The BBC are hosting a religion and ethics conference later this week, featuring Richard Dawkins, Jonathan Sacks, and a range of seminars and talks on ethical and religious topics. Looks fascinating, and there's a good interview with the new(ish) head of Religon and Ethics here. Aquil Ahmed will be debating the 'God slot' on Wednesday, and had this to say in the interview:
He will make it clear that he wants the corporation’s religious programmes to appeal to as broad an audience as possible, including atheists.
While he will retain traditional religious programmes such as Songs of Praise, he will increasingly commission shows that deal with faith in broader contexts, such as Dead Good Job, an observational series starting this week about the work of undertakers across different religious communities and people no faith.
He said: “When we say 'rethinking the God slot’, it is to say there’s probably a lot more religion on television than people realise, it’s just not classed in the old-fashioned sense as, 'it is at this time, therefore it’s a God slot kind of programme’.
“The old fashioned concept of, 'it’s Sunday, it’s this time of day, every channel has got some kind of programme about Christianity’...those days are gone.
“People are fascinated by religion and you don’t have to know that you’re watching a specific programme about religion.”
The whole idea of a God slot is nonsense anyway, God doesn't fit into a slot, everything else slots into God. To confine spiritual content to Songs of Praise and Thought for the Day has an implicit dualism. I guess Christians have wanted to protect these 'slots' because they feared that, without them, God would disappear completely from the airwaves.
Far from it: when things have calmed down a bit there's probably a dissertation to be written on religious symbolism and content in the Olympic ceremonies, from the hymns in the Olympic opening event, to the overt pagan symbolism in the closing ceremony yesterday. The BBC conference itself suggest that, the less religious we get as a nation, the more we want to think about religion. It's a time of flux, it's not just the goalposts that are moving but all the pitch markings too. So we can expect plenty more debate about where the lines should eventually fall.
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Monday, September 10, 2012
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Should I Quit and Become a Banker?
An Oxford ethicist is arguing that graduates who want to make a difference should look at a career in banking, rather than in aid work. With Ian Hislop's programme on ethical banking in the 19th century showing this evening, Will Crouch argues that an investment bank with a policy of philanthropy could make a bigger positive impact than an aid agency.
Mr Crouch says that when looking at careers choices, young people are missing the point if they see banking as a less ethical option.
He argues that someone becoming an investment banker could create sufficient wealth to make philanthropic donations that could make a bigger difference than someone choosing to work in a "moral" career such as an aid charity.
"The direct benefit a single aid worker can produce is limited, whereas the philanthropic banker's donations might indirectly help 10 times as many people," says Mr Crouch.
Looking at typical incomes in investment banking and the cost of treating tuberculosis in the developing world, he calculates that an ethically inclined banker who donated half their income could save 10,000 lives.
At time of writing there isn't much detail about this at the 'Uheiro Centre', the ethics institute where Will Crouch is based, but there is a bit more background here. Crouch is part of Eighty Thousand Hours, an ethical career advice service. It's a great concept - deliberatly pick a high earning career so you can give most money away. Or as John Wesley put it "make all you can, save all you can, give all you can."
eightythousandhours.org from Philip Panchenko on Vimeo.
Mr Crouch says that when looking at careers choices, young people are missing the point if they see banking as a less ethical option.
He argues that someone becoming an investment banker could create sufficient wealth to make philanthropic donations that could make a bigger difference than someone choosing to work in a "moral" career such as an aid charity.
"The direct benefit a single aid worker can produce is limited, whereas the philanthropic banker's donations might indirectly help 10 times as many people," says Mr Crouch.
Looking at typical incomes in investment banking and the cost of treating tuberculosis in the developing world, he calculates that an ethically inclined banker who donated half their income could save 10,000 lives.
