Robert Mugabe, mass murderer and failed statesman loses honorary doctorate

The University of Edinburgh will move today to strip Dr (hc) Robert Mugabe's honorary doctorate. He received it from the venerable institution in 1984 for his services toward education in Africa. Well, he also happened to have been master minding the Matabeleland massacres on his home turf at about the same time. Here's a recent report from a Catholic Church organisation in Zimbabwe about the issue. It took Edinburgh University only 20 or so odd years to discover this small matter. The university now is about to decide to strip Dr (hc) Robert Mugabe of his honorary title. Bit late, but good on them.

Rethinking mandatory HIV testing

Bioethics expert calls for mandatory HIV testing


A Queen’s philosophy professor and expert in bioethics is calling for a public policy shift towards mandatory HIV testing of pregnant women in areas where the disease is rampant.

In a paper published on-line from the July issue of the American Journal of Public Health, Dr. Udo Schuklenk, a world leader in the study of health-care ethics related to policy, argues that a mandatory approach to testing and treatment could significantly reduce perinatal transmission of HIV – which results in babies with an average life expectancy of only two years. He also promotes the view that mandatory testing is morally necessary if a number of conditions can be met.

“The scale of the problem demonstrates individual tragedies on an overwhelming scale and a threat to the public health of the communities in question,” says Dr. Schuklenk, Ontario Research Chair in Bioethics. In 2004, this mode of transmission resulted in up to 2.8 million HIV-infected children worldwide.

Co-author of the paper is Anita Kleinsmidt, a human rights law expert from Witwatersrand University in South Africa. Dr. Schuklenk was a professor with Glasgow Caledonian University when the paper was written.

About 35 per cent of newborns born to HIV-infected women contract the virus from their mothers if efforts to prevent mother-to-child transmission are not in place. While research has focused on obstetric care of pregnant women in high-prevalence areas, “treatment is contingent upon the pregnant woman seeking antenatal care, being screened for HIV, and agreeing to medical intervention,” says Dr. Schuklenk. “The continuing high number of children born with HIV attests to failures at various stages of this process.”

The authors suggest several conditions that must be met before the introduction of any mandatory testing and treatment programs:

· The woman has voluntarily chosen to carry the fetus to term
· She would have had a reasonable alternative to this course of action (e.g. abortion
at least until the point of fetal viability)
· Continuing voluntary treatment with HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy)
would be available to her
· Ideally, the confidentiality of the woman’s HIV status is maintained, during as well as after her pregnancy.

Dr. Schuklenk proposes pilot studies introducing mandatory testing and treatment programs at a number of sites in Botswana and South Africa, where the HIV antenatal prevalence rate is 30 per cent. “This would allow us to establish how such programs can best be implemented, and to investigate stigmatization as it affects women giving birth within these programs,” he notes.

While not a panacea for the “continuing pandemic” of perinatally-transmitted HIV, mandatory testing and treatment regimes should be considered, whenever feasible, by governments and other health-care providers, says Dr. Schuklenk.

Right of Reply: Dr Girish Kotwal

I reported on July 03, 2006 on this blog a paper published in the prestigious journal nature medicine. It pertained to activities Dr Girish Kotwal, at the time at the University of Cape Town, was engaged in. Dr Kotwal has since contacted me and requested that I either withdraw the blog entry or offer him the opportunity of a reply. I am unable to investigate the matter further currently one way or another. I have chosen therefore to publish here Dr Kotwal's response. As the old saying goes, 'let the buyer beware'. Your call.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Prof. Schuklenk
Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to your highly misleading blog which has been around for close to a year unnoticed by me, about my role in testing natural products and Secomet in particular. I would like to protest the highly unethical practice of journalists and in this particular case by an editor, Dr. Juan Carlos of a high impact journal viz. Nature Medicine, a number of newspapers and a website called AIDStruth of presenting a one sided story weaved without first checking the facts with the person whose human rights violation the false allegations happen to be. Nature Medicine first published an article that was poorly researched by a free lance journalist, Ms Natasha Bolognesi, with no basic background in Virology and no prior article in any prestigious journal but a mean manner of playing and placing words, to distort the impressions and conclusions, exagerating linkages and trying to malign the hard earned reputation of a person who had no intention to deceive, profit or make false claims for personal gains but to do something about the most politicised and prevailing evil of a devastating disease known to humankind. Someone at Nature Medicine must have received some favours in this regard to allow a complete novice to come up with this misinfomation and lies, while several top scientists with years of research experience do not even get an opportunity to have their articles peer-reviewed . My repeated attempts to ask Nature Medicine to rectify the falsehoods in the article have not been appropriately addressed. Instead of publishing my letters to the editor, the editor would just hand them over to Ms Bolognesi material for new articles that concealed the fact that there was misinformation and downright lies in the original article. This I thought was another unethical behaviour, to me it was like taking the original ideas of one person and handing it over to another to publish them. The other newspapers just had a party and did not check the scientific facts and apart from one newspaper, which after presented a whole lot of thrashy lies allowed me to respond, only to cut short my response and twist it again. So here are the facts as I know them.

I had at the beginning of 2001, etablished a capability in my laboratory to test in vitro (in cell culture) several natural products for antiviral activity including lectins, mucins, herbal medicines, pomegrante juice, plant acids etc. Secomet was one on them. I did convene the First International Conference on Natural Products to encourage my colleagues to evaluate using evidence based science the potential of therapeutic activity. The speech of the democratically elected Hon Health minister of South Africa was read at the end of the meeting and she did not promote any alternatives to HIV in the speech and she did not thrash ARVs. I therefore resent the impression that your blog gives a reader with a cartoon of the minister that it was the meeting where garlic and beet root was promoted. It was not. The speech is on the web site and it empahsizes the value of researching and exploring traditional and natural medicine and of regaining cultural asset of South Africa.

The human treatment was carried out by Secomet Pvt. ltd. under the supervision of qualified and reputed physicians Drs. Brink, Arbuckle and Hellstorm. I did not administer the treatment to any of the many patients who have received the treatment and continue to receive it. I have not seen a single patient who received the treatment. I did not recruit the patients and I did not recommend the treatment to anyone. I have never endorsed the product but have advocated that proper clinical trials are needed in order to fully explore the potential from laboratory work and I had strived to develop a safer product than the original that was first given to me. .

I did not work for Secomet under my personal capacity and was not a holder of equity, shares and received no personal gains. The University of Cape Town did have a royalty agreement but I was not a personal beneficiary.The University conducted an extensive investigation and none of the final investigations found me guilty of any ethical misconduct. There were some procedures used by Secomet which I believed in good faith were appropriate but the University committees felt that some of the procedures could have been done differently. The law unforcement authority of the Medicine Control Council of South Africa extensively investigated Secomet Pvt ltd and made recommendations to amend claims made on labels but there was no punitive action. I have been informed that all the 3,000 compliant patients are surving and leading almost normal lives. Overall, Nature Medicine article made a mountain out of a molehill. No laws were broken and deliberate attempts to subvert an ethical issues. There was definately no malicious intent. On the other hand Professor Greg Hussey, Director IIDMM either lied or made a false statement or the statement was falsely included by Ms Bolognesi of Nature Medicine about my working with Secomet in my personal capacity when there was an overwhelming record contrary to that and the University had an agreement and a memorandum of understanding for evaluating and developing their antiviral products. There was also a statement from a Professor at the Stellenbosch University which was placed out of context and with the false presumption that I had something to do with the human patients.

I did not rely on my data alone to make any conclusions and instead there was a worldwide collaborative network that provided confirmation and further investigation.

