Medical ethics

Ethics is a peculiar arena.

I've been reading - with interest, this week - the proposals for sanctioning the experimental use of hybrid human-animal embryos and the reduction on pregnancy termination time-limits.

I often find - with such emotive and controversial subject matter - that the objections are difficult to comprehend. I, fairly obviously, have a legal bias towards many topical issues raised in the contemporary media and will often adopt the correct legal stance (out of habit) before considering any moral implications.

My problem (with the hybrid embryo proposals in particular) is that so many of the objections vociferated on the Radio or in the national press are arguments on "ethical" grounds.

"Ethical" - eth·i·cal - [eth-i-kuhl] –adjective

1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, esp. the standards of a profession.

What is ethical? There is demonstrably no consensus on 'ethical' issues or debates would not be so divisive. It seems, to me, that very often ethical correctness is borne out of indoctrinated religious ideals. I'd be interested to see what percentage of those against the experimental utilisation of hybrid embryos are religious against those who vote in it's favour.

I'm not criticising religion per se. I am more concerned that, as we strive to diversify our population with a multitude of cultural and religious denominations, we are allowing politics and laws to be determined by an increasingly varied representation of religious beliefs. I'm not religiophobic. And I understand and respect the need to embrace everyone's beliefs. But not to the detriment of the majority who do not uphold such ideals.

Democracy will out in Parliament. But I reserve uncertainty over the interference of religion in law.

What the bible says about being gay

On my daily trawl of the BBC news website this morning I stumbled across this piece.

I'm not especially familiar with the bible and nor do I wish to be. I was force-fed enough of it's pious brain-washing nonsense as a boy and knew even then that it held no calling for me.

After reading the BBC article though, I sort of debated the issues - albeit briefly - in my mind about what exactly the scriptures alluded to regarding homosexuality.. then I was quickly brought to my senses and satisfied by a brief comment annexed to the bottom of the page:

"All academic really; we will outgrow religion as we've outgrown our belief in goblins and dragons. One day we will just accept our mortality, and get on with the business of living." Nathan, UK

Succinct and unequivocally pertinant.

Religion could be such a marvellous way of providing a sense of community and belonging for like-minded, well-intentioned, moral, upstanding members of society. How different reality is.

It's not even necessary for one to view the complex conflicts religion creates and fuels on the largest scale. Right down at base level - a small parish church in a leafy English village - will demonstrate it's inaccessability. How many church-goers would embrace the arrival of, say, a new "hoodie" attendant among their congregation?

It's dangerous, religiose poppycock masqueraded as a superior lifestyle choice conveying those ignorant enough to follow it into eternal life and happiness.

I'll accept that my remnants will be re-exploded into space in 8 billion years time as bits of iron, carbon etc. In the meantime I'll make the personal decision not to be wicked to anyone and also not to judge the personal decisions of those around me...