At time of writing there isn't much detail about this at the 'Uheiro Centre', the ethics institute where Will Crouch is based, but there is a bit more background here. Crouch is part of Eighty Thousand Hours, an ethical career advice service. It's a great concept - deliberatly pick a high earning career so you can give most money away. Or as John Wesley put it "make all you can, save all you can, give all you can."
eightythousandhours.org from Philip Panchenko on Vimeo.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Bonuses and the Bone Idle: Browns Moral Compass is pointing at you.
Despite the Sun setting over Gordon Brown's speech of a couple of days ago, I wanted to see how his moral compass was doing. Last years speech centred around 'fairness', this year riffed on a wider range of moral themes, most notably 'the many not the few' and a strong doctrine of merit: if you work hard, you should benefit, if you break the rules you should pay.
I've filletted the speech for all the values and beliefs statements in it. There's still a heck of a lot of it left after the surgery. Repeated phrases are left in intentionally, they give a flavour of the themes Brown kept coming back to.
The conclusion: Browns moral compass is alive and well, at least in his rhetoric anyway. The Presbyterian conscience may not be so overt (though he did throw in a reference to the Good Samaritan) but this was a speech based on a strong articulation of core values. The spine of the speech was an moral vision, the vertebrae were fairness, merit, hard work, hope, and the need for a ethical framework for everything from markets to politics to family and community life. Whether you think Labour puts these into practice is another matter....
(hopefully it's obvious, but the '...' means the next paragraph comes from a different section of the speech. There are a couple of sustained passages of 'values talk', but the rest is liberally scattered throughout. )
Gordon Browns Speech (Moral Compass Remix)
The change that benefits the hard working majority, not the privileged few....
...change that benefits the hard working majority and not just a privileged few...
...change that benefits the mainstream majority and not just a few....
...The opposition might think the test of a party is the quality of its marketing but I say the test for a government is the quality of its judgement...
..That's the change we choose, the change that benefits the many, not the few...
..Because what let the world down last autumn was not just bankrupt institutions but a bankrupt ideology. What failed was the Conservative idea that markets always self-correct but never self-destruct. What failed was the right wing fundamentalism that says you just leave everything to the market and says that free markets should not just be free but values free.
Bankers had lost sight of basic British values, acting responsibly and acting fairly. The values that we, the hard working majority, live by every day....
...It's the millions of people who do their best and do their bit and in return simply want their families to get on not just get by....
..It's the Britain that works best not by reckless risk-taking but by effort, by merit and by hard work. It's the Britain that works not just by self-interest but by self-discipline, self-improvement and self-reliance.
It's the Britain where we don't just care for ourselves, we also care for each other. And these are the values of fairness and responsibility that we teach our children, celebrate in our families, observe in our faiths, and honour in our communities.
Call them middle class values, call them traditional working class values, call them family values, all them all of these; these are the values of the mainstream majority; the anchor of Britain's families, the best instincts of the British people, the soul of our party and the mission of our government.
And I say this too; these are my values – the values I grew up with in an ordinary family in an ordinary town.
Like most families on middle and modest incomes we believed in making the most of our talents.
But we knew that no matter how hard we worked free education was our only pathway to being the best we could be. Because like most parents, my parents could not easily afford to put me and my brothers through fee paying schools....
...too much government can make people powerless. But too much government indifference can leave people powerless too.
Government should never try to do what it cannot do but it should never fail to do what it needs to do. And in a crisis what the British people want to know is that their government will not pass by on the other side but will be on their side...
...Markets need what they cannot generate themselves; they need what the British people alone can bring to them, I say to you today; markets need morals...
...Our new economic model for a strong economy is founded on three guiding principles.
- That in future finance must always be the servant of people and industry and not their master.
- That our future economy must be a green economy.
- And that we must realise all of Britain's talent if we are to lead and succeed....
...it cannot be right, for a girl of sixteen, to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own....
...if you ask your neighbours or your workmates how they feel right now in this fast changing world, they will probably talk about their sense of unease.The decent hard working majority feel the odds are stacked in favour of a minority, who will talk about their rights, but never accept their responsibilities....
