Designer Babies

Advance research into reproductive technologies has been both beneficial and controversial. Such research has lead to the ability of screening embryos prior to implantation into the mother. Although it may be argued that this can be beneficial by preventing diseases such as cystic fibrosis and in the future cure many genetic diseases, the extent of its possible boundaries remains uncertain.

Not many people would argue that on the balance it is not morally wrong to screen embryos to prevent a child suffering disease, but opinion becomes the opposite when you consider doing the same to determine the sex/intelligence/hair colour of a child. The House of Lords in the Hashmi case have ruled that the tissue typing of embryos to help their sick siblings is lawful. However, the ruling has not set any boundaries as to what such procedures can be used for. I can imagine there being a case in the future where the parents wish to "design" their child, either based on looks/intelligence/sex. We will have to wait and see what the courts say then.

Should prisoners have rights?

Okay, everyone has rights, but how far should these rights extend to prisoners? Should those who have broken the law have the same rights as the law abiding public? Is it really fair for those who have committed crimes to be allowed to watch television and play pool? Is prison really punishment enough?

Over the last ten years the number of prisoners have increased and it has been suggested that a stint in prison does not deter offending behaviour. Should the UK therefore look towards other means of punishment? Or maybe, they should make prison sentences a bigger deterrent. The figures for re-offending are increasing, suggesting that putting offenders in prison is not successful in stopping them committing crimes.

What about their basic rights? Well okay maybe they should retain the right to life and the right not to be tortured (although this may be controversial in the eyes of their victims), and have the right to live in humane conditions - after all we have abolished the death penalty, but why make prisons such a comfortable place for them to be when they are supposed to be being punished?

Vivisection - what are the boundaries?

Following recent controversy over the work done by Darley Oaks Farm, in Newchurch, UK, it raises the question: is vivisection morally wrong? It appears that there is no specific law in the UK regulating vivisection, and many animals are being used for non-pharmaceutical testing. While using animals for pharmaceutical testing may be justifiable, do we really need to test products such as make-up and washing-up liquid on these creatures? The Government has failed to implement UK or EU law stating that where a non-animal or less painful alternative method exists, the traditional animal test method should no longer be allowed. It is recognised that the Government cares more about convenience for researchers than animal protection.

It boils down to the question: Do animals have rights? This is where the controversy lies! An animal is viewed "less important" than a human, yet religion conveys that all animals are God's creatures. Is it right that we test products on animals? There are many companies that do not and they can provide good quality products which outsell many animal tested versions. Many people I know specifically go for products with the "not tested on animals" label.

People tend to raise the opinion that animal testing is wrong for non-pharmaceutical products, yet okay for those which help the advances of medicine. How can that line be drawn? Surely both are cruel to animals. The answer seemingly points to the fact that we "humans" need these products, but do not need cosmetic products also produced through animal testing.

What about organ transplantation from"animals" to "humans"? That is a different argument. Those who support vivisection must surely approve of this method of maintaining and improving the life of humans, but sadly many do not. This is a certain way of improving the quality of those urgently in need of organ transplantation, can this not be compared to vivisection for medical purposes? Why is it so different?


http://www.uncaged.co.uk/vivisect.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4178166.stm

Smoking!

There has been a lot in the news recently about the banning of smoking in public places. I am all for it. I must admit that I have never smoked and this is a very common view among non-smokers who will not be affected by the ban, but I have spent a lot of time around people who have/do especially strangers in public places. What really annoys me is when they light up in a restaurant while you are trying to eat - yes this annoys even some of the people who smoke - so ok ban it there. Working in pubs I have also had second hand smoke blown at my face, do people really need a ciggy to have a good night? Some people I know only smoke when they go out or have a drink. Why?!
Where there are large gatherings of people (e.g. workplaces/pubs/clubs/restaurants) smoking should definitely be banned. If smokers want to ruin their lungs, let them, they have enough warnings, but do they listen? No! Please don't let us non-smokers, who do not choose to intentionally damage our bodies smoke with you. What about bus stops then? This is a disputed matter, but it is still inconsiderate to light up in the small area of a bus stop. Smoking should be confined to specific areas or at home.in the car, people should be more considerate of others.
You may ask, so should we ban drinking because that causes a bad effect on your body? However, in moderation, alcohol does not cause the serious effects smoking does to our bodies. Also it does not affect the health of those around you, unlike secondary smoke!
Personally I cannot wait for laws to be passed banning smoking, and especially hope it includes at bus stops.
However, I would like to know the opinion of those who smoke, whether for or against a ban (as I know there are some "considerate" smokers out there). The best argument I have heard so far for smoking at bus stops is: "If we didn't light up at bus stops, no buses would turn up. This It is a well known fact that as soon as you light up, a bus turns up!" Well in reply, all I have to say is I haven't had any problems as a non-smoker waiting at the bus stop with other people who do not light up.
Non-smokers would be just as affected by the ban, it would improve their lives!

Compulsory Organ Donation

Should organ donation be made compulsory?
This issue is at the heart of the medical system, with the growing number of patients on waiting lists for transplants should those persons who die and are capable of providing usable organs be made to do so? (well their families anyway). Already doctors are able to ask the dead person's relatives whether they can use the organs, but should the law go as far as requiring the donation? One argument is that all usable organs should be made available, however the opposing argument notes the patient's right to autonomy and highlights that the choice is with them. We ask therefore whether a patient's autonomy extends past their death and should their body continue to be respected? Or should we go for the greater good and help all those waiting for help, which they are able to provide? Especially if the person involved later is cremated.
You may say that some of those people on the waiting list don't deserve the help because they require a transplant after self-indulgence, but for many people their need is through illness or defect.
If it should not be made compulsory, should more people be aware of the option?

Occupier's liability

Recently I have been considering putting barbed wire at the top of our boundary fence (between our front garden and waste land, away from the public highway) in order to prevent the local kids climbing over it continuously and causing damage to the already old fragile frame. Then I sat back and considered, what if some stupid kid injures themselves?! I would be liable! Where did the law go wrong? Under the Occupier's Liability Act we are liable for anyone who enters our property whether they are invited or trespassers! So basically a burglar can come in and if he injures himself whilst in the property can sue the property owner for personal injury! How does that work then? He shouldn't be there in the first place, he is a trespasser! If in the middle of the night you met face to face with an intruder would you think twice about knocking him out? You aren't even entitled to protect your property unless you use "reasonable" force, how are we supposed to know if they have a gun/knife on them? Should we just let them take our stuff? And what is the definition of reasonable? - The answer to this is that there isn't one within the law, everything is reasonable this and reasonable that, but just what is reasonable? To different people it may be different things in different circumstances! The law is in much need of change, but with "reasonable" being used throughout the legal system nobody can be bothered or just don't want to.

Glad I got that off my chest it has been bothering me for a while now!
Anne

Same-Sex Marriages

Same Sex Marriages? In November 2004 the Civil Partnership was passed in the UK allowing same sex couples to register their partnerships. I would like to have your opinion? There are arguments on both sides of the line and it remains a controversial issue.

Further details can be found here and here (pro arguments)

Welcome

Hi everyone! Welcome to my blog. I am creating a blog dedicated to our opinions of the law, whether they are good, bad or just plain absurd. I shall be providing my own rants and raves and general views and want to hear from you too!
Anne