I believe then and I do now that HIV in South Africa is not going to be eradicated by a one track extremist policy of providing antiretroviral supervised and unsupervised treatment to all the patients. Instead, I believe that one needs a multipronged approach. Kindly take the time to read a scientific paper authored by a person with 27 years of experience working on several different viruses by one of the most prestigious medical journal viz. The Journal of the Royal Soc. of Medicine, which calls for a multipronged approach, which includes evidence based natural medicine as one of the potential prongs. The free web link is as follows.
http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/97/1/1

So before anyone indulges in an unethical practice of jumping to conclusions and defaming the hard earned reputation of people based on tabloid style thrashy journalism, please do your research carefully and do not rely on journalists with no background in public health or medical sciences but working as a mouth piece of some organisation with a set biased agenda. Thank you for at least having your email available. There is a website called aidstruth which should be in reality AIDS mistruth does not even give an opportunity to respond. Good luck with your work, I will forgive you for this blunder but keep ethics in center stage, it cuts both ways and finally, I would like to make a statement that ethics is in the eyes of the beholder and if the beholder decides to exploit an ethical issue whether real or not it tarnish another person or bring down another person for personal gains that in my eyes is the most unethical misconduct and that should also be exposed and not tolerated.

Sincerely, Girish J. Kotwal, Ph.D..

Kidney Transplant TV Show Is a Hoax

Nice story came via Associated Press last night. It's to do with a Dutch TV show (designed by the infamous Endemol production company (creator of Big Brother among other programmes). The idea was that several contestants in need of a donor organ would compete (on air) for the kidney of a dying woman. The winner would receive the kidney and thereby be spared infinite dialysis (and likely premature death). There has been a huge outcry over this internationally. - It turns out, the story (and show) was a hoax. Here's the AP item:

Saturday June 2, 2007 12:46 AM


By TOBY STERLING
Associated Press Writer

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - A television show in which a woman would
donate a kidney to a contestants was revealed as a hoax Friday, with
presenters saying they were trying to pressure the government into reforming
organ donation laws.

Shortly before the controversial program was to air, Patrick Lodiers of the
``Big Donor Show'' said the woman was not actually dying of a brain tumor
and the entire exercise was intended to put pressure on the government and
raise awareness of the need for organs.

The three prospective recipients were real patients in need of transplants
and had been in on the hoax, the show said.

The program concept had received widespread criticism for being tasteless
and unethical.

But Lodiers said that it was ``reality that was shocking'' because around
200 people die annually in the Netherlands while waiting for a kidney, and
the average waiting time is more than four years. Under Dutch rules, donors
must be friends, or preferably, family of the recipient. Meeting on a TV
show wouldn't qualify.

``I thought it was brilliant, really,'' said Caroline Klingers, a kidney
patient who was watching the show at a kidney treatment center in Bussum,
Netherlands.

``I know these transplant doctors, and I thought they'll never go and
actually do it. But it's good for the publicity and there are no losers.''

During the show, 25 kidney patients were vetted by ``Lisa,'' and most were
quickly dismissed for being too old, too young, smokers, ex-smokers or
unemployed. Contestants gave moving pleas for why they should receive the
organ.

``It really hurt watching that,'' said Tim Duyst, whose wife is awaiting a
transplant and cannot work. ``You're dismissed in a wave of the hand.''

Viewers were called on to express an opinion or vote for their favorite
candidate by SMS text message for 47 cents.

The show was produced by Endemol, which created ``Big Brother'' in 1999.

The Royal Netherlands Medical Association, known by its Dutch acronym KNM,
had urged its members not to participate and questioned whether the program
might just be a publicity stunt.

``Given the large medical, psychological, and legal uncertainties around
this case, the KNMG considers the chance extremely small that it will ever
come to an organ transplant,'' it said.

All seven of the country's transplant centers had said they not cooperating
with the program, KNMG spokeswoman Saskia van der Ree.

Earlier in the week, the Cabinet declined suggestions from lawmakers to ban
the program, saying that would amount to censorship.

Celibate man in dress continues to ramble on about abortion

Well, this bloke is Keith O'Brien, the Roman Catholic Church's CEO in Scotland. He also goes by the designation of Cardinal (which is an old word that translates loosely in modern English into CEO). Anyway, CEO O'Brien gave a sermon (that's a speech in modern English) the other day to his flog of supporters in Edinburgh. Having recently lost an important policy battle in the country (his organisation may not discriminate against gay people - pretty shocking to our dress wearing celibate), O'Brien turned his theological gaze toward another one of his company's favourite topics, abortion. He compared the number of abortions taking place on a daily basis in Scotland to the Dunblane massacre. In Dunblane, sixteen kids and a teacher were shot by a lone gunman. Obviously to the man who likes to wear red dresses in public there is no significant moral difference between abortion and the murder of children, teenagers and adults. All the same to him.
I have no intention to get into the pro's and con's of abortion again. In a way, being a card-carrying humanist, I don't mind O'Brien rambling on like this. The more hysterical, and, frankly, silly, his public utterances become, the greater the irrelevance of the organisation he runs in Scotland is likely to become. And that, probably, is a good thing. The less people listen to 'moral' pronouncements, and the kind of bullying and hectoring that emanates from characters like Mr O'Brien the better for our societies.
I am concerned, however, by the overwhelmingly negative response he received from the media. Many commentators suggested that he overstepped the mark and that he shouldn't try to influence elected politicians' views and votes on this issue. Here I disagree as a matter of principle. Mr O'Brien is essentially a lobbyist for a conservative organisation. The organisation is known to hold radical views on abortion, euthanasia and many other issues. Surely in a democratic society lobbyists like Mr O'Brien are entitled to campaign for their views. It is up to mainstream society to reject their message. End of story. It would be a sad indictment of our democracy indeed, if Mr O'Brien could not have his say.

Rethinking Mandatory HIV Testing

Anita Kleinsmidt and I have a paper in the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH in which we propose to consider introducing mandatory HIV testing of pregnant women in high HIV prevalence areas (eg in Southern Africa). The available evidence suggests that the uptake of HIV testing increases the more difficult the state makes it for pregnant women to avoid it. We think that if women are given the option to have an abortion, and if they insist on carrying the fetus to term, they have some responsibility toward it. This includes the responsibility to ensure that the newborn they want to come into being has a good shot at a life worth living.
Anyway, check it out, the paper is currently available online in a First Look version. The final printed version should be available in the July issue of the journal.

Religious Freedom

It has long been suggested by godless people like myself that religious freedom these days has been perverted into meaning that religious organisations are entitled to discriminated against people of other or no faiths. It also seems to have become a free-for-all for religious groupings to go after women's reproductive interests, gay people, as well as anything else that their respective ideology fancies discriminating against.

Well, a good South African friend of mine has drawn my attention to this article in the Washington Post. It's about a formerly Muslim person's legal right (or otherwise) to change her prejudices toward Christianity. The Malaysian woman in question has decided that she's now a Christian. While that religion's institutional representatives are also suitably misogynistic, they're arguably not as bad as organised Islam. The Malaysian courts now have to decide whether the woman may still be judged by Sharia Islamic courts or by the civil courts of the country. The Malaysian Constitution prohibits Muslims from swapping that ideology for another ideology..

Patients allegedly undersupplied with cutting edge medication

A study published by the German federation of the innovative (ie research active) pharmaceutical industry alleges that up to 74% of patients suffering from dementia, and up to 69% of patients suffering from rheumathoid arthritis are denied access to innovative drugs due to cost considerations. Basically insurance companies put pressure on doctors to prescribe cheaper, generic drugs, many of which, according to the research active industry, are plain suboptimal.

Now, one should not be too surprised that the pharmaceutical industry and its for-hire academic researcher (a professor doctor doctor med type guy in Bochum) come to this conclusion.

Assuming that the claims made by the good professor, and the industry that finances him, are correct, one might still wonder whether this isn't further proof that our reliance on market mechanisms to ensure medical innovation is misguided. It seems as if not only the poor in developing countries are unable to access life preserving medication but also your average citizen in a country as rich as Germany. Surely there is something odd about our health care systems' continuing reliance on profit driven drug companies to deliver the needed drugs affordably. I am not suggesting, by the way, that there is something inherently bad about the companies going about their business in terms of maximising returns for their shareholders. What is problematic is that we as a society have shifted most drug R&D responsibility their way. Now we depend on them and find that while this was convenient for awhile, we (as in more and more of us) can't afford their goods anylonger.