...In a faster changing more mobile world of communities where family breakdown is more common, where children are at risk on the internet, where elderly people are too often isolated in their communities, the new society must be explicit about the boundaries between right and wrong- and about the new responsibilities we demand of people in return for the rights they have. And I stand with the people who are sick and tired of others playing by different rules or no rules at all...
... We will pass legislation that the British government is obliged to raise spending on aid to the poorest countries to 0.7% of our national income. Others may break their promises to the poorest, with Labour Britain never will...
...change that benefits not just the few who can pay but the mainstream majority....
...we need social care for our elderly which is not subject to a post code lottery, but available to all – to the hard working majority, and not just the few who can pay.
This is the change we choose; change that will benefit not just the few who can afford to pay, but the mainstream majority...
..But a fair and responsible Britain must be an accountable Britain – a nation not of powerful institutions but powerful people.
And just as I have said that the market needs morals I also say that politics needs morals too.
Never again should it be said of any Member of Parliament that they are in it for what they can get; all of us should be in Parliament for what we can give....
..I grew up in a family, a party and a country that believes no obstacle is so great that it can stop the onwards march of fairness and of justice.
......We can build a new economy which tames the old excesses.
...We love this country. And we have shown over the years that if you aim high you can lift not just yourself but your country — that there is nothing in life which is inevitable – it's about the change you choose.
And I say to you now –
- Never stop believing in the good sense of the British people.
- Never stop believing we can move forward to a fairer, more responsible, more prosperous Britain.
- Never stop believing we can make a Britain equal to its best ideals.
- Never, never stop believing. And because the task is difficult the triumph will be even greater.
- Now is not the time to give in but to reach inside ourselves for the strength of our convictions.
Because we are the Labour Party and our abiding duty is to stand. And fight. And win. And serve.
Final thought: there's very little in any of this that people couldn't agree with. The trouble is that with leaders, you have to buy into the person as well as the message.
I've filletted the speech for all the values and beliefs statements in it. There's still a heck of a lot of it left after the surgery. Repeated phrases are left in intentionally, they give a flavour of the themes Brown kept coming back to.
The conclusion: Browns moral compass is alive and well, at least in his rhetoric anyway. The Presbyterian conscience may not be so overt (though he did throw in a reference to the Good Samaritan) but this was a speech based on a strong articulation of core values. The spine of the speech was an moral vision, the vertebrae were fairness, merit, hard work, hope, and the need for a ethical framework for everything from markets to politics to family and community life. Whether you think Labour puts these into practice is another matter....
(hopefully it's obvious, but the '...' means the next paragraph comes from a different section of the speech. There are a couple of sustained passages of 'values talk', but the rest is liberally scattered throughout. )
Gordon Browns Speech (Moral Compass Remix)
The change that benefits the hard working majority, not the privileged few....
...change that benefits the hard working majority and not just a privileged few...
...change that benefits the mainstream majority and not just a few....
...The opposition might think the test of a party is the quality of its marketing but I say the test for a government is the quality of its judgement...
..That's the change we choose, the change that benefits the many, not the few...
..Because what let the world down last autumn was not just bankrupt institutions but a bankrupt ideology. What failed was the Conservative idea that markets always self-correct but never self-destruct. What failed was the right wing fundamentalism that says you just leave everything to the market and says that free markets should not just be free but values free.
Bankers had lost sight of basic British values, acting responsibly and acting fairly. The values that we, the hard working majority, live by every day....
...It's the millions of people who do their best and do their bit and in return simply want their families to get on not just get by....
..It's the Britain that works best not by reckless risk-taking but by effort, by merit and by hard work. It's the Britain that works not just by self-interest but by self-discipline, self-improvement and self-reliance.
It's the Britain where we don't just care for ourselves, we also care for each other. And these are the values of fairness and responsibility that we teach our children, celebrate in our families, observe in our faiths, and honour in our communities.
