Another great leap forward

[Serial_Apologist]

That is very true ...

However, the statement assumes that we have all the same concepts of good and evil. (oh, what bliss!)

One has only to browse through some of the more 'controversial' threads here to realise that this is, sadly, very far from the case.

But in this case it's a question of where does one draw the umbilical cord?

[Lateralthinking1]

Well, I'm sure Cardinal O'Brien would agree with you on this. Funny old world.

When I said "Good morning frenchfrank" at 1325, I noticed that no one commented on it. It wasn't deliberate. We all slip easily into accepted imprecision but fortunately in most such cases, it isn't a matter of life and death.

Cardinal O'Brien may agree with my opinion on this matter. I wouldn't welcome it but so be it. It might be that Savulescu and I both enjoy growing daffodils but it doesn't mean that in other areas we are not poles apart. As I walked to the shops, I realised that a housing estate being built is only a "potential estate". In that way, it is a different kind of development to that of plant and animal. What these people are doing when sipping tea from china cups is equating life with bricks and bulldozers.

Many years ago, I argued against a ban on a visit to York by John Carlisle. The issue was race. I didn't agree with what was then a popular "No Platform" agenda and I expected him to defeat his own arguments. Had he wished to argue in favour of killing black people living in Brixton, my position would have been different. There is a significant difference between stopping people causing personal offence and stopping people inviting a discussion about advocating physical harm. Even worse, actual slaughter.

It might be noted that I haven't said that the people involved in the study should be prevented from talking. I am not proposing a gag for that would, I think, be illiberal. However, much like I feel action should be taken against Abu Hamza al-Masri for publishing literature espousing murder, and elements of the BNP for promoting gatherings that do the same, so I feel action would be appropriate in this case. This is particularly so given that it is taking place at the heart of the British establishment.

[scottycelt]

Well, I'm sure Cardinal O'Brien would agree with you on this. Funny old world.

It is indeed, FF ... though why Lat wouldn't welcome the agreement seems a bit odd.

We also have the unusual spectacle in another place of Tory-despising 'tolerant liberals' lining up shoulder-to-shoulder (or should it be 'hand-in-hand?) with Dave and his horrid 'Toffs' on another thorny issue recently connected with the said Cardinal.

Whatever next ... ?

[MrGongGong]

Whatever next ... ?

You mean they allow HOMOSEXUALITY at Eaton ????

I'd never have thought it .........

[Lateralthinking1]

though why Lat wouldn't welcome the agreement seems a bit odd.

scottycelt - The way the world works is that if someone is looking to build a consensus, it is best not to choose as friends those who are extreme in other areas. I couldn't really blame Joe Public for finding some of O'Brien's views so oppositional that even if he advocated love for all kind grannies that would be opposed on a point of principle.

Incidentally, I am not laying into frenchfrank who has asked some perfectly reasonable questions. They are helpful in clarifying perspectives. But what I notice on what is a pretty liberal forum is that no one who might, say, accept the idea that the study has been published in the BMJ says where he or she would draw the line. In other words, how far can free speech be tolerated? As far as JS Mill is concerned, I always thought "yes but.......". The same with Rousseau but that's a different matter - Lat.

[scottycelt]

scottycelt - The way the world works is that if someone is looking to build a consensus, it is best not to choose as friends those who are extreme in other areas. I couldn't really blame Joe Public for finding some of O'Brien's views so oppositional that even if he advocated love for all kind grannies that would be opposed on a point of principle.

Well, Lat, quite a few Joe 'n' Jo Publics might actually agree with the cardinal and the views he expressed would have seemed quite unremarkable only a couple of decades ago. It's society that has seemingly changed it's moral stance, not the cardinal, and if he's now to be labelled 'an extremist' for being consistent in his morality, God help us all!

However, I have no intention of disturbing the intelligent nature of this thread, and I think I know exactly what you're driving at regarding the issue of free speech and what we consider to be outrageous views.

I suspect that FF was simply highlighting an ethical dilemma rather than expressing a view, though doing that alone gets to the very heart of the 'problem' over what we consider to be 'human life' ?