No doubt it is time to reconsider how drug R&D is currently being financed.

Hands off the people of Iran campaign

Here's a campaign call from some group of leftish academics re Iran...

Hands Off the People of Iran
No to imperialist war! No to the theocratic regime!


OUR DEMANDS

We recognise that there is an urgent need to establish a principled solidarity campaign with the people of Iran. The contradictions between the interests of the neo-conservatives in power in the USA and the defenders of the rule of capital in the Islamic Republic has entered a dangerous new phase.

US imperialism and its allies are intent on regime change from above and are seriously considering options to impose this - sanctions, diplomatic pressure, limited strikes or perhaps bombing the country back to the stone age.

In Iran, the theocracy is using the international outcry against its nuclear weapons programme to divert attention away from the country's endemic crisis, deflect popular anger onto foreign enemies and thus prolong its reactionary rule.

The pretext of external threats has been cynically used to justify increased internal repression. The regime's security apparatus has been unleashed on its political opponents, workers, women and youth. The rising tide of daily working class anti-capitalist struggles has been met with arrests, the ratification of new anti-labour laws and sweeping privatisations. Under the new Iranian government, military-fascist organisations are gaining political and military strength, posing an ominous threat to the working class and democratic opposition.

Paradoxically, the US/UK invasion of Iraq has actually increased the regional influence of Iran's rulers - it led to the election of the pro-Iranian Shia government currently in power in Baghdad.

This means that any support from the anti-war movement for the reactionaries who currently govern Iran and repress its people is in effect indirect support for the occupation government in Iraq.

We recognise that effective resistance to this war can only mean the militant defence of the struggles of the working class in Iran and of the rising social movements in that country. We want regime change - both in Iran and in the imperialist countries. But we know that change must come from below - from the struggles of the working class and social movements - if it is to lead to genuine liberation.

We call on all anti-capitalist forces, progressive political groups and social organisations to join activists of the Iranian left to both oppose imperialism's plans and to organise practical solidarity with the growing movement against war and repression in Iran headed by the working class, women, students and youth.

* Our campaign demands are: No to imperialist war!
* No to the theocratic regime!
* The immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US/UK troops from the Gulf region!
* Opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression!
* Support to all working class and progressive struggles in Iran against poverty and repression!
* Support for socialism, democracy and workers' control in Iran!
* For a nuclear-free Middle East in a nuclear-free world!

Humanist Campaign for Human Rights in Poland

Please consider supporting this petition!
-----------------------------------------

PETITION

POLAND: HANDS OFF HUMAN RIGHTS



Tell Poland’s government it must respect all human rights for all. Polish leaders have threatened criminal sanctions against lesbian and gay activists and organizations, have tried to restrict freedoms of expression and association, and have even threatened violence against LGBT marchers.


Human Rights Watch and Campaign Against Homophobia (Kampania Przeciw Homofobii, Poland’s central LGBT group) ask for YOUR signatures on this petition demanding an end to homophobic attacks.



Write to lgbt@hrw.org by NOON EST (5 PM GMT) ON FRIDAY, MAY 18. Simply give your NAME, COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, and any other identifying information you want included. PLEASE also let us know if you are signing on as an individual or an organization!


OR you can sign on through the web by visiting:

English: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/10/poland15894.htm

Español: http://hrw.org/spanish/docs/2007/05/10/poland15902.htm

Polski: http://hrw.org/polish/docs/2007/05/10/poland15897.htm

Pass the links around. A petition organized by religious-right forces, called “Homosexual hands off Poland!” got almost *9000* signatures before it was presented to President Kaczynski this week. Let’s show him how much strength sexual rights activists and LGBT people can muster. Campaign Against Homophobia will present the petition to Polish authorities after Warsaw’s Equality Parade on May 19, 2007.


English, version follows. PLEASE CIRCULATE THIS WIDELY! And please sign the petition by writing to lgbt@hrw.org --and stand up for human rights in Poland!



POLAND: Hands off Human Rights

The President of the Republic of Poland
Lech Kaczynski
ul. Wiejska 10
00-902 Warszawa, Poland

Dear President Kaczynski,

We urge you and your government to stop your attacks on the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Such attacks betray Poland’s long, proud record of struggling for human rights. Upholding equal rights for all will help build a freer future.

Your government has declared it will fire gay teachers, and impose criminal penalties on “anyone who promotes homosexuality or any other deviance of a sexual nature in education establishments.” This blatant violation of basic rights could deprive students of potentially life-saving information about sexuality and about HIV/AIDS. Members of your government have accused organizations working on LGBT people’s human rights of “pedophilia,” and threatened them with criminal investigations. A legislator in your governing coalition said that gays who demonstrate “should be bashed with a baton.” In 2004 and 2005, when mayor of Warsaw, you yourself tried to ban Gay Pride marches, saying that “public promotion of homosexuality will not be allowed.” Your words and actions have contributed to a climate where violence against LGBT people is tolerated—or even encouraged.

Such words and acts threaten democracy.

This month, the European Court of Human Rights condemned your attempts to ban Gay Pride marches in Warsaw. The court praised a “pluralism … built on the genuine recognition of, and respect for, diversity”—including “genuine and effective respect for freedom of association and assembly.”

Last month, the European Parliament, motivated by events in Poland, passed a resolution “On Homophobia in Europe.” It condemned “discriminatory remarks by political and religious leaders targeting homosexuals.” It voiced “solidarity with, and support for, fundamental rights activists and defenders of equal rights for LGBT people.” It called for an official EU investigation of what is happening to LGBT people’s rights in Poland.

Do not isolate Poland by promoting intolerance and hate. Defend all human rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Jerry Falwell - Preacher of Intolerance dead

Jerry Falwell, one of God's most intolerant preacher's on earth has been called home unexpectedly. He died at the age of 73. The founder of what is misleadingly called the 'moral majority', he managed to politicise Christian groups across the US and made radically rightwing views on abortion, homosexuality and such matters mainstream. He blamed in one interview homosexuality and abortion for the attacks on the twin towers in New York City. Nuff said. Good riddance.

Madeleine ... beats me

I know, I know... this probably will enter the history of this blog as the most contemptible piece I have written... BUT, someone's got to say it. Some 10 days or so ago, a blond little British girl (Madeleine) was kidnapped by someone in Portugal. No doubt this is terrible news for the little girl, the distressed parents and anyone who has heard about this story.
Ever since, however, something or other (is it the blond hair?) has blown this sad saga out of all proportions. The story remains the number one news item on the evening news and any other news bulletin you choose to pick (not the many more kids that get murdered on a daily basis by allied troops in Iraq, for instance). The suggestion was made, somewhat excitedly, to broadcast the girls photo on Eurovision (a particularly tacky EU wide song contest). Dutifully the BBC News wrote to the organisers of the song contest and requested just that. One wonders how many other national broadcadsters in Europe suggested the same in response to kidnapped kids in their respective countries. It goes without saying, there's plenty of prey-alongs, too, as if this would change anything substantially for the kidnapped girl. The family's priest reportedly flew to Portugal to ... do what? The BBC reports, 'In the UK, a text message urging mothers to pray for Madeleine's safe return to her family is being passed on by mobile phone and in internet forums.' There's also an army of UK lawyers in Portugal that won't be able to change anything in the ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police force. We even had a 'run for Madeleine' (no kidding, people in Glasgow ran 10k 'for' Madeleine). Evidently the kidnapper didn't really give a toss. As usual, when there's a limelight related opportunity, Richard Branson offered some cash to find this girl (as opposed to any other girl that's also currently missing).
So, while one appreciates the need to generate publicity to ensure the case isn't forgotten, one can't help but wonder what it is that makes this girl so special when compared with other kidnapped (disappeared) kids in the UK and the rest of the world.

Good bye Mr Blair

BNP leader prevented from speaking at Bath University

The Guardian reports today that Mr Griffin, leader of the fascist British National Party, was refused the opportunity to speak at Bath University after all.

