toll
Wheelis ’02 (Mark Wheelis works in the Section of Microbiology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
His research interests are in the history of biological warfare, especially in the First World War, and the
scientific aspects of biological and chemical arms control. BioScience – July 1st – lexis)
Dissemination of many introduced pathogens likewise requires relatively little expertise. Animal virus preparations could be diluted and disseminated
with a simple atomizer in close proximity to target animals, or the preparation smeared directly on the nostrils or mouths of a small number of
animals. This could be done from rural roads with essentially no chance of detection. Dissemination of animal diseases could also be done
surreptitiously at an animal auction or near barns where animals are densely penned (as in chicken houses or piggeries). For plant diseases, simply
exposing a mass of sporulating fungi to the air immediately upwind of a target field could be effective, if environmental conditions were favorable for
infection. The biggest challenge of introducing a plant pathogen is probably timing the release with the appropriate weather conditions
(Campbell and Madden 1990). If pathogens are released immediately before the start of a dry period, few, if any, infections are likely to result.
However, if released at the start of a rainy period, these pathogens could cause a major epidemic. The technical ease of introducing
many agricultural pathogens makes it more likely that terrorists or criminals would release pathogens in several locations in an attempt to
initiate multiple, simultaneous outbreaks . This would ensure that trade sanctions would be imposed, because it would undermine any argument
that the outbreaks are localized and do not jeopardize importing countries. It would also be more likely to overwhelm the response capacity and lead
to the uncontrollable spread of disease. This is the principal way in which a bioterrorist attack would differ from a natural disease introduction, and it
raises the question whether a system designed to respond to natural introductions can deal effectively with sudden, multifocal outbreaks.

Their “weather” argument is wrong – terrorist will still try no matter what.
The Record ’01 (The Record (Bergen County, NJ) October 7, 2001 – lexis)
To produce mass casualties, airborne delivery would be the preferred method for unleashing all types of chemical or biological weapons. The
poisoning of water supplies is unlikely, experts say, because the amount of toxic agent required would be prohibitively large. Airborne delivery,
however, is fraught with problems. There's an optimal size for particles to be inhaled into the lungs. Many terrorism experts are reluctant to discuss
this topic, although details are readily available from many sources. In general, producing aerosols of the right size, either of liquids or powders, is
extremely difficult or impossible without special equipment and expertise. Crop dusting sprayers, for instance, are designed to produce droplets many
times larger than ideal. Weather conditions can also make a huge difference. Efficiency, though, may be low on a terrorist's list of
concerns. That fact alone raises the chance that some group may eventually attempt an act of terror using biological or chemical means.

WYDB8 [MR] 15
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]

WYDB8 [MR] 16
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
RATIONALIZED MEDICINE 2NC – BIOTERRORISM – A2: TECH BARRIER
Terrorists can circumvent tech barriers – can buy off scientists.
National Journal ’05 (April 23, 2005 – lexis)
One way that terrorists might get around the challenges, Danzig wrote, is to tap the expertise of scientists from state-sponsored weapons
programs, through bribery perhaps, or by otherwise recruiting from the thousands of scientists and technicians worldwide who have
relevant training but no specific biological-weapons experience. He estimated that up to 10,000 people on the planet have experience in state
weapons programs, and that perhaps more than a million scientists have the relevant training.

Terrorist can easily develop Bioweapons – critics are just wrong.

National Journal ’05 (April 23, 2005 – lexis)
The crux of the debate is whether terrorists could develop, build, and effectively use a catastrophic bioweapon. O'Toole and Larsen
are in the "yes" camp. Both cited a once-secret Defense Department experiment called Project Bacchus, which was conducted in the late 1990s to
assess whether terrorists could create a biological terror weapon using commercially available equipment. The project "demonstrated quite
persuasively that about four people, only one of whom had any biological training at all -- and that was not with the U.S. weapons program,
that was a degree in biology -- could, using materials bought through the Internet, set up shop, undiscovered, and create a Bacillus
anthracis look-alike," O'Toole said. "It wasn't until I saw the Bacchus program, about how easy it was to do, that I said , 'Holy shit, this is
just a matter of time,' " said Larsen. Technologies for effective dissemination of substances by spraying are becoming increasingly available for
benign commercial purposes, O'Toole said. "Technology has moved ahead very significantly, particularly in the last few years, mostly for agricultural
purposes... We've figured out ways to cover particles that make it much more likely they could go deeper into the lung to be absorbed into the blood
-- very helpful if you're building an anthrax weapon," she said. Richard Danzig wrote in an unpublished paper last year, "For an adequately
weaponized agent (especially a powder), many sources in the open literature suggest that simple backpack sprayers will perform this function."
Danzig is a former Navy secretary who is now a Pentagon bioterrorism consultant and the Sam Nunn Prize fellow in international security at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "From the standpoint of proliferation, the fundamentals of this knowledge are
already widespread and legitimately proliferating," Danzig wrote. "They are the basis of pharmaceutical, biotech, medical, and agricultural
progress." "It seems likely that, over a period between a few months and a few years, broadly skilled individuals equipped with modest
laboratory equipment can develop biological weapons. They can do this in state programs, as members of terrorist groups, or simply as
individuals," he added.

