Three parent babies legal in UK

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, and usually by bodies qualified to do so.

[b]It is right that this was subjected to democratic scrutiny,
Why? The vast majority of medical procedures are not subjected to democratic scrutiny. Medicine in general isn't a democratically created policy framework, nor a political or economic issue. Deciding who should pay for medicine, yes, I ca ...[text shortened]... o.
Should the conservative party try campaigning based on their support for kidney transplants?[/b]

The "vast majority of medical procedures" don't result in the creation of another life.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Wow, that's incredibly short-sighted.

yeh, i am trying to broaden minds and i am shortsighted.


i am sure however that you already have an example that is immoral even though it doesn't hurt anyone. won't you please share with the class?

Originally posted by OdBod
Problem is , that in the end it always comes down to economics, and how public money is spent always comes down to politics. I think I am right in assuming that a Government body ( I forget the name) decides on what medicines and procedures are to used on a cost/benefit bases.

The NHS is a state run institution, and funded by the state.

However I suspect that these decisions are generally made by what is known as
an NGO, or Non-Governmental Body, specifically to remove politics from these
kinds of decisions.

However I would have to check on that to be sure.

There is of course government oversight as with everything else.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The "vast majority of medical procedures" don't result in the creation of another life.

How does that make it different from an ethical perspective?

Originally posted by Suzianne
The "vast majority of medical procedures" don't result in the creation of another life.

I'm still trying to get my head around the notion that medical procedures shouldn't be subjected to democratic scrutiny. I don't think that it makes any difference that a new life is being created. In the normal run of things in this country medical governance is delegated to the General Medical Council, which is basically a quango [1]. But parliament is sovereign and if they want to interfere they can and should interfere. If the interference is wrong then MPs will lose their seats come election time (people do notice this type of thing) and if it is right then we are all glad they did it.

This is not the same as arguing that every new treatment should be approved by parliament, new drugs are approved by the regulator and parliament normally only intervenes if something has gone wrong. This does not mean it is not scrutinized.

Like everything else in a modern society medicine is and should be subject to democratic scrutiny, there is no reason for it to have an exemption. There are checks on what the medical profession can do from both inside and outside the profession. When the procedure is particularly controversial then it is perfectly reasonable for the politicians to get involved. Basically the procedure would have been illegal without a legislative change was required and so political intervention was necessary.

[1] Quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization, in case you don't have them in the U.S.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Basically the procedure would have been illegal without a legislative change was required and so political intervention was necessary.

Are all medical procedures illegal until specifically made legal?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are all medical procedures illegal until specifically made legal?

This one was, otherwise they would not have had the vote. In English law if it is not specifically legislated against then you can do it. In this case legislation was probably enacted at some point in the past when people realised that we were on the brink of being able to do such things to act as a check on the medical profession. I don't see any doctors complaining about it.

Law concerning medicine is tricky, I'm not even going to pretend that I understand it but basically all surgery is illegal unless certain criteria are met. The person carrying it out has to be properly qualified and informed consent must be given - unless the patient is unable to give such consent and they are expected to die without the operation (for example after a car crash). If the criteria are not met it constitutes assault, wounding, or even murder or manslaughter if the op goes badly, which is why there are consent forms.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yeh, i am trying to broaden minds and i am shortsighted.


i am sure however that you already have an example that is immoral even though it doesn't hurt anyone. won't you please share with the class?

Even though no one is "getting hurt" now, doesn't mean things may not proceed to the point where someone may get hurt as a result of things done now that pave the way for things which DO hurt people to be done in the future. That's all I was saying.

When the National Socialist Party came to power in Germany, there were no plans for mass genocide. But Adolf Hitler was able to see his vision of a "Third Reich" unfold, along with his concept of a "master race" and a "Final Solution", because the groundwork had already been laid.

Will corporations and governments eventually move to retain certain rights that now go to the individual in these cases of humans created through these processes they claim a patent on?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Even though no one is "getting hurt" now, doesn't mean things may not proceed to the point where someone may get hurt as a result of things done now that pave the way for things which DO hurt people to be done in the future. That's all I was saying.

When the National Socialist Party came to power in Germany, there were no plans for mass genocide. But A ...[text shortened]... the individual in these cases of humans created through these processes they claim a patent on?

Slippery slope fallacy.

To claim a slippery slope you have to demonstrate that one actually exists,
as opposed to might exist.

There are many barriers between this and what you are citing as a possible
downside from occurring.

There is thus no slippery slope and the argument is invalid.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Even though no one is "getting hurt" now, doesn't mean things may not proceed to the point where someone may get hurt as a result of things done now that pave the way for things which DO hurt people to be done in the future. That's all I was saying.

When the National Socialist Party came to power in Germany, there were no plans for mass genocide. But A ...[text shortened]... the individual in these cases of humans created through these processes they claim a patent on?

Don't you think this is what has happened with religion?

Originally posted by OdBod
Don't you think this is what has happened with religion?

Evil men are evil. That evil men contrive to take advantage should come as a surprise to no one. Religions should always be on guard against evil men, especially those who are granted power. Evil is not the fault of religion, but of men who are evil.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Slippery slope fallacy.

To claim a slippery slope you have to demonstrate that one actually exists,
as opposed to might exist.

There are many barriers between this and what you are citing as a possible
downside from occurring.

There is thus no slippery slope and the argument is invalid.

Mere excuses to blind oneself and others to a potential problem. Obviously, someone somewhere thought of these potential problems, otherwise these "many barriers" (whatever they are) would not exist. If they exist.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Evil men are evil. That evil men contrive to take advantage should come as a surprise to no one. Religions should always be on guard against evil men, especially those who are granted power. Evil is not the fault of religion, but of men who are evil.

But an evil man who is ensconced in the upper realms of some religion is thought to be just and kind and so forth and the religion keeps that evil person in power.

Just like politics. Most CEO's have sociopathic tendencies as do politicians.