Fascist leader to speak at Bath University

Nick Griffin, leader of the fascist British National Party (BNP) is bound to deliver a public lecture at Bath University. Here's a statement from student and trade unions on the campus:

JOINT STATEMENT FROM BATH TRADE UNIONS
Fascism has no place in academic institutions

'Universities should be havens of learning and safety for students,
academics and staff from all backgrounds. We oppose the Secretary of the
University of Bath's decision to allow Nick Griffin, leader of the
fascist British National Party to speak on campus.

Griffin is due to give a lecture at the University of Bath on 14 May at
7pm, at the request of one student.

The BNP is no ordinary political party: it poses a danger to students
and staff alike. Griffin is a former member of the openly fascist
National Front, and has a conviction for distributing literature likely
to incite racial hatred, which denied the reality of the Nazi Holocaust.
The BNP wants an "all-white Britain", which could only be possible
through violence and an end to democracy. It has links with fascist
groups across the world. Many of its leading members have convictions
for violence and have been exposed as Hitler admirers. Wherever the BNP
is active, racist attacks and other hate crimes increase.

The BNP's racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, Islamophobic politics
threatens the safety of Black, Jewish, Muslim, lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender students and academics and many others. These views, if
given further legitimacy, provide the framework for physical attacks on
a number of groups.

It is unacceptable to expose students and staff at the University to the
possibility of such attacks and to give a platform of academic
respectability to the BNP by allowing Nick Griffin to give a lecture at
the University.

The BNP has targeted campuses up and down the country, attempting to
recruit students and young people to fascism. Allowing Nick Griffin a
platform at University of Bath will aid the BNP's aim to infiltrate
academic institutions further.

Universities have a legal obligation to promote good race relations
under the 2000 Race Relations (Amendment) Act, brought in as a direct
result of the 1998 Lawrence Inquiry, following the racist murder of
Stephen Lawrence. We believe that this invitation runs contradictory to
the letter and spirit of this legislation. The University of Bath has a
legal and moral obligation to promote good race relations and to work
against discrimination. We believe that it is failing to live up to this
obligation.

We the undersigned call on the University of Bath to withdraw its
invitation to Griffin to speak. We call on all in our community to stand
with us.'

Oddities of Irish Life

Here's a story (well, more to the point, the satisfactory conclusion of a story): A 17 year of teenager in the Republic of Ireland sued to be allowed to leave the country in order to have an abortion in the UK. The Republic of Ireland is, in case you don't know, a fairly conservative, Catholic country. It has some of the most stringent abortion rules in Europe. The teenager in question tried to have an abortion in Ireland, thru the country's national health service. Well, this is not just your average abortion where a teenager tries to have a termination of pregnancy due to some accident that happened during sexual intercourse. Prenatal tests showed that the newborn would suffer from anencephaly. Newborns with that condition don't live for longer than three days after birth, due to the fact that a large part of the brain and skull is missing. The girl did not want to subject herself and the newborn to that ordeal and requested an abortion. This was denied by the Irish national health service. She then tried to do what many Irish women having abortions do, she tried to escape the country's draconian regulations and tried to have her termination of pregnancy in the UK. However, being under age the national health service ordered her not to leave the country.
The BBC reports today that 'The High Court has now ruled there were no statutory or constitutional grounds for preventing the teenager, known only as Miss D in court, from travelling to the UK for the operation.'
It seems reassuring that there are some sensible people left in that country. I mean, what's the point of carrying a foetus to term that has no life prospects whatsoever. Why would anyone wish to subject a pregnant teenager to the ordeal of having to have the baby in order to see it die within a few days? How could religious dogma initially be permitted to take priority over respect for the difficult choice this young woman made?

Helping AIDS orphans to live lives worth living

Let me tell you something about an AIDS charity worthy probably also of your support. It's a (really - trust me) community based project in Southern Africa. What they do, in a nutshell, is to try to keep AIDS orphans in some kind of family unit (most likely relatives or neighbours). In order to ease the burdens on those usually impoverished families, however, the initiative provides 2 meals per day per child through community based food kitchens. Phedisang's approach to the problem is two-fold: It aims to move as many of the kids it feeds as is feasible on to the state grants that these kids are entitled to (but that they would never receive if it wasn't for the logistical support from Phedisang). So, basically, the first step is to keep kids properly fed, the second step is to move them on to state support in order to free donor money for other children in similar need.
To my mind it's a very clever system because it is sustainable in the longterm, because it's small and doesn't rely on massive administrative operations (gobbling up much of the donor money), and reassuringly, there are no overseas consultants on obscene international salaries that need to be 'fed', too. Check it out and consider supporting them!

Public Citzen's new web blog on Globalisation and Trade

The US based consumer group PUBLIC CITIZEN has just launched a new web blog on Globalisation and Trade. Here's how its originators describe its objectives: 'GTW aims to promote democracy by challenging corporate globalization, arguing that the current globalization model is neither a random inevitability nor "free trade." Eyes on Trade is a space for interested parties to share information about globalization and trade issues, and in particular for us to share our watchdogging insights with you!' Check it out!

Still trying to save the lives of surplus IVF embryos

The pro-life crowd has been going on and on and on about the horrific price paid by embryos destroyed in the process of conducting embryonic stem cell research (ie therapeutic cloning research). Well, these stem cells are derived from surplus (ie frozen) IVF embryos that would be discarded (well, flushed down the toilet) eventually anyway. This cartoon, to my mind, captures nicely the absurdity of a world view that insists that somehow these frozen embryos have infinite value and should be treated as if they were persons... - hope you will agree/enjoy :).

Quoting Steve Miles on Mr Wolfowitz

Steve H Miles, medical professor at the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis and author of Oath Betrayed in a quote unquote on Mr Wolfowitz: 'The medical ethics lesson from Wolfowitz is that it OK to hang a medical ethicist who steals a large cache of palliative care meds from the narcotics cabinet of an underfunded public hospital to give to his addicted girlfriend.'

Pretty scary things - comfort food among them

I went with a colleague to a place called Dallas BBQ in Brooklyn. I can recommend it to you as a true local experience. It's usually jam packed with mostly substantially obese folks of all ages - I take that back, not all ages, there are only few elderly people, because obesity leads to the premature death of far too many people. Anyway, Dallas BBQ is a steak, ribs, fried onion rings, fries, margarita type place that serves gigantically oversized portions of essentially junk 'food' at fairly low/reasonable prices. I got to be honest, I greatly enjoyed the atmosphere in this place. The staff were friendly and the folks feasting themselves to death were remarkably cheerful. I particularly 'enjoyed' parents ensuring that their newborns get addicted to the same type of food so that they can also die premature deaths. I mean, if the idea of 'child abuse' makes any sense at all, it needs to incorporate such stuff, too.

being quiet

i am currently away attending a conference and various meetings. realistically i will only be able to update the blog in a couple of day's time.
udo schuklenk

Is our species strongly motivated by egalitarian thinking/instincts?

