Quick post in response to the Lords ruling in Debbie Purdy's application for judicial review (see news report here, and judgment here).
Whatever side of the divide one falls on regarding the issue of legalising euthanasia, the clarification of the law which will now result from the DPP publishing guidance on the criteria which will be applied in exercising the discretion of whether or not to prosecute those who help a loved one travel to Switzerland to die with the Dignitas organisation can only be a good thing.
Legal certainty is a principle of core importance in all legal systems which hope to function effectively and in anything approaching a fair manner. To leave such an important matter unclarified and wholly contingent would be a situation befitting a 3rd world legal system, rather than an advanced one such as that of the United Kingdom.
So I, for one, am glad that the Lords ruled in this manner on this point of Purdy's judicial review.
Thursday 30 July 2009
Support this campaign in order to protect scientific journalism!
Simon Singh is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association for daring the question the methodology and benefits associated with their practices in an article published in the Guardian in April 2008, and subsequently mass reposted yesterday in a mark of support (including here).
The use of libel laws to stifle such debate is clearly contrary to scientific progress. Progress which may well be to the benefit of the human race as a whole (perhaps a tad hyperbolic to associate abolishing libel laws in this context with advancing human progress, but I'm guessing you get the gist now).
It is imperative that the huge costs associated with defending such actions cannot be used to cow scientific journalists into submission by self-interested parties who may fear what scrutiny of their area may reveal.
If you agree with any of the above sentiments, I urge you to visit Sense about Science's campaign website, and support their campaign by signing their statement in support of amending libel laws in this context.
Those amongst you who support free speech; a free press; freedom of scientific endeavour; and the support of scientific progress may well wish to do so.
The use of libel laws to stifle such debate is clearly contrary to scientific progress. Progress which may well be to the benefit of the human race as a whole (perhaps a tad hyperbolic to associate abolishing libel laws in this context with advancing human progress, but I'm guessing you get the gist now).
It is imperative that the huge costs associated with defending such actions cannot be used to cow scientific journalists into submission by self-interested parties who may fear what scrutiny of their area may reveal.
If you agree with any of the above sentiments, I urge you to visit Sense about Science's campaign website, and support their campaign by signing their statement in support of amending libel laws in this context.
Those amongst you who support free speech; a free press; freedom of scientific endeavour; and the support of scientific progress may well wish to do so.
Friday 10 July 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)