[french frank]

Incidentally, I am not laying into frenchfrank who has asked some perfectly reasonable questions. They are helpful in clarifying perspectives. But what I notice on what is a pretty liberal forum is that no one who might, say, accept the idea that the study has been published in the BMJ says where he or she would draw the line. In other words, how far can free speech be tolerated? As far as JS Mill is concerned, I always thought "yes but.......". The same with Rousseau but that's a different matter - Lat.

Draw what line? On the killing of babies? Or on what can legitimately be discussed?

On the first, I find the idea totally abhorrent and cannot think there is a moral justification for actively ending the life of a baby. On the second, I'm not sure that I can think of a line. But I think there are appropriate and inappropriate forums for some ideas to be constructively discussed. Not a matter of secrecy but discussions among professionals tend to be more objectively focused and proceed according to certain principles. My view is not based on any philosophical or ethical principles: it's just what I instinctively feel. I'm not equipped to discuss the matter further but that doesn't mean no one else is.

[Lateralthinking1]

Draw what line? On the killing of babies? Or on what can legitimately be discussed? On the first, I find the idea totally abhorrent and cannot think there is a moral justification for actively ending the life of a baby. On the second, I'm not sure that I can think of a line. But I think there are appropriate and inappropriate forums for some ideas to be constructively discussed. Not a matter of secrecy but discussions among professionals tend to be more objectively focused and proceed according to certain principles. My view is not based on any philosophical or ethical principles: it's just what I instinctively feel. I'm not equipped to discuss the matter further but that doesn't mean no one else is.

No I meant on discussion. I had hoped that would be indicated by my following sentence. Certainly I didn't mean any inference to the contrary. Please feel absolutely sure of that frenchfrank.

There is though a need for a line and it is a practical one. There are people in prison who encouraged rioting last year but didn't riot themselves. If we make a distinction between their internet scribbling and comments by professionals in journals, then I think we have to ensure for one thing that those professionals are not wandering beyond their remit. That remit in turn would need to be more clearly defined. To do that would not necessarily be all for the good, including for them.

Part of the reason why we give them cross-disciplinary freedom is that we require them to exercise it both professionally and responsibly. Some science may offer challenges that are far bigger than all our existing parameters but those engaged in it must have due respect for the current world. In a nutshell, a piece entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?" is unprofessionally provocative. It looks designed to upset rather than to facilitate academic debate and rational thought.

[french frank]

In a nutshell, a piece entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?" is unprofessionally provocative. It looks designed to upset rather than to facilitate academic debate and rational thought.

Well, exactly, but I don't think a professional would read the question 'Why should the baby live?' as provocative, but simply as a question to be answered. Members of the general public, I agree, would be outraged that the question was being posed at all.

Part of the reason why we give them cross-disciplinary freedom is that we require them to exercise it both professionally and responsibly.

I don't think it is for the laity, directly, to give them that freedom. But my point is that as it was in a professional journal, my concern is that if it's something that catches the attention of some ignorant journalist and is plastered over the popular media, the whole debate becomes something quite different.

[teamsaint]

I would like those professionals to find something more positive to research.

[Serial_Apologist]

No I meant on discussion. I had hoped that would be indicated by my following sentence. Certainly I didn't mean any inference to the contrary. Please feel absolutely sure of that frenchfrank.

There is though a need for a line and it is a practical one. There are people in prison who encouraged rioting last year but didn't riot themselves. If we make a distinction between their internet scribbling and comments by professionals in journals, then I think we have to ensure for one thing that those professionals are not wandering beyond their remit. That remit in turn would need to be more clearly defined. To do that would not necessarily be all for the good, including for them.

Part of the reason why we give them cross-disciplinary freedom is that we require them to exercise it both professionally and responsibly. Some science may offer challenges that are far bigger than all our existing parameters but those engaged in it must have due respect for the current world. In a nutshell, a piece entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?" is unprofessionally provocative. It looks designed to upset rather than to facilitate academic debate and rational thought.

Given the stage of medical advance, "grey areas" and "on the other hands" are going to be legion.