WYDB8 [MR] 17
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]

WYDB8 [MR] 18
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
RATIONALIZED MEDICINE 2NC – BIOTERRORISM – A2: TERRORISTS DON’T WANT DEATHS
1. The death toll could accidentally be larger than anticipated – Ochs indicates deaths may spiral out of control from biological mutations

2. History disproves their claim

Anderson 98 (Ph.D -- Microbes and Mass Casualties: Defending America Against Bioterrorism – Heritage Foundation Reports --
Backgrounder #1182 --- May 26th --
http://www.heritage.org/research/Homelanddefense/BG1182.cfm)

Throughout human history, the threat of mass contagion has evoked primal fear. Natural pestilence periodically has ravaged cities, states, and
even entire civilizations. Rapid advances in genetic engineering in the past few decades have increased the likelihood that disease-causing
microbes could overwhelm the U.S. public health system and wreak horrific destruction. Today, the United States faces the nightmarish
possibility that terrorist groups would seek to cause mass casualties by unleashing biological agents on U.S. soil. Biological agents, on an
equal-weight basis, are the most lethal substances known to mankind. According to a 1997 U.S. Department of Defense report on
proliferation, the "most lethal biological toxins are hundreds to thousands of times more lethal per unit than the most lethal chemical warfare
agents." 2 They can be targeted against people, animals, or crops using a variety of means of delivery, from aerial bombs and spray tanks to
ballistic missile warheads. Until recently, the intelligence community generally has downplayed the capability of terrorists to effect mass
casualties using biological agents, noting that the impact of an attack is difficult to predict, considering the sensitivity of microorganisms to
meteorological conditions. Most analysts agreed with the view that terrorists only "want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people
dead." 4 But the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 sarin attack in Tokyo`s subway system, and the 1996 Oklahoma City
bombing shattered that conventional wisdom. These attacks indicate an important threshold has been breached; clearly, some
terrorist groups want a lot of people watching and a lot of civilians dead . Belatedly, senior defense and law enforcement officials are
recognizing the growing danger of bioterrorism. Gordon Oehler, then director of the Nonproliferation Center of the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), testified before Congress in March 1996 that Extremist groups worldwide are increasingly learning how to manufacture
chemical and biological agents, and the potential for additional chemical and biological attacks by such groups continues to grow. In January
1998, Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lieutenant General Patrick Hughes testified that chemical and biological weapons have a "high
probability of being used over the next two decades." 6

3. Seriously? Past developments prove terrorists want to kill tons of people – 9/11, Madrid, Iraq
bombings.

WYDB8 [MR] 19
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
RATIONALIZED MEDICINE – BIOTERRORISM – A2: MUELLER
And, Mueller is alone – prefer consensus of experts
Allison ‘7 (Graham Allison, Director – Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Professor of Government, and Faculty Chair of the Dubai Initiative –
Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, “Symposium: Apocalypse When?”, The National Interest, November / December 2007, Lexis)

MUELLER IS entitled to his opinion that the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is "exaggerated" and "overwrought." But analysts of various
political persuasions, in and out of government, are virtually unanimous in their judgment to the contrary. As the national-security community learned during the Cold
War, risk = likelihood x consequences. Thus, even when the likelihood of nuclear Armageddon was small, the consequences were so catastrophic that prudent policymakers felt a categorical
imperative to do everything that feasibly could be done to prevent that war. Today, a single nuclear bomb exploding in just one city would change our world. Given such consequences,
differences between a 1 percent and a 20 percent likelihood of such an attack are relatively insignificant when considering how we should respond to the threat. Richard Garwin, a designer of
the hydrogen bomb who Enrico Fermi once called "the only true genius I had ever met", told Congress in March that he estimated a "20 percent per year probability [of a nuclear explosion-not
just a contaminated, dirty bomb-a nuclear explosion] with American cities and European cities included." My Harvard colleague Matthew Bunn has created a model in the Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science that estimates the probability of a nuclear terrorist attack over a ten-year period to be 29 percent-identical to the average estimate from a poll
of security experts commissioned by Senator Richard Lugar in 2005. My book, Nuclear Terrorism, states my own best judgment that, on the current trend line, the chances of a nuclear terrorist
attack in the next decade are greater than 50 percent. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has expressed his own view that my work may even underestimate the risk. Warren Buffet,
the world's most successful investor and legendary odds-maker in pricing insurance policies for unlikely but catastrophic events, concluded that nuclear
terrorism is "inevitable." He stated, "I don't see any way that it won't happen." To assess the threat one must answer five core questions: who, what, where, when and how?
Who could be planning a nuclear terrorist attack? Al-Qaeda remains the leading candidate. According to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Al-Qaeda has been
substantially reconstituted-but with its leadership having moved from a medieval Afghanistan to Pakistan-a nation that actually has nuclear weapons. As former CIA
Director George J. Tenet's memoir reports, Al-Qaeda's leadership has remained "singularly focused on acquiring WMDs" and that "the main threat is the
nuclear one." Tenet concluded, "I am convinced that this is where [Osama bin Laden] and his operatives want to go." What nuclear weapons could terrorists use? A ready-made
weapon from the arsenal of one of the nuclear-weapons states or an elementary nuclear bomb constructed from highly enriched uranium made by a
state remain most likely. As John Foster, a leading U.S. bomb-maker and former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, wrote a
quarter of a century ago, "If the essential nuclear materials are at hand, it is possible to make an atomic bomb using information that is available in the open
literature." Where could terrorists acquire a nuclear bomb? If a nuclear attack occurs, Russia will be the most likely source of the weapon or material. A close second,
however, is North Korea, which now has ten bombs worth of plutonium, or Pakistan with sixty nuclear bombs. Finally, research reactors in forty developing and transitional
countries still hold the essential ingredient for nuclear weapons. When could terrorists launch the first nuclear attack? If terrorists bought or stole a nuclear weapon in good working
condition, they could explode it today. If terrorists acquired one hundred pounds of highly enriched uranium, they could make a working elementary nuclear bomb in less than a year. How
could terrorists deliver a nuclear weapon to its target? In the same way that illegal items come to our cities every day. As one of my former colleagues has quipped, if you have any doubt about
the ability of terrorists to deliver a weapon to an American target, remember: They could hide it in a bale of marijuana.