There's an interesting piece in an April 2007 issue of NATURE (doi:10.1038/nature05651). I excerpt the gist of it. The researchers conducted an experiment designed to test whether humans follow egalitarian strategies even when they are not forced to do so (ie they could, anonymously, be completely selfish and aim for the maximisation of their own benefits). Interestingly, in the experiment, those well-off transferred anonymously some of their wealth to the least well-off while those least well-off also aimed to reduce inequality. There was some concern about free-riders, but the basic principle driving the research participants (independent of each other, anonymously, and without any coercion) was egalitarian in nature. Anyway, here's some content from the paper:

'The results show that subjects reduce and augment others’ incomes, at a personal cost, even when there is no cooperative behaviour to be reinforced. Furthermore, the size and frequency of income alterations are strongly influenced by inequality. Emotions towards top earners become increasingly negative as inequality increases, and those who express these emotions spend more to reduce above-average earners’ incomes and to increase below-average earners’ incomes. The results suggest that egalitarian motives affect income-altering behaviours, and may therefore be an important factor underlying the evolution of strong reciprocity and, hence, cooperation in humans.
...
To elicit emotional reactions, we presented subjects hypothetical scenarios in which they encountered group members who obtained higher payoffs than they did (see Methods). Subjects were then asked to indicate on a seven-point scale whether they felt annoyed or angry (1, ‘not at all’; 7, ‘very’) by the other individual. In the high inequality’ scenario, subjects were told they encountered an individual whose payoff was considerably greater than their own. This scenario generated much annoyance: 75% of the subjects claimed to be at least somewhat annoyed, whereas 41% indicated a high level (4 or more) of annoyance. Many subjects (52%) also indicated that they felt at least some anger towards the top earner. In the ‘low-inequality’ scenario, differences between subjects’ incomes was smaller, and there was significantly less anger (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P, 0.0001) and annoyance (P,0.0001). Only 46% indicated they were annoyed and 27% indicated they were angry. Individuals apparently feel negative emotions towards high earners and the intensity of these emotions increases with income inequality.
...
These emotions seem to influence behaviour. Subjects who said they were at least somewhat annoyed or angry at the top earner in the high-inequality scenario spent 26% more to reduce above-average earners’ incomes than subjects who said they were not annoyed or angry. These subjects also spent 70% more to increase below-average earners’ incomes. Mann–Whitney tests of both differences indicate that they are significant (one-tailed, P50.05 and P50.001, respectively).
Emotional reactions towards high earners—even when the source of income is known to be purely random—cause individuals to engage in costly acts that promote equitable resource distributions. The evidence here indicates that social inequality arouses negative emotions that motivate both the reduction and augmentation of others’ incomes. This finding supports research that indicates humans are strongly influenced by egalitarian preferences.
...
Finally, the results are also consistent with the punishment of noncontributors and the reward of contributors in public good games. Although concerns for equality are clearly not the only motive for human behaviour in these contexts, our results suggest that egalitarian motives may underlie strong reciprocity and, thus, play an important role in the maintenance of ooperation.

Part of the problem I have with this experiment is that it cannot control for ownership in the sense that the redistribution that took place in this experiment took place among people who didn't know each other, and where those that provided some of their wealth voluntarily to support those less well-off did not actually really spent any of their own wealth, but merely hypothetical wealth in an experimental situation.

You can do something against violent gun crime in the USA

Yet another gun crime related carnage in the land of the free.32 innocent members of the university community at Virginia Tech University were gunned down by a shooter who seems to have subsequently turned his gun on himself and committed suicide. True to form born-again Christian George W Bush, President of that country and a true fanatic as far as the 'right' of US Americans is concerned to bear arms, goes on national TV. He goes on waffling about a good God (you might recall, the omniscient, good, all-powerful entity that somehow failed to stop this carnage), and grieving heavily with the families who lost their loved ones, yet failing to make any noise whatsoever about the need to control the all-too-easy access to guns in his country. In Virginia effectively everyone above the age of 18 can legally purchase handguns without any background checks whatsoever. Big surprise that in this society there's about one or two such slaughter events per year, yet nothing happens re gun control.
You can do your bit to change that situation by supporting organisations such as stop the nra (the nra is the national rifle association of america). Incredibly as it may sound, but some 30,000 US American die each year in that country from injuries inflicted by gun shot wounds.

What's wrong with selling your story to the media?

It is quite amazing. A few weeks ago a number of British Navy crew were taken 'hostage' by Iranian forces in Iraqi/Iranian (depending on who you choose to give credence to) territorial waters. After a short propaganda war the Iranians released their trophy. I guess most readers will have watched this soap on TV and will have made up their own mind about the story.
However, there was an aftermath to it all. The UK defence minister permitted the troopers to sell their story to the news media. The main reasons that were given, initially at least, suggested that the military believed the story would come out one way or another anyway and that by allowing the Navy personnel to speak themselves they could control the message to some extent.
This all seemed eminently sensible until all hypocritical hell broke lose. There was a lot of waffling about professional standards being breached by those soldiers. The Conservatives did what opposition parties probably always do, they demanded that the Defence minister resign. The same newspapers that fell over each other in attempts at securing the rights for the sailors' stories began condemning their alleged greed. Well, for starters, these papers began offering cash in the first place. What puzzles me much more, however, is the question of which professional standards these sailors could have possibly broken. They did not divulge any military secrets during their interviews, and there was a great deal of public interest in knowing the details of their ordeal. So, if anything, they performed a public service, did not harm anyone, and managed to get their message across (ie they refuted the Iranian version of events).
What puzzles me about this saga is that families who lost family members serving in the Iraq or Afghanistan adventures of Mr Blair attacked the defence secretary for permitting those sailors to sell their stories. What is so deeply offensive about receiving a payment for the story. Would these same people have not complained if they had volunteered the information? Why should they have volunteered the information free of charge? I think there was no good reason for this at all. These soldiers serve in a war that arguably is pointless at best, it certainly is illegal and likely to destabilise the Middle East even further. If those folks supplement their meagre salaries (meagre in relation to the daily risk to their lives) by selling their story, I think only a hypocrite would complain!
I say: leave them alone.

Time to go Mr Wolfowitz

Very sensible commentary in today's FINANCIAL TIMES. The paper describes how Paul Wolfowitz, current President of the World Bank and one of the Bush administration's leading neocons, has breached a whole range of ethics rules at the Bank when he helped his girlfriend (who also worked at the Bank) to a cushy job in the US government. Now, while she is on secondment there the Bank picks up the tab. More remarkable even, his girlfriend draws a gigantic salary during her secondment, larger even than that of Condoleeza Rice, the US Secretary of State. Wolfowitz made much of his commmitment to fight corruption, another good reason for why he ought to resign. The FINANCIAL TIMES comments on the White House's continuing support for Wolfowitz: 'To place loyalty above all other virtues is the ethics of a mafia boss not of the leader of a great country. The US president also needs to consider what is both right and in the interests of his own country.' This point is well-made. US President Bush is famously loyal to staff who show loyalty to him. As the FT point out, to do this without regard for your underlings failures is more the behaviour of a mafia boss than that of the leaders of the world's remaining superpower.

Aberdeen University promises to reduce animal experiments

It is quite remarkable - scientists at Aberdeen University decided to undertake experiments which reportedly 'involved injecting the rats with cannabis and dropping them into a vat of milk.Scientists then watched to see if the rodents could remember where a submerged platform was.' I can't help but think that this seems a somewhat pointless exercise with little likely future benefit for either humans or rodents. So, quite possibly it would have been better if that research had never been undertaken. Animal rights folks have been up in arms about this kind of research, pointing out that in other studies rodents were injected with lethal doses of all sorts of illicit drugs. Now, surely if these drugs are illegal in the sense that you may not sell, purchase and use them, why would we want to subject animals (who tend not usually to be in the market for such chemicals) to pain and death by injecting them with such substances? Anyone taking such drugs is responsible for the consequences of such an action. There's no need to torture animals to death in order to find out what the effect of such drugs is on rodents - who, this is worth repeating, don't normally sell, purchase and take such drugs.
Well, in response to the public outcry the University of Aberdeen promises to reduce animal experiments. That's a start.

Frozen embryos and such things

Natallie Evans and her that time partner Howard Johnston decided to conceive a child by means of IVF. As the BBC reports, 'Ms Evans was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2001, but six of the couple's fertilised embryos were frozen and stored prior to her treatment.'Well, as so often in the real world, there's no happy ending to this story. Ms Evans and Mr Johnston split up and each went their own way. Mr Johnston, however, wanted the frozen embryos destroyed, while Ms Evans wanted them implanted in order to conceive a child. She is infertile due to the effects of her cancer episode and pointed out that this was her last chance to conceive a child. She took the case through the legal instances in the UK as well as in the EU and saw her appeals rejected by every single court. Her arguments were that she wanted her own children and that the embryos had a right to life. The former argument is a classic case of question begging, because even if we agreed that she had such a right, it's unclear why it is Mr Johnston's responsibility to supply the genetic material for this purpose. And the embryos supposed 'right to life', well, while I don't agree with the very idea that embryos have any rights at all, let's suppose they do (ie for the sake of the argument). Surely Mr Johnston could always maintain that the embryos should then not be destroyed but kept in the freezer in perpetuity. That way they wouldn't have their supposed 'right to life' denied, yet Ms Evans would also not be able to conceive of the children she desires so badly. In case you wonder why one could possibly think that embryos (see photo to the left) don't have a right to life ... well, I wonder why any one could think that something has a right to life that has no central nervous system, no brain, no capacity to suffer, no sense of his/her past/future, and indeed no wish to be alive.