Just now, in discussing this with a friend, it turns out that his first child was still-born as a consequence that the presiding midwife was on a 72-hour shift and in a state of complete exhaustion. The baby could have been saved by a caesarian, but was already known to have brain damage and a deformed limb. My friend was sympathetic towards the midwife and understanding of her view that, had the baby nevertheless been born alive, its life chances would have ordained a miserable life of operation after operation to correct the leg, bullying from schoolmates, and poor prospects of adult independence. This was the way he read what she stated, btw. He agreed that the problem such a view, however understanding towards the infant, conceded to advocates of euthanasia, and in the end we both agreed that instances of this kind have to be considered case-by-case, rather than from some unattainable all-in principle. Scientists, for instance, don't yet know enough about "locked in syndrome" to make inferences about coping.

And the dilemma is of course, that, however well-meaning, such decisions rest on not knowing how my mate's child would have coped - and this is the argument consistently presented by campaigning organisations on behalf of the disabled. Assumptions of suffering have to be weighed against arguments that any truly civilised society would look after such a person, regardless of their capacity to make informed decisions regarding wishing to live or not live.

[Lateralthinking1]

Given the stage of medical advance, "grey areas" and "on the other hands" are going to be legion.

Just now, in discussing this with a friend, it turns out that his first child was still-born as a consequence that the presiding midwife was on a 72-hour shift and in a state of complete exhaustion. The baby could have been saved by a caesarian, but was already known to have brain damage and a deformed limb. My friend was sympathetic towards the midwife and understanding of her view that, had the baby nevertheless been born alive, its life chances would have ordained a miserable life of operation after operation to correct the leg, bullying from schoolmates, and poor prospects of adult independence. This was the way he read what she stated, btw. He agreed that the problem such a view, however understanding towards the infant, conceded to advocates of euthanasia, and in the end we both agreed that instances of this kind have to be considered case-by-case, rather than from some unattainable all-in principle. Scientists, for instance, don't yet know enough about "locked in syndrome" to make inferences about coping.

And the dilemma is of course, that, however well-meaning, such decisions rest on not knowing how my mate's child would have coped - and this is the argument consistently presented by campaigning organisations on behalf of the disabled. Assumptions of suffering have to be weighed against arguments that any truly civilised society would look after such a person, regardless of their capacity to make informed decisions regarding wishing to live or not live.

Thank you serial_apologist. I am sorry to hear about your friend. I think you have characteristically described his difficult situation very well and have summarised the complexities of the considerations effectively. Many are not academic. Most are case specific. The same is true at the other end of life. Personally, I wouldn't welcome a report entitled "Before-death termination: Why should the OAP live?" but deep in the recesses of Oxbridge we are probably all paying for one being written now.

[amateur51]

Well, Lat, quite a few Joe 'n' Jo Publics might actually agree with the cardinal and the views he expressed would have seemed quite unremarkable only a couple of decades ago. It's society that has seemingly changed it's moral stance, not the cardinal, and if he's now to be labelled 'an extremist' for being consistent in his morality, God help us all!

Welcoming as I do scotty's attempts to get us back on topic, I'd suggest to him that it is not just Society that has moved on - behold the views of the Bishop of Salisbury

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/02/03/bishop-of-salisbury-backs-gay-marriage/

So it's not professionally religious persons who are against gay marriage, but just certain sorts of professionally religious persons, it would seem - a different interpretation of the Good Book, praps?

God help us all, scotty? Most unlikely, I'd suggest

[french frank]

I would like those professionals to find something more positive to research.

Well, their field is medical ethics. It's an area where there are huge questions of life and death. Not thinking about them or discussing them doesn't make them disappear, and medical staff have to face them all the time. As has been said, perhaps it's best for the present for each case to be considered separately as it arises; in which case the discussions are held in private between those most closely involved. But the difference between 'passive euthanasia' and 'active euthanasia' must seem greater if you aren't the doctor making the decision.

[french frank]

Welcoming as I do scotty's attempts to get us back on topic

It isn't actually the topic of this thread, though ...