We are currently in an professional environment where research-driven process is not being balanced by common sense. Even with all its failings there should always be a place for the dissenting voice born through experience to keep in check the march of the technocrat born through academic research.
The Assisted Dying Bill is long overdue because we can't keep forcing people to die in pain and misery against their will, or pressuring the terminally ill into committing gruesome acts of suicide as a last resort. We must realise that the right to life includes the right for individuals to make an informed decision to die in the way that they perceive to be the most dignified.
We want to see a debate framed in terms of what is happening now, not whether the use of animals led to a scientific discovery or progress eighty or a hundred years ago. Science, technology, and concern for animals have all evolved significantly since then, and the debate must too. Why is a specific animal 'model' or study thought relevant or valid now?
Is it ethical to let a young person go to university in the full knowledge that a degree will serve then with no hope of employment? Is it ethical to supply a student with skills and information that have no relevance to the world of work? Is it ethical let a young person to exchange their money and time for a degree that is materially worthless?
Monogamy, once the structure and safehold of my rule-based life now resembles the unhappy wasteland of Auschwitz. It is a place I once lived in, starved of freedom, healthy love and emotional growth. I clung to it as an better known devil and whilst I accept monogamy as a choice of my friends, I don't find it rational or sane
Last Thursday, the House of Commons defeated the government motion to use force '"if necessary" by 285 votes to 272 in light of the government's belief that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its own people. From across the political spectrum, yesterday was heralded as a wonderful day for parliament.