Biphasic should replace Monophasic Defibrillators

==== Inconclusive study It's true that the study I linked was not quite statistically significant on the issue of showing that triphasics are more effective than biphasics. Here is a study with statistically significant findings on the issue, from 2002: http://content.onlinejacc.org... The defibrillation success rates in this study are unilaterally in favor of triphasics, as shown in these four graphs from the study: http://content.onlinejacc.org... http://content.onlinejacc.org... http://content.onlinejacc.org... http://content.onlinejacc.org... By requiring less energy/amps/ to be put through a subject's body for effective defibrillation, triphasics are not only more effective, they can also cause less damage to a subject. My opponent's initial case is built off the supposition that increased effectiveness is enough warrant to increase production of the superior defibrillator, even though biphasics likely cost slightly more than monophasics. If we follow this logic, we come to the conclusion that triphasics should be produced instead. If we don't accept this reasoning, then we should continue using monophasics due to their cheaper manufacturing costs. In either case, biphasics should not replace monophasics. ==== "Existing technology" My opponent says that since triphasics are available within hospitals, they should not be considered as a choice. Let us follow that vein of logic for a minute. My opponent claims that we should only consider "existing technology that is available and present within hospitals." This means that any device that is currently not in a hospital is not on the table as a choice, according to my opponent. Note that all biphasics that are currently in hospitals are mosyt likely in use. Monophasics that are in hospitals are also in use. There is likely too much defibrillation for the biphasics to handle alone, otherwise hospitals would not ever have a reason to use a monophasic. Thus, it is impossible, if we're only considering technology that is existing and present in hospitals, to 'replace' monophasics with biphasics. It would be like a couple of working adults 'replacing' their first car with the second car - first, we wouldn't call that replacing; second, it would be impractical, since they need both cars. ==== "Difficulty Converting Biphasics to Triphasics" My opponent claims that there is some problem in converting biphasics to triphasics, even though I provided a reliable source for my claim that the conversion was possible and simple. His argument against this reliable source is a mere claim that I am wrong. That doesn't wash. A claim with a good source will always trump a mere claim to the contrary. If my opponent wishes to argue that it is difficult to convert biphasics to triphasics, then he will have to back that claim up with more than just his own words and his conjecture about how he thinks it's not possible. I have a scholarly journal article claiming that conversion from biphasics to triphasics would usually require only small software changes, my opponent has only himself claiming the contrary. ==== "Converting to triphasics not legal" My opponent points out that since triphasics have not been approved by the FDA, it is illegal to convert biphasics to triphasics, or to adopt triphasics at all. I will point out that we are talking about what 'should' happen. Due to triphasics being superior, the FDA should approve them, and should approve the conversion of existing biphasics into triphasics. It shouldn't just approve them as a general rule, but sould approve the specifications the hospitals would be switching to. ==== Lastly, I will address this issue of existing technology once more. My opponent points out that biphasics are used almost exclusively in many places. We're not talking about those places, though. He also points out that monophasics still are widely used. Consider this: 1. Replacing these many monophasics with biphasics would require the production of many new biphasics. 2. There is little to no difference in hardware between biphasics and triphasics, so producing triphasics would be about as easy as producing biphasics. This comes not only from the fact that most biphasics can be converted to triphasics with software changes, but also from the basic design of a biphasic and triphasic defibrillator. The triphasic does not require any additional hardware - biphasics already have the hardware necessary to deliver shocks and switch phases. 3. Triphasics are more effective than biphasics. 4. Therefore, triphasics should be produced instead of biphasics to replace the monophasics that are still in use. My opponent claims that quadriphasics are even better. He doesn't support this with evidence, but assuming it is true, perhaps it would be best to replace monophasics with quadriphasics rather than triphasics. Whether this is true or not, one thing is clear. If we are to replace monophasics with another type of defibrillator, it shouldn't be biphasics. I will now allow my opponent to respond.