Call them middle class values, call them traditional working class values, call them family values, all them all of these; these are the values of the mainstream majority; the anchor of Britain's families, the best instincts of the British people, the soul of our party and the mission of our government.
And I say this too; these are my values – the values I grew up with in an ordinary family in an ordinary town.
Like most families on middle and modest incomes we believed in making the most of our talents.
But we knew that no matter how hard we worked free education was our only pathway to being the best we could be. Because like most parents, my parents could not easily afford to put me and my brothers through fee paying schools....
...too much government can make people powerless. But too much government indifference can leave people powerless too.
Government should never try to do what it cannot do but it should never fail to do what it needs to do. And in a crisis what the British people want to know is that their government will not pass by on the other side but will be on their side...
...Markets need what they cannot generate themselves; they need what the British people alone can bring to them, I say to you today; markets need morals...
...Our new economic model for a strong economy is founded on three guiding principles.
- That in future finance must always be the servant of people and industry and not their master.
- That our future economy must be a green economy.
- And that we must realise all of Britain's talent if we are to lead and succeed....
...it cannot be right, for a girl of sixteen, to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own....
...if you ask your neighbours or your workmates how they feel right now in this fast changing world, they will probably talk about their sense of unease.The decent hard working majority feel the odds are stacked in favour of a minority, who will talk about their rights, but never accept their responsibilities....
...In a faster changing more mobile world of communities where family breakdown is more common, where children are at risk on the internet, where elderly people are too often isolated in their communities, the new society must be explicit about the boundaries between right and wrong- and about the new responsibilities we demand of people in return for the rights they have. And I stand with the people who are sick and tired of others playing by different rules or no rules at all...
... We will pass legislation that the British government is obliged to raise spending on aid to the poorest countries to 0.7% of our national income. Others may break their promises to the poorest, with Labour Britain never will...
...change that benefits not just the few who can pay but the mainstream majority....
...we need social care for our elderly which is not subject to a post code lottery, but available to all – to the hard working majority, and not just the few who can pay.
This is the change we choose; change that will benefit not just the few who can afford to pay, but the mainstream majority...
..But a fair and responsible Britain must be an accountable Britain – a nation not of powerful institutions but powerful people.
And just as I have said that the market needs morals I also say that politics needs morals too.
Never again should it be said of any Member of Parliament that they are in it for what they can get; all of us should be in Parliament for what we can give....
..I grew up in a family, a party and a country that believes no obstacle is so great that it can stop the onwards march of fairness and of justice.
......We can build a new economy which tames the old excesses.
...We love this country. And we have shown over the years that if you aim high you can lift not just yourself but your country — that there is nothing in life which is inevitable – it's about the change you choose.
And I say to you now –
- Never stop believing in the good sense of the British people.
- Never stop believing we can move forward to a fairer, more responsible, more prosperous Britain.
- Never stop believing we can make a Britain equal to its best ideals.
- Never, never stop believing. And because the task is difficult the triumph will be even greater.
- Now is not the time to give in but to reach inside ourselves for the strength of our convictions.
Because we are the Labour Party and our abiding duty is to stand. And fight. And win. And serve.
Final thought: there's very little in any of this that people couldn't agree with. The trouble is that with leaders, you have to buy into the person as well as the message.
Monday, June 29, 2009
National Secular Society accepts key argument against Euthanasia
Ht to Nick Baines for spotting this National Secular Society comment on spiritual care in hospital:
We have to be very careful about how we tread on this issue. If we say it is ok for doctors and nurses to provide spiritual care and pray for patients it can all too quickly get out of hand and we will have staff preaching on the wards. The risk is that it makes patients feel uncomfortable. They may feel compelled to say ‘yes’ thinking their care will suffer.
So there you have it. The NSS accepts that patients may feel pressurised to do something they don't want to do. Which is one of the key arguments against assisted suicide, being debated in the Lords this week. Strangely, the NSS are campaigning in favour of it. I continue to be amazed that an organisation with such a track record in flawed reasoning and misrepresentation is taken seriously by either the media or the government.
