Can wizards cure cancer? (Was: Wizard supremacy) (was:Re: Nel Question #4

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 125748


This is a repost as the original seems to have been eaten by
Yahoomort. If it's a duplicate, I'll delete it. Carol

Lupinlore wrote:
> But of course, that brings up many ethical and moral problems,
doesn't it?  Saying muggles would "look for magical solutions to 
their problems" <snip> begs the question of what is wrong with looking
for magical solutions to problems.  <snip> If wizards are capable of
curing muggle diseases with potions, for instance, then don't they 
have a moral duty to share their abilities with the rest of humanity?
  <snip>
> 
> To put it even more strictly, let us suppose wizards are capable of
curing cancer (we know they don't suffer from it, at any rate).  I 
grant you there is nothing in the books that says this, but let's 
suppose for an example. By holding themselves apart and denying 
muggles the cures they can provide, are they not guilty of a grave 
sin of ommission, in effect murder by implied consent? <snip>


Carol responds:
As Nora has frequently pointed out, argument from absence isn't a very
solid argument. IOW, just because the narrator hasn't mentioned any
wizards dying from cancer doesn't mean that "we *know* they don't
suffer from it." We *do* know that wizards have no cure for myopia or
astigmatism or any other of the eye problems that cause Muggles and
Wizards alike to rely on eyeglasses (spectacles). We also know that
Hogwarts students are as susceptible as any others to the flu (see
Trelawney's prediction in her first class in PoA, which seems to be
based on past experience rather than the Inner Eye). We know that
Perkins, the old warlock who works with Mr. Weasley, suffers from
lumbago (GoF, the QWC tent scene). These are all routine ailments for
which you'd think the WW potion makers would have developed a cure,
but evidently it hasn't happened.

Note that St. Mungo's is not a hospital of the type we're familiar
with. It doesn't treat cancer or heart disease or perform surgery
(stitches are an alien treatment used by Muggle doctors, who are
regarded with suspicion by both Ron and Mrs. Weasley). Instead, as
stated in the name of the hospital, it's a center for the treatment of
*magical* maladies and injuries. Possibly the healers also treat
broken bones with a dose of Skele-gro a la Madam Pomfrey, but note the
number of wizards from Tom the Innkeeper to (IIRC) Rita Skeeter who
have missing teeth. (You'd think the healers could conjure up a leg
and a bit of nose for Mad-eye Moody considering that Madam Pomfrey can
replace a nose that's blown off. Conjuring a real eye to replace a
blinded one seems to be beyond their skill; hence the magical eye in
its stead.) Snape and other skilled potion makers can create antidotes
to poisonous potions, but Muggles have antidotes, too. Their
antidotes, like their poisons, are magical; ours, like our poisons,
are science-based. There's no need for wizards to share their remedies
with Muggles since the chances of a Muggle being poisoned by a potion
are slim to none, just as the chances that a pureblood wizard would
swallow Drano are slim to none. 

We know that wizards live longer than Muggles, but that doesn't imply
that no witch or wizard dies from disease. (Mrs. Riddle died in
childbirth, which would be impossible if they had a cure for every
ailment.) Their longevity results at least in part from the fact that
they're more resilient than Muggles when it comes to falls and
accidents. They can even survive splinching (yet Sir Nick died from a
beheading, which to me seems inconsistent. Oh, well!). But what about
old age? Wizards have long lifespans, but they're not immortal. And we
*don't know* whether they can die from cancer or heart attacks (is
that what killed Ron's uncle who saw the Grim?). 

Muggles have vaccines against polio and typhoid and smallpox. Are
wizards (other than Muggleborns) similarly protected? Are they
naturally immune to Muggle diseases? If not, do they have potions to
protect against nonmagical diseases and ailments (other than broken
bones or broken noses)? As I showed in my first paragraph, it doesn't
appear so. Their focus is on magical maladies and (primarily) magical
injuries. What evidence do we have that they can treat ordinary human
maladies as opposed to magical ones, in particular cancer and other
deadly diseases? Very little if any that I can see. It seems unfair,
based on such limited evidence, to blame wizards for not sharing
remedies they may not even possess. 

And for the record, I don't think that Hagrid's answer to Harry's
question about why Wizards don't want Muggles to discover their
existence is the real answer to the question, or at least it's not a
complete answer. Hagrid is not a deep thinker (and he's speaking to a
child who just turned eleven and just discovered that he's a wizard).
If Harry at sixteen asked Dumbledore that same question, I think he'd
get a very different answer. There's a lot more to the Muggle/Wizard
separation than the unwillingness of wizards to provide magical cures
to Muggle problems. Just ask Salazar Slytherin.

Carol, who took forever to write this post and hopes she succeeded in
making it coherent