On a more serious note, however, I wonder what drives Ms Evans' somewhat fanatical approach to this all. Why does she insist on carrying a baby to term that she began producing with her ex-partner (who wants to have nothing to do with her any longer). I mean, if she so badly wants a baby, why not adopt one? Similarly, Mr Johnston... I'm tempted to say 'get a life mate' or 'get real', and 'why don't you let her have her way'. All that he contributed was a tiny bit of genetic material. What would be the big deal about letting her have her way provided a deal is signed that establishes that he won't incur any costs and responsibilities (and rights) in terms of the kid(s) up-bringing. End of story. It all seems rather petty.

WHO in favour of fair innings based resource allocation justice

WHO, in a recently published report, has come out in favour of an approach to resource allocation justice based on the fair innings argument. That is quite interesting. US authorities, more or less, came out in favour of maximising lives saved instead of maximising life years saved (ie no discrimination in favour of the young). The UK has come up with a draft ethics guideline leaving open the question how scarce life-preserving treatments should be allocated in case of pandemic influenza. So, it's not insignificant that the WHO's experts support an approach aiming to save the maximum number of life years that can be preserved.

(Hopefully) the UK's last homeopathic 'hospital' to close its doors soon

The Observer newspaper reports that the UK's last homeopathic 'hospital' might be about to be closed because the NHS's Primary Care Trusts will refuse to reimburse patients 'treated' there. That's pretty good news. I doubt anyone other than avowed homeopathy fans such as the Queen (yep, HRM etc etc) and her son Prince Charles will miss the outfit. Surely, as a matter of public policy it cannot be that tax monies are being spend on 'treatments' of truly unknown benefit. There is no (I am not exaggerating here) independent scientific evidence supporting the idea that homeopathy works. So, if patients are keen on placebos, we should be able to find a slightly cheaper way than a costly 'hospital' requiring millions of tax monies every year for its up-keep. It is surely unethical to waste health resources that could be poured into buying and distributing medicine proven to work.

More up-coming events

With reference to the below, there's a second event in April that I will also attend. It's the Fourth International Conference on Ethical Issues in Biomedical Engineering in Brooklyn, New York. In case you're going there and you read this blog, give us a shout (preferably a friendly one :).

Catching up in Person? Up-coming Events

Here's information about a conference the topic of which is genuinely close to my heart. I'm going to give a talk there, so please do let me know in case you read this blog on the odd occasion and you will be around. Always good to catch up in person when there's a chance.

Theoretical Perspectives on Global Health and Human Rights
19th April 2007 Institute of Law Medicine and Bioethics University of Liverpool Lecture theatre 3, Liverpool Law School

Convenors: Dr Maria Stuttaford and Professor Gillian Lewando Hundt, University of Warwick Professor John Harrington, University of Liverpool

13.30 - 13.40 Welcome Professor Alan Irwin (Dean of SES Liverpool)

13.40 – 14.00 Opening remarks Professor John Harrington (University of Liverpool), Dr Maria Stuttaford (University of Warwick), Professor Gillian Hundt (University of Warwick)

14.00 – 15.30 Professor Paul Hunt (UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health) ‘Reflections on Implementing the Right to Health’ Professor Upendra Baxi (University of Warwick) 'The Place of the Human Right to Health. Contemporary Approaches to Global Justice; Some Impertinent Interrogations'

16.00 – 17.30 Dr Lisa Forman (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) 'What Future for the Minimum Core? From the Margins to the Centre: The International Right to Health and the South African Experience'
Professor Udo Schüklenk (Glasgow Caledonian University) 'The 10/90 Gap in International Health Research - Drug R&D: Whose Moral Responsibility is it?' 17.30 End of Session 19.30 Dinner (details will be provided on a separate sheet)

20th April 2007 Institute of Law Medicine and Bioethics
University of Liverpool Lecture theatre 3, Liverpool Law School
9.30 – 11.00
Professor John Harris and Muireann Quigley (University of Manchester) on the ethical limits of global organ markets
Professor Simon Caney (University of Oxford) 'Global Justice, Health and Climate Change'

11.30 – 13.00 Professor Robyn Martin (University of Hertfordshire) 'Comparative National Population Health Laws And Comparative Approaches To Human Rights: Seeking Global Health In A Disparate World'
Dr Brigit Toebes (University of Aberdeen) 'Taking a Human Rights Approach to Health Care Commercialisation'

13.00 – 14.00 Lunch 14.00 – 14.45 Professor Roger Brownsword (King's College London) 'The Ancillary-Care Responsibilities of Researchers: Reasonable But Not Great Expectations'

14.45 -15.15 Concluding remarks Dr Maria Stuttaford and Professor Gillian Lewando Hundt, University of Warwick, Professor John Harrington, University of Liverpool

Hotels ... gone are the good old days

Umm, not by way of bragging, but I stayed in London during the last few days, in this hotel. There is something mildly disconcerting about the ever growing greed of hotel proprietors. In the good old days if one had forgotten toothpaste, the hotel receptionist would hand over toothpaste to the hotel guest, and the same would be true for other basic amenities. Well, not any longer. The Thistle Hotel that I stayed in had a vending machine in the lobby dispensing even things like headache pills at exorbitant prices (something close to 5 GBP for a couple of aspirin pills). Similarly, I stayed in a Park Inn (the 'budget' version of the SAS Radisson hotel group) in Bochum in Germany a few weeks back and discovered that they aim to rip off their guests by charging the living hell out of them for internet access (a thing you'd get free of charge in virtually every hotel in the USA, no matter how down market). Mind you, even use of the sauna (much advertised as a hotel facility on the internet) requires that one tells the receptionist 30 minutes ahead that one wants to use it so that they'd get it started...

I made the mistake to grab a take-way coffee in the lobby of the Thistle hotel. I realised immediately why they didn't display any prices at all for their paper-cup coffees. They charged 'only' 3.50 GBP for the cup.

So, again, let the buyer beware. I have to say, as far as hotel chains go, my best experiences were made in Holiday Inn's and their upmarket relatives Crown Plaza hotels. No hidden charges, internet access rip-off's and the endless nonsense practised by so many other hotel chains.

Moving on to Canada

I got myself a new job. Here's how Canada News Wire reports the move:

Queen's University attracts first Ontario Research Chair

OTTAWA, April 4 /CNW Telbec/ - Queen's University has appointed the first of eight new Ontario Research Chairs in Public Policy - part of a $25-million provincial government initiative to address key policy issues.
A world leader in the study of health care ethics related to policy, Dr. Udo Schuklenk will be the Ontario Research Chair in Bioethics. Dr. Schuklenk was successfully recruited from Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland, where he was professor and head of the Centre for Ethics in Public Policy and Corporate Governance.
"We are extremely pleased to welcome to Queen's such a highly accomplished scholar with significant research experience," says Principal Karen Hitchcock. "His outstanding publication record, international experience gained at universities in Australia, South Africa, Germany and Britain, and reputation for public service make Dr. Schuklenk an excellent choice for this new position. We look forward to his contributions to this important and highly complex area of public policy."
"We are delighted to welcome a scholar of Dr. Schuklenk's calibre and international reputation to Queen's University," said John Gerretsen, MPP Kingston and the Islands, on behalf of Chris Bentley, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. "Along with the remaining seven Ontario Research Chairs, we look forward to the benefits of an increased number of leading edge researchers at our universities who will help ensure that the next generation of graduate students is prepared to address issues and find novel solutions to problems of central relevance to all Ontarians."
Co-editor-in-chief of Bioethics, the official journal of the International Association of Bioethics, Dr. Schuklenk's publications in this area have been critically acclaimed. As Chair, he plans to examine the degree to which market forces should be allowed to dictate the direction of pharmaceutical research; how communities whose "local knowledge" is commercially exploited by pharmaceutical companies should be compensated; and how to define appropriate measures of infectious disease control in conditions of pandemic.