One comment on Nick's blog mentions a patient who apologised to her doctor for being a Christian, in case the doctor was offended. Who exactly is being made to feel uncomfortable for what here?
We have to be very careful about how we tread on this issue. If we say it is ok for doctors and nurses to provide spiritual care and pray for patients it can all too quickly get out of hand and we will have staff preaching on the wards. The risk is that it makes patients feel uncomfortable. They may feel compelled to say ‘yes’ thinking their care will suffer.
So there you have it. The NSS accepts that patients may feel pressurised to do something they don't want to do. Which is one of the key arguments against assisted suicide, being debated in the Lords this week. Strangely, the NSS are campaigning in favour of it. I continue to be amazed that an organisation with such a track record in flawed reasoning and misrepresentation is taken seriously by either the media or the government.
One comment on Nick's blog mentions a patient who apologised to her doctor for being a Christian, in case the doctor was offended. Who exactly is being made to feel uncomfortable for what here?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Anyone Seen My Moral Compass?
A thought-provoking Steve Tilley post:
most leaders live with axioms - statements that they tend to bring out regularly which guide their decision making.
and Steve lists a few of his own. Bill Hybels apparently has 76, which makes me wonder how he manages to decide on anything. So here's a few of mine, off the top of my head.
Without vision, the people perish
Communication is about who you are as much as what you say
Sabbath
Don't let your ministry outgrow your character or your prayer life
The local church is the hope of the world
Mission is the agenda
The everyday is spiritual, if you look hard enough
Family is a sacred trust
Action and reflection, not either/or
Everyone is here for a reason.
Don't copy my list, blog your own......
...and Tale Spin has some excellent maxims for a happy marriage.
most leaders live with axioms - statements that they tend to bring out regularly which guide their decision making.
and Steve lists a few of his own. Bill Hybels apparently has 76, which makes me wonder how he manages to decide on anything. So here's a few of mine, off the top of my head.
Without vision, the people perish
Communication is about who you are as much as what you say
Sabbath
Don't let your ministry outgrow your character or your prayer life
The local church is the hope of the world
Mission is the agenda
The everyday is spiritual, if you look hard enough
Family is a sacred trust
Action and reflection, not either/or
Everyone is here for a reason.
Who is going to do this, and when?
How does this help the person who's not yet a Christian?
Fun
Take responsibility for your own growth: we only spoon feed babies.
It's better to win people than win an argument
Some things are too important to be left to chance.
Don't copy my list, blog your own......
...and Tale Spin has some excellent maxims for a happy marriage.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Safe as the Bank of....
The Co-operative Bank has been significant by it's absence from the headlines in the last few weeks. Why? Probably because it has an ethical banking policy, which curbs the lending of money to people who can't pay it back (like a couple I heard of last week, both on benefits, who were sold a mortgage which they then couldn't pay). It sounds like the Co-op is doing ok.
Given the pickle that other banks have got themselves into, and the levels of shock that Lehmanns etc. caused when they 'suddenly' went bankrupt, either some people have been incredibly incompetent, a lot of facts have been hidden from the public, investors, and staff, or people have wilfully ignored those facts in pursuit of just a bit more profit (this is also known as greed).
Where moral bankruptcy leads, actual bankruptcy follows.
Update: interesting, if slightly technical, article from the FT (HT Politics Home):
How could banks have persuaded themselves, their shareholders and the public that they were making so much money when in reality they were losing it? The history of financial deception and self-deception is as old as humanity,
Given the pickle that other banks have got themselves into, and the levels of shock that Lehmanns etc. caused when they 'suddenly' went bankrupt, either some people have been incredibly incompetent, a lot of facts have been hidden from the public, investors, and staff, or people have wilfully ignored those facts in pursuit of just a bit more profit (this is also known as greed).
Where moral bankruptcy leads, actual bankruptcy follows.