WYDB8 [MR] 20
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]

WYDB8 [MR] 21
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]
RATIONALIZED MEDICINE – DISEASE (OVERVIEW)
1. Extend IFMPA – Disease spread is quelled by the use of the drug/germ theory and isolating them using
scientific medicine. Steinburner indicates that prevents rapid spreading pandemics from infecting
humans and prevents uncurable diseases that cause extinction

2. We access your moral obligation claims- we have a ethical obligation to prevent disease to stop the
future generations from suffering
ASMR 05 (Australian Society for Medical Research, quoting Professor Julian Savulescu, Prof Practice Ethics
Oxford, 05 http://www.asmr.org.au/MRW%20Media/NPC05.pdf)
International ethics expert, Professor Julian Savulescu says that we are morally obliged to enhance our children’s health and well-
being and that rapidly developing genetic technologies could be a way to achieve this. Professor Savulescu, Uehiro Professor of
Practical Ethics at Oxford University, is in Australia for ASMR Medical Research Week® as the 2005 Medallist for the Australian
Society for Medical Research (ASMR). “There is a moral obligation to treat and prevent disease,” claimed Professor Savulescu. “The
same moral obligation exists to enhance our children’s well-being. Our health and that of our children is our most precious investment.
Disease causes pain and stops us engaging in those activities which give meaning to life. It has an enormous impact on the economy
and society. Being healthy enables us to achieve well-being and provides individuals with the opportunity to have the best life. A
‘well’ society is a viable society.” Genetic technology is currently used to test for the presence of genetic disorders (including some
forms of cancer and heart disease) in unborn children. There is research being conducted on genes to identify athletic talent which may
one day be used in Olympic selection. There are also studies in the field of behavioral genetics to understand the genetic basis of
criminal behavior, addictive behavior, sexual behaviour, industriousness, intelligence and depression. While at present there are no
genetic tests for these complex behaviors, it may be possible in the future to genetically test for them in our offspring and even to
change how we are predisposed to behave. “Genetic technology is a rapidly developing reality. If this can provide us with the ability
to enhance more effectively our children’s well-being, to give them better opportunities of a better life, to fail to do so will be to be
responsible for the consequences, including their unhappiness,” Professor Savulescu said. “Many people already seek enhancement through nicotine and caffeine.
Prozac, recreational drugs and alcohol all enhance mood. Viagra is used to improve sexual performance. Performance enhancement is rife in sport. Our frame of reference must shift to rationally consider genetic
enhancements.” He cautioned that genetic enhancement of our health and behavioral capacities is a highly complex and contentious issue. Many people and groups will have concerns with this approach and their views must
be considered. Cost issues and social and societal impact must also be addressed and it is critical that only ethical enhancements which are expected to bring more benefit than harm to the individual be pursued. “Our future is
in our hands. By not allowing ethical genetic enhancement using emerging technologies, we are choosing to enter Nature’s lottery rather than utilising safe and cost-effective interventions which may radically improve our
“ASMR believes it is essential that the community is well informed on
health and well-being,” said Professor Savulescu. ASMR President, A/Professor Bronwyn Kingwell said,
these issues. Professor Savulescu has highlighted the potential for emerging technologies to radically improve the health and well
being of the next generation of Australians. Australian health and medical researchers have contributed extensively to the knowledge
underpinning these technologies. An open debate is essential to ensure that governments and industry address these complex issues in
a rational and ethical manner.”

WYDB8 [MR] 22
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]

WYDB8 [MR] 23
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim
Whitney Young Debate 2009-10
[Mercer Island Neg]

WYDB8 [MR] 24
"Taking off my coat, clearing my throat, the rhyme will be kicking it until I hit my last note" – Eric B. & Rakim