The US and Global Warming

I thought, by way of celebrating yesterday's US Supreme Court Judgement which declared that the US Presidency was seriously deficient in its policy response on global warming and environmental protection issues, a spoof video featuring George W Bush on global warming and other issues- enjoy (or don't).

Made in England - Bought in Scotland...

I know, I know, to some this might sound like a Fool's Day posting, but... I bought myself a pair of new sneakers today. Not that I needed them, those that I use are still in perfectly good shape. However, I wanted to start into spring with a new set of sports wear, so don't castigate me too loudly, if you could. Even so, I bought a pair of terrible looking sneakers from a company called New Balance. I bought them for no reason other than the label saying that they were made in England, and that they're vegan friendly (ie no animal was killed producing them). I preferred them to shoes made in Vietnam, China or any of these places, because I know that a product produced in the UK by local workers means: 1] the sneakers didn't have to be transported half-way around the world to get to me (less energy wasted); 2] the company had to abide by pretty strict EU/UK rules and regulations on the environment (they were produced in a manner less harmful to the environment than a pair of sneakers produced in China where standards are substantially lower and environmental protection is by and large unknown); 3] the company had to abide by EU/UK labour regulations, which means staff receive a pension, paid leave, don't work more than 35-40 hours per week, things like that; 4] last but not least, no animal was subjected to suffering or was killed during the production of the sneakers.

So, in short, by supporting New Balance I supported a better deal for the environment, and a better deal for the factory workers producing the sneakers. Seems eminently sensible to me.

What's the downside? Well, for starters, the sneakers were more expensive then comparable sneakers produced in Asia. I don't mind, but I do understand that many people do not have the luxury of being able to afford more expensive products. The other downside, and I got to be honest here, these sneakers look about as terrible as the cars Rover produced (yes, the defunct last British owned car maker). I truly wonder what prevents the company from producing seriously better looking sneakers, given the premium it charges for its England made products.

Pope cures Parkinson's sufferer and my sadness

Pretty amazing! Pope John Paul II, the recently deceased arch conservative CEO of the Roman Catholic Church, is said to have cured miraculously one of his staff members from Parkinson's. Amazingly, he did this two months after he had died. The nun in question prayed to him for help, and the miracle occurred. I heard about the story yesterday on the BBC News. And guess what, something truly amazing, in fact another miracle, occurred, and again it was linked to Pope John Paul II. So, here's what happened. I was quite down, if not slightly depressed yesterday when I heard about the nun-related miracle. Incredibly, the moment the story was reported on the news program I burst into laughter, in fact I laughed so hard I started crying. Praise the Lord, umm Pope. A miracle. On hearing of the dead man's capacity to heal Parkinson's (triggered by something as innocent as a prayer), my sadness was rapidly replaced by roaring laughter, and I was full of joy.

I understand that this miracle production is due to the perceived need for the ex church CEO to become a 'saint'. I don't know what 'saints' are, but it seems many Catholics are quite keen to get their ex CEO made a 'saint' (may be the church equivalent to an OBE?). For John Paul (mark II) to get that honor he needs to be 'beatified' (beats me what that is), and that in turn requires a miracle.

The good news is that he's getting ever closer to the church OBE, because there's not one but two miracles: first, of course, the healed nun (can't beat that one), and then I was alleviated of my sadness. I'm sure if there's a few more such miracles a lot more laughter could be produced in a fairly cost-effective way. So, if your tummy itch disappeared when you saw John Paul II on the telly, give me a shout. I will collect all the necessary miraculous evidence to ensure he gets his church OBE quickly. Least one can do for that old sod.

Voting for the Scottish Christian Party? - You got to be kidding!

photo to the left:
Superman and his disciples



In most places other than Iran and the UK pluralistic societies since the enlightenment have understood that it is important that the state and the various churches operating in it should be separated. The state should remain institutionally neutral with regard to the values held by churches. It might well adopt some of the values expressed by such organisations, but there should never be a causality of the sort that whatever value is expressed by church A will become law in state A. There are all sorts of good reasons for this, but this is not the topic of today's posting. Nope, I want to tell you a bit about a smallish political sect called the Scottish Christian Party. They decided that they want Christian values to determine government policies in Scotland. Scotland will see elections to its devolved parliament some time in May this year.

Here, for the humanist and reasonably enlightened religious reader of this blog some gems from the party's website:

Bob Handyside, a retired music teacher and one of its candidates says: 'Traditional Christian family values have been undermined while minority groups are privileged and preferred before the majority.' Bob is, of course, referring to civil rights legislation saying that religious adoption agencies may not discriminate against same sex prospective adoptive parents.

A guy by the name Revd J. Hargreaves explains to visitors of the party's website what the real name of the Scottish Christian Party is: 'Our full name is in fact the Scottish Christian Party “Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship”.' So, the real government in Scotland then or in the UK, for that matter, is not the democratically elected government appointed by the citizens but some Lordship by the name Christ. Well, looks like the end of democracy is ever edging closer as da Lord is moving in on us.

Makes you wonder how they see themselves representing the people of Scotland, seeing that Scotland is the most strongly non-religious country in the whole of Europe. Explains da Lord's representative Mr J. Hargreaves: 'Furthermore, just as you would not expect to find a Conservative in the Scottish Socialist Party, those of other faiths and none cannot join the Scottish Christian Party.' So, there you have it, the Lord's crowd doesn't want you, and will almost certainly not represent your interests unless you are a Christian. Shame they haven't picked Allah as their leading light, as otherwise all they'd have to do is to move on to Iran and enjoy its version of 21st century civilisation (if they're really lucky they might even be able to participate in the public stoning to death of people alleged to be gay).

As the old Romans say in Asterix and Obelix cartoons: 'Caveat emptor' or 'Let the buyer beware.' These people are really out there, even though one can't help but think that some comedian might be behind this party and its activities. They can't be for real, or can they?

Pandemic Influenza - A Vague Policy Document Guides Us Nowhere

Resource allocation decision-making is not only a pleasurable pastime for bioethicists, it has also serious consequences for real people (yes, people like you and me). In bioethics and health economics academics have been arguing for a long time what criteria are just criteria for determining who is inside, and who will be left to fend for herself outside the life boat. One of the big theoretical arguments has been whether we should aim for the number of life years saved or whether we should aim for the number of lives saved. Crudely put, is it acceptable, in emergency circumstances, to discriminate against the elderly? Should a 90 year old person who has lived most of his or her life be entitled to the same level of (scarce) resources as a 12 year old person? The main, and to my mind, convincing arguments in favour of discriminating in favour of the young person are:

1. We should try to maximise the number of quality life years with the resources available. There doesn't seem much point in throwing our resources at adding another few months or even a year or two at a 90 year old when with the same resources we could guarantee a teenager to live basically her whole life. [Note: It would be nice, of course, to do both, but the empirical premise of this argument is that we cannot do both due to a lack of resources.]
   
2. The second argument seems somewhat related. It's the fair innings argument, suggesting that the 90 year old had his fair shot at life and that he is not entitled to be kept going if that means that a person who hasn't had that fair shot at life would have to forgo living her own good life (eg our teenager).

Well, in the US a policy maker consensus has formed along the lines that these arguments are not good enough and that we should aim for lives saved instead of life years. In the UK the Department of Health has just issued a draft policy document inviting public comments.