Update: interesting, if slightly technical, article from the FT (HT Politics Home):
How could banks have persuaded themselves, their shareholders and the public that they were making so much money when in reality they were losing it? The history of financial deception and self-deception is as old as humanity,
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Unbelievable
I can see why people might vote to create subhuman embryos to research serious diseases, even though there are no fruits to this research yet, and plenty of other therapies (e.g. adult stem cells) are proving really fruitful. However if in 10 years the cures for Alzheimers and MND that have been dangled like carrots over MP's don't materialise, I hope the government of the time has the nous to revisit the legislation. (Kevin Davis, for example, supports the idea of a 'sunset clause' which writes this into the legislation itself.)
I can understand a parent doing everything to save their own child, though to know for the whole of your life that you were only conceived for the sake of your brother, not just because you were wanted for your own sake - I'm not quite sure what that does to you. Ok it was true in a way for Jesus, but he was already around before he was born.
I fail to understand why the abortion limit has to stay at 24 weeks, when babies born before this date are surviving. Why should the law lag behind science in this case, whilst in the rest of the embryology bill it's doing the opposite. Most other European countries have limits roughly 10 weeks below this.
And the cobblers about the 'right' of parents to have a child without a father , well words fail me. The law is supposed to protect the vulnerable, not sponsor social experiments which are already failing. But we've already fed our kids into the mincer in so many other ways. Hey, Labour, leave those kids alone....
Update: this mornings' news headline on 5 live was the Chelsea and Man U fans arriving in Moscow. Never mind the ethics, feel the football.
I can understand a parent doing everything to save their own child, though to know for the whole of your life that you were only conceived for the sake of your brother, not just because you were wanted for your own sake - I'm not quite sure what that does to you. Ok it was true in a way for Jesus, but he was already around before he was born.
I fail to understand why the abortion limit has to stay at 24 weeks, when babies born before this date are surviving. Why should the law lag behind science in this case, whilst in the rest of the embryology bill it's doing the opposite. Most other European countries have limits roughly 10 weeks below this.
And the cobblers about the 'right' of parents to have a child without a father , well words fail me. The law is supposed to protect the vulnerable, not sponsor social experiments which are already failing. But we've already fed our kids into the mincer in so many other ways. Hey, Labour, leave those kids alone....
Update: this mornings' news headline on 5 live was the Chelsea and Man U fans arriving in Moscow. Never mind the ethics, feel the football.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Abortion and the Embryology Bill
Most of what I want to say is said perfectly well by Cranmer, who also posts this from the Spectator:
Every so often a letter arrives in a columnist's mailbag that throws a hand grenade right into the middle of a long-held view. That happened to me last week following my article in which I urged caution before lowering the time limit on abortion from 24 to 20 weeks.
The letter came from a Registered General Nurse who works on a gynaecological ward that regularly deals with late terminations. She apologised for the "unpleasant and upsetting aspects" of her letter but felt her points needed to be said. I agree, and felt it also warranted a wider audience.Apparently, at 20 weeks, tablets can be given to kill the foetus prior to expulsion. But at 24 weeks it is sufficiently strong to survive the treatment and many are born with signs of life. "It is all too easy for people to picture a clump of cells or mush. People don't want to picture perfectly-formed miniature babies and I don't blame them, I was once the same," says Kay. "But having cut the umbilical cord on one who survived, then had to watch him gasp for breath for ten minutes on the side of a sink before he died, that sight will haunt me for ever."
The reason given for that particular termination was that the mother's current boyfriend had a toddler son who might get jealous of a new baby. It took them 21 weeks to come to that conclusion. Kay adds: "I know of two nurses who went off work with stress as a result of their experience with late terminations. I suffered horrendous nightmares and guilt for months. The guilt comes from the fact that you as a nurse cut the umbilical cord and, as dramatic as it sounds, we felt like murderers."
