Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected However since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations we cannot permit i

The author makes a fair point about the impact inoculations against cow flu may have and does bring out a good point about the ethics of administering it routinely. Cow flu can have a drastic effect on our society, and it is important to combat it if possible, but it is also important to consider the negative outcomes of such inoculations. While routine administrations might prevent it, the author brings out a valid point about the risk of death as a result of inoculation.
One might be able to argue that all vaccines come with some risk and yet societies around the world seem to have accepted them as a norm. Vaccines are basically a smaller dose of the pathogen that we are trying to inoculate a person against, and the dosage is low enough that it does not hold a major risk. The vaccine for cow flu is not very different from most others. Like other vaccines, it too can reduce that chances of an outbreak, but it does have a possibility of death.
The author's point about the risk of death being reason enough would be valid if the risk is high, but the author fails to provide enough evidence to back it up. If the risk of death is minor, the author's argument does not have enough strength. Most medicines in high dosage can result in death and a controlled routine inoculation might do better than harm. They also do not mention how the risk of death is assessed and whether they look at the percentage of people inoculated who die. This raises further doubt about the strength of the argument made by the author.
Another argument that would weaken the author's stance is the fact that such inoculations would be administered in medical settings where people can be monitored and screened. If individuals start to show any negative side effects, medical professionals can intervene. This can further reduce the risk of the inoculation being deadly.
It would be important to consider whether medical research supports the routine inoculations against cow flu. If medical experts deem that such a move is necessary and have clearly found that the positives outweigh the negatives, it will support inoculations. On the other hand, if research shows that the benefits do not outweigh the risks, it might be better to avoid the routine use of the vaccine.
The author is also unclear about their stance as they say that routine inoculations should not be permitted because of the possibility of death. Despite that claim, they do not say that inoculations should not be performed at all. This raises the question as to why they only suggest that the inoculations should not be routine if it can be harmful even with one use. They are also not clear on what they mean by routine. Do they mean that inoculations against cow flu not be performed like inoculations against influenza is during flu season or do they mean something else?
These reasons suggest that the author does not make a strong enough argument to support their view on not permitting inoculations. If the author can provide enough and clear proof about the harmfulness of routine inoculations. More evidence is needed to decide on inoculation in general as this passage does not give us a clear idea of the risks. In conclusion, the argument made by this author does hold some valid points but is flawed due to the lack of proof to support their claims.