This document in the section on 'Fairness' proposes that 'people with an equal chance of benefiting from health or social care resources should have an equal chance of receiving them.' The guidance document was written by a largeish group of mostly substantially beyond the age of 40 luminaries in ethics, theology, public health etc. It's misleadingly labelled an ethics framework when really it's a policy document. As with many such consensus driven documents it's a failure in that it is both vague and minimalistic (I owe this terminology to an insightful paper David Benatar published on another such document in Developing World Bioethics recently.) In the crucial resource allocation case it is sufficiently vague as not to give any guidance at all. The statement can effectively and legitimately be read in two ways, each leading to diametrically opposed practical conclusions.

Firstly, it can be read as saying that an elderly person would not have an equal chance of benefiting from a health resource, given that she wouldn't benefit from survival as long as someone much younger. Ergo it would be acceptable to discriminate in allocation decision making against the elderly.
Secondly, it can also be read as saying that an elderly person would have an equal chance of benefiting from a health resource, given that she would survive as a person, as much as someone much younger would survive as a person. Ergo it would be unacceptable to discriminate in allocation decision making against the elderly.

Until we know what the unit is that we are supposed to utilise to measure 'benefit', flipping coins is roughly as useful as this guidance document.

So, we find ourselves in a situation where, regardless of which policy option we prefer, we would and would not be able to identify with what is proposed, subject to how we interpret the fairness related statement above.

This, arguably, renders this policy guideline useless as there would be no uniform policies resulting from it.

We can't even have a decent argument about it as we cannot be certain what it wants to convey... - Makes you wonder about those luminaries and their capacity to produce a guidance document for a crisis situation such as pandemic influenza.

Irresponsible governments - accountability for acts and omissions

The South African Health Minister Manto Tshabalala - Msimang and Treatment Action Campaign's Zackie Achmat have frequently crossed swords in the past. He was asked by a local paper whether he could ever be friends with her. Achmat replied "no", and explained: "Almost a million people have died and for that I don't think that I could ever establish a friendship with her."

Forget the question of whether or not anyone would want to be friends with such an egotistical, petty character as the South African Minister for Health Prevention and the country's similarly deluded President. There's a more interesting issue, and that issue is this. Consequentialist ethicists (among others) have made much of rejecting the acts and omissions doctrine. They claim, essentially, that all other things being equal, you are as responsible for the consequences of your actions as you are for the consequences of your omissions to act when you could have acted. I think that this makes perfectly sense.

Here then is an interesting challenge: Remember a mass murderer like Slobodan Milosevich, the Christian slaughterer or anything not Christian/Serbian during the civil wars in former Yugoslawia? Many people died as a direct consequences of his actions (read: policies). Well, if we really believe that the acts and omissions doctrine doesn't make much sense, we surely need some international court of justice that holds governments responsible for policies that omit to act when they could have acted to prevent significant harm to their citizens. Thabo Mbeki, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang and the ANC government are responsible for up to 1 million of preventable deaths in Southern Africa due to their refusal to provide medication to these people when they could have.

I am still flabbergasted that nobody in South Africa seems keen on holding these liberation politics apparatchicks responsible for the preventable deaths of more than a million poor Black South Africans. Just imagine such genocidal policies had been enacted by a white government. The world would have been up in arms, and quite rightly so. Surely, holding a Black run government to lower standards of performance, competence etc is in itself racist, isn't it?

... or am I missing something?

'God'less Europe - or so :)

Quite interesting. Secular folks like myself have supported a document called the 'Brussels Declaration'. This document, published a few weeks ago, was meant to influence European Union debates on our commonly shared values in Europe. We were concerned that the Pope and his minions in the EU parliament might sneak in 'God' in some incarnation or other. Well, I am pleased to report that the official declaration of the European citizen's values makes no mention of 'God' ... and the Pope is reportedly not pleased at all. Here then the Berlin Declaration

The Berlin Declaration

Europe was for centuries an Idea, a hope for freedom and understanding. This hope has been fulfilled. European unity has enabled us to live in peace and prosperity. It has created a community and overcome differences. Every member has helped to unite Europe and to strengthen democracy, the rule of law. We have to thank the love of freedom of the people of central and eastern Europe that Europe’s unnatural divisions are today finally overcome. With European unity, we have learned the lessons from our bloody conflicts and painful history. We live today together in a way that was never previously possible. We citizens of the European Union are united in our good fortune.

Section 1

In the European Union we realise our common ideals: for us the individual is central. His dignity is inviolable. His rights are inalienable. Women and men have equal rights. We strive for peace and freedom, for democracy and the rule of law, for mutual respect and responsibility, for prosperity and security, for tolerance and participation, justice and solidarity. We live and function together in the European Union in a unique way. This expresses itself in the democratic co-operation of member states and European institutions. The European Union is based on equal rights and solidarity. That is how we make possible a fair balance of interests between the member states. We uphold in the European Union the individuality and the diverse traditions of its members. The open frontiers and the lively diversity of languages, cultures and regions enrich us. Many goals cannot be achieved independently but only through common action. The European Union, the member states and their regions and local communities share these tasks.

Section 2

We face great challenges which cannot be confined to national frontiers. The European Union is our answer to them. Only together can we preserve our European social model in the future to the benefit of all citizens in the European Union. This European model unites economic success and social responsibility. The common market and the euro make us strong.

That is how we can shape the increasing worldwide interdependency of the economy and ever expanding competition on international markets according to our values. Europe’s wealth lies in the knowledge and abilities of its people; this is the key to growth, employment and social cohesion. We will jointly fight terrorism and organised crime. We will also defend our freedom and civil rights against their enemies. Racism and xenophobia must never again be given their chance. We will act to ensure that conflicts in the world are solved peacefully and that people do not become victims of war, terrorism or violence.

The European Union will promote freedom and development in the world. We want to push back poverty, hunger and disease. In doing so, we will continue to play a leading role. In energy policy and protection of the climate we want to go forward together and make our contribution to heading off the global threat of climate change.

Section 3

The European Union will continue to live in the future on the basis of its openness and the will of its members to strengthen together the inner development of the European Union. The European Union will continue to promote democracy, stability and prosperity beyond its frontiers. European unity has made reality out of a dream nurtured by earlier generations. Our history warns us that we have to protect this good fortune for future generations. We must continue to renew and update the political shape of Europe. That is why, 50 years after the signing of the Treaties of Rome, we are today united in the goal of achieving a renewed common foundation for the European Union before the elections to the European Parliament in 2009.

Because we know: Europe is our common future.

HIV dissidents - continuing crackpottery causes untold harm in Africa

I have written before about the unprofessional conduct of a small group of scientists insisting that HIV isn't the cause of AIDS, that AIDS isn't an infectious illness and importantly that medication proven to keep people with AIDS alive actually causes AIDS.

Well, these folks pretty much lost their battle for the professional and public opinion in the developed world, so they shifted their lunatic campaign to the developing world. You can find a pretty detailed analysis of their activities in Southern Africa here. South Africa in particular carries one of the highest HIV disease burdens in the world. I don't want to spend too much time dwelling on the reasons for that, except to say that this is caused by a mix of poverty, education and importantly a government propagating these minority views until very recently. The ANC government as a trusted source of information spent years sending out misleading, confusing and outright false information on HIV/AIDS.

A few days ago I received this message from an outfit in Kwazulu Natal:

The subject heading of the email ... 'HIV not a real problem its [sic!] the sugar'

The spam-type email continues:

'Dear friends,

You believe in HIV because you did not know the real facts.

We make a juice (UMLINGO WAMANGCOLOSI) that lets any one start their life again, strong and healthy.

All you have to do is stop the following food, drinks and stress:

1. SUGAR

2. Chemicals

3. FACTORY FARMED MEAT

4. MILK

5. CHEMICAL MEDICATION

6. PROCESSED FOOD

7. ALCOHOL

8. STRESS

Visit us every monday and thursday between 9 and 16.00pm at the KwaNgcolosi Court House and you will be healthy with in weeks.

KwaNgcolosi is under Hillcrest/Waterfall by the Inanda Dam just 40Km from Durban.'

I wonder how many, mostly Black, South Africans will fall for this nonsense and die a preventable death from AIDS due to this quackery!