Kay doesn't believe in hounding or criminalising women who have to make this extremely tough decision owing to severe disability. Her misgivings are reserved solely for those who use termination as a form of contraception. Women who, up until last week, I hoped were few and far between. But, according to Kay, these terminations far outstrip those carried out because of fetal abnormality or genuine emotional distress. She says: "There are girls who come back five or six times demanding terminations and they get them. How can someone coming for their fifth termination be allowed to keep saying it is due to emotional distress? I should imagine in ten years' time the emotional distress of being allowed to have five terminations is going to take its toll. What is going on?"
On the Bill, there are 4 short videos exploring the 4 main ethical issues, posted online by CCFON, with Evan Harris putting 1 side of the debate and Dr. Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship responding.
Animal-human hybrids (3m59s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=81&avap=1
Abortion 24 week limit (3m44s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=82&avap=1
Saviour Siblings (2m05s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=83&avap=1
Role of the Father in IVF (1m50s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=84&avap=1
Every so often a letter arrives in a columnist's mailbag that throws a hand grenade right into the middle of a long-held view. That happened to me last week following my article in which I urged caution before lowering the time limit on abortion from 24 to 20 weeks.
The letter came from a Registered General Nurse who works on a gynaecological ward that regularly deals with late terminations. She apologised for the "unpleasant and upsetting aspects" of her letter but felt her points needed to be said. I agree, and felt it also warranted a wider audience.Apparently, at 20 weeks, tablets can be given to kill the foetus prior to expulsion. But at 24 weeks it is sufficiently strong to survive the treatment and many are born with signs of life. "It is all too easy for people to picture a clump of cells or mush. People don't want to picture perfectly-formed miniature babies and I don't blame them, I was once the same," says Kay. "But having cut the umbilical cord on one who survived, then had to watch him gasp for breath for ten minutes on the side of a sink before he died, that sight will haunt me for ever."
The reason given for that particular termination was that the mother's current boyfriend had a toddler son who might get jealous of a new baby. It took them 21 weeks to come to that conclusion. Kay adds: "I know of two nurses who went off work with stress as a result of their experience with late terminations. I suffered horrendous nightmares and guilt for months. The guilt comes from the fact that you as a nurse cut the umbilical cord and, as dramatic as it sounds, we felt like murderers."
Kay doesn't believe in hounding or criminalising women who have to make this extremely tough decision owing to severe disability. Her misgivings are reserved solely for those who use termination as a form of contraception. Women who, up until last week, I hoped were few and far between. But, according to Kay, these terminations far outstrip those carried out because of fetal abnormality or genuine emotional distress. She says: "There are girls who come back five or six times demanding terminations and they get them. How can someone coming for their fifth termination be allowed to keep saying it is due to emotional distress? I should imagine in ten years' time the emotional distress of being allowed to have five terminations is going to take its toll. What is going on?"
On the Bill, there are 4 short videos exploring the 4 main ethical issues, posted online by CCFON, with Evan Harris putting 1 side of the debate and Dr. Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship responding.
Animal-human hybrids (3m59s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=81&avap=1
Abortion 24 week limit (3m44s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=82&avap=1
Saviour Siblings (2m05s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=83&avap=1
Role of the Father in IVF (1m50s) - http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=84&avap=1
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Embryology Bill
Really helpful guide in Times Online to the 4 big debates happening in parliament next week over abortion, hybrid embryos, the need of children for a father, and 'saviour siblings'. Dealing with one of these alone would be hard, debating and deciding on all 4 within a couple of days seems a lot to ask from MPs.
Various resources on the ccfon website for reflection on these issues. Something to ask people to pray for tomorrow. Whilst we've already crossed the Rubicon on abortion, the other 3 issues all cross significant ethical lines, and redefine what we mean by humanity, and the nature of key relationships within human community.
