Thursday, June 29, 2006

Doctors vote against assisted dying

The British Medical Association has changed its stance on euthanasia. There was considerable controversy last year when the BMA voted to take a 'neutral' stance on the question - providing ammunition to those supporting Lord Joffe's bill to change the law on assisted dying. As Michael Cook noted on spiked in August 2005, the BMA was effectively 'bounced' into its previous position by a few lofty members with a particular interest in the issue.

This change of position should be welcomed. Doctors should be there to treat the living, and allow them to be as comfortable as possible if their condition is incurable. Caught between moves to relax rules on euthanasia, and the fallout from serial killer Dr Harold Shipman, the normal, common sense application of humane medicine has been made increasingly difficult. Doctors shouldn't be neutral on this issue, and the law shouldn't be interfering in the final hours of the terminally ill.

How a minority in the BMA got their way on euthanasia, by Michael Cook

spiked-issue: Euthanasia

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

One in the eye for five-a-day

We are constantly told that our health is in peril if we do not consume at least five portions of fruit and vegetables every day. Given that a 'portion' is 80 grams, juice can never be more than one 'portion' and potatoes don't count, that means we need to consume the best part of one pound of fruit and veg to satisfy this target (and learn some pretty arcane rules, too).

This seems to fly in the face of real human experience, which is that a wide variety of different diets are perfectly capable of being healthy. After all, humans have created societies in a range of locations with very different plants and animals in each. If we had very specific dietary needs, we wouldn't have been that successful.

An article in today's Guardian is a useful reminder of the adaptability of humans. Inspired by the story of the Campbell brothers (ages 91, 88, 85, 82 and 78) who have spurned vegetables all their lives, the article points out how the Inuit, the Masai, even the followers of Dr Atkins have all followed diets that would have made dieticians apoplectic. Of course, you may want to eat vegetables because you like them - but salad-dodging is unlikely to kill you.

Are vegetables overrated?, Guardian, 7 June 2006

One in the eye for five-a-day

We are constantly told that our health is in peril if we do not consume at least five portions of fruit and vegetables every day. Given that a 'portion' is 80 grams, juice can never be more than one 'portion' and potatoes don't count, that means we need to consume the best part of one pound of fruit and veg to satisfy this target (and learn some pretty arcane rules, too).

This seems to fly in the face of real human experience, which is that a wide variety of different diets are perfectly capable of being healthy. After all, humans have created societies in a range of locations with very different plants and animals in each. If we had very specific dietary needs, we wouldn't have been that successful.

An article in today's Guardian is a useful reminder of the adaptability of humans. Inspired by the story of the Campbell brothers (ages 91, 88, 85, 82 and 78) who have spurned vegetables all their lives, the article points out how the Inuit, the Masai, even the followers of Dr Atkins have all followed diets that would have made dieticians apoplectic. Of course, you may want to eat vegetables because you like them - but salad-dodging is unlikely to kill you.

Are vegetables overrated?, Guardian, 7 June 2006

The true meaning of 'gay'

Radio 1 presenter Chris Moyles has been cleared by the BBC of being homophobic for describing a ringtone as 'gay'. Apparently, the term 'gay' is now in common usage among young people to mean 'lame' or 'rubbish'. This has caused some controversy, especially amongst gay rights groups who don't like the idea that being called 'gay' is now to be seen so negatively. Setting aside the question of why there has to be a public inquiry every time a broadcaster says something un-PC, it is reasonable to ask: where could young people have got the idea that 'gay=rubbish'?

How about from another term, very closely associated with gay people: 'camp'. 'Camp', as Stephen Bayley argued in his scratch-their-eyes-out book on New Labour, Labour Camp, is just a synonym for rubbish. Or, as Susan Sontag observed in Notes on Camp, 'The ultimate Camp statement: it's good because it's awful...'. It's hardly a leap of imagination to re-work 'camp' as 'gay' when so many gay celebrities have wallowed in kitsch. If you, like many people both gay and straight, think Graham Norton and Will and Grace are dreadful, no-one could possibly blame you for associating 'gay' with 'crap'.

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Knives out for Reid

Five years in prison if you are caught carrying a knife says the Daily Mail today, suggesting that home secretary John Reid may be considering stiff mandatory sentences, or longer maximum sentences, for those caught with a concealed weapon. This would be in response to a hysteria about knives that seems to exist only in the media. A couple of random and unprovoked attacks bring the story into the public eye, then suddenly every knife incident is national news. This was best summed up by the way the BBC's Breakfast reported the murder of a Bristol man on his doorstep as 'the latest in a series of unrelated stabbing incidents'. If they are unrelated, how is it a series?

Introducing harsher penalties for simple possession of a knife is unlikely to have any effect on the number of stabbings that take place. Some attacks are pre-meditated and undertaken by someone who does not habitually carry a knife; many people who do feel the need to carry a knife for protection - whether that is a sensible idea or not - will not feel any safer, so they will carry on carrying; there will always be a few headcases that want to go out and cause trouble and are unlikely to be deterred by stiffer sentences; and many stabbings happen in the home - is the home secretary going to suggest banning dangerous cutlery?

However, throwing the book at anyone caught in possession will definitely mean that a significant number of people who were unlikely to hurt anyone will end being sent down for years - into prisons that are already hopelessly overcrowded. The previous resistance at the Home Office to mandatory sentences on this matter probably reflects a realisation that there are practical problems with such an idea. But with a rudderless government facing a media onslaught, the most likely response will be further crackdowns.