The embryo hybrid debate has been the biggest one, which shows how hard it is to deal with all these issues at the same time. There hasn't really been a public debate on whether children need fathers, or conceiving a sibling with the main purpose of saving the life of a living child. It's not hard to see a bit of 'divide and rule' going on here - opponents of one area will tend to be opponents of all 4, but if we split our energies 4 ways, we may lose on all 4. Campaigners have been forced to focus on 1 of the 4 issues, which weakens opposition to the other 3.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Embryo Research
Gordon Brown has now announced a partial free vote on the Chimera, sorry, animal-human hybrid legislation. I'm no expert in this field, but here are a couple of links:
Peter Saunders blog at the Christian Medical Fellowship. Here's an extract from his post on embryonic research:
It is now nine years since the publication of the 1999 Donaldson Report, on which the government based its current policy on stem cells. Embryonic stem cells were apparently going to provide miracle cures for people with degenerative diseases like Parkinsons, Diabetes and Alzheimers. Immunologically compatible stem cells were going to be produced by therapeutic cloning, the same technology that produced Dolly the sheep.
Nine years is a long time in science. What has happened since? Human embryonic stem cells are yet to provide a single therapy for any human disease. Scientists are yet to produce a single stem cell line from a cloned human embryo.
Wikepedia has a section on 'stem cell controversy', which seems to have some good background.
Here's what The White House is prepared to fund. No discussion of hybrids, they draw the line at cloning and creating embryos specifically for research purposes.
There is a CofE policy paper here from a couple of years ago. 20 pages, so give yourself time to read it.
Helpful Q&A section at the Guardian, which outlines the main areas of research that the legislation is aimed at.
And Bishop Alan asks 5 critical questions.
Lots of other good links on this at Thinking Anglicans
Peter Saunders blog at the Christian Medical Fellowship. Here's an extract from his post on embryonic research:
It is now nine years since the publication of the 1999 Donaldson Report, on which the government based its current policy on stem cells. Embryonic stem cells were apparently going to provide miracle cures for people with degenerative diseases like Parkinsons, Diabetes and Alzheimers. Immunologically compatible stem cells were going to be produced by therapeutic cloning, the same technology that produced Dolly the sheep.
Nine years is a long time in science. What has happened since? Human embryonic stem cells are yet to provide a single therapy for any human disease. Scientists are yet to produce a single stem cell line from a cloned human embryo.
Wikepedia has a section on 'stem cell controversy', which seems to have some good background.
Here's what The White House is prepared to fund. No discussion of hybrids, they draw the line at cloning and creating embryos specifically for research purposes.
There is a CofE policy paper here from a couple of years ago. 20 pages, so give yourself time to read it.
Helpful Q&A section at the Guardian, which outlines the main areas of research that the legislation is aimed at.
And Bishop Alan asks 5 critical questions.
Lots of other good links on this at Thinking Anglicans
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Integrity, part 2
No, you haven't missed part 1, it should be appearing on The Wardman Wire on Saturday. But having decided to write something on integrity, and the match between actions and words, I found myself in the following situation:
School Christmas party, asked to play Father Christmas. Finding myself in a 'grotto' (a well decorated cupboard), giving away selection boxes of choccies to kids from the local school. Part way through I looked at what I was giving away and discovered to my discomfort that they were made by Nestle, who for 30 years have been the subject of a boycott due to their unethical marketing of baby milk in the developing world.
So, two moral dilemmas in 1 cupboard. Not only was I decieving kids as to my true identity, I was giving them stuff made by a company partly responsible for the deaths of children in other parts of the world. Should I have bailed out?
School Christmas party, asked to play Father Christmas. Finding myself in a 'grotto' (a well decorated cupboard), giving away selection boxes of choccies to kids from the local school. Part way through I looked at what I was giving away and discovered to my discomfort that they were made by Nestle, who for 30 years have been the subject of a boycott due to their unethical marketing of baby milk in the developing world.
So, two moral dilemmas in 1 cupboard. Not only was I decieving kids as to my true identity, I was giving them stuff made by a company partly responsible for the deaths of children in other parts of the world. Should I have bailed out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)