"Whatever happens will be for the worst and therefore it is in our interests that as little should happen as possible"
Salisbury 1887 re: British foreign policy
I just wanted to share this beautiful piece of pessimism by a very interesting figure in British foreign and imperial policy.
Showing posts with label britain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label britain. Show all posts
Monday, 21 April 2014
Thursday, 31 January 2013
On selling the morning-after pill
There was an short bit in the 'News Bulletin' in today's Telegraph about whether pharmacists should be allowed not to sell the morning-after pill without a prescription.
Right now,pharmacists do not have to sell the pill; they can refuse on religious or moral grounds. For example, staunch Catholics running a pharmacy would be allowed to refuse to sell a morning-after pill as they believe in the sanctity and miraculousness of life. As the old saying goes, God gives life and therefore only he should take it away.
For some, the morning-after pill is a form of abortion. As debatable as this is, perhaps it is fair to give people a choice based on their beliefs.
Under current legislation pharmacists who refuse to sell the pill have to direct the customer to another pharmacy/provider of the pill. Hmm. Some academics have argued against this policy. They say that either the pharmacist should be required to supply the pill or refuse completely, without being required to direct the customer elsewhere.
Why? They argue that in directing the customer somewhere else it's essentially the same deal as giving them the pill in the first placed. A bit like a drug dealer saying, "No, I'm not selling you weed today, I'm opposed to people getting addicted to drugs and spending all their money on drugs instead of food and electricity bills. But Fred down the road's got some, if you want."
The fact that pharmacies are allowed to sell birth control without a prescription in the first place(this has been allowed since 2001) is controversial.
But what is exactly is wrong with what we have right now? If the pharmacists are deluding themselves that referral is not the same as supply, then let them be deluded. That way you get the best of both worlds; suppliers can keep to their moral and religious beliefs, and we can still prevent unwanted pregnancies.
It would a different case if the pharmacy was in a small town miles from anywhere, i.e if birth control wasn't available anywhere conveniently nearby. Right? Then, because the girl wouldn't be able to buy the pill, there might be unwanted pregnancies and painful, mentally scarring abortions.
Actually, the girl could just go to her doctor and get a prescription for the pill. The pharmacists can only refuse to sell the pill if the customer has no prescription. Therefore by simply getting a prescription the patient can get the pill from the exact same pharmacy.
Perhaps I haven't researched the subject enough, but it doesn't seem like the current situation is really negatively affecting anyone. If it were the pharmacists complaining about having to refer customers elsewhere, then I would perhaps understand. What's the point of refusing to supply the pill if you're just going to give them another way to get it? But it's not the pharmacists that are complaining. They're fine with the policy, or so it seems so far. Their hands are clean. Well, clean enough. We shouldn't impinge upon someone's beliefs, regardless of what those beliefs are.
The piece in the Telegraph is based on a paper published by the Journal of Medical Ethics.(I've linked the free extract here, as the full article is available only to subscribers).
The paper is discussed in an article in the Huffington Post, if you'd like to find out a little more.
The American Pediatrics Journal has published a free(rather long) article on the same subject. There is also a related paper discussing the relationship between conscience and jobs in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
This case makes for interesting reading, at least. Perhaps the reason I don't agree with these researchers is that I haven't read their full paper(it's only available to subscribers or if you're willing to pay a fee). But I feel that the current situation is a neat, if slightly paradoxical, solution.
Right now,pharmacists do not have to sell the pill; they can refuse on religious or moral grounds. For example, staunch Catholics running a pharmacy would be allowed to refuse to sell a morning-after pill as they believe in the sanctity and miraculousness of life. As the old saying goes, God gives life and therefore only he should take it away.
For some, the morning-after pill is a form of abortion. As debatable as this is, perhaps it is fair to give people a choice based on their beliefs.
Under current legislation pharmacists who refuse to sell the pill have to direct the customer to another pharmacy/provider of the pill. Hmm. Some academics have argued against this policy. They say that either the pharmacist should be required to supply the pill or refuse completely, without being required to direct the customer elsewhere.
Why? They argue that in directing the customer somewhere else it's essentially the same deal as giving them the pill in the first placed. A bit like a drug dealer saying, "No, I'm not selling you weed today, I'm opposed to people getting addicted to drugs and spending all their money on drugs instead of food and electricity bills. But Fred down the road's got some, if you want."
The fact that pharmacies are allowed to sell birth control without a prescription in the first place(this has been allowed since 2001) is controversial.
But what is exactly is wrong with what we have right now? If the pharmacists are deluding themselves that referral is not the same as supply, then let them be deluded. That way you get the best of both worlds; suppliers can keep to their moral and religious beliefs, and we can still prevent unwanted pregnancies.
It would a different case if the pharmacy was in a small town miles from anywhere, i.e if birth control wasn't available anywhere conveniently nearby. Right? Then, because the girl wouldn't be able to buy the pill, there might be unwanted pregnancies and painful, mentally scarring abortions.
Actually, the girl could just go to her doctor and get a prescription for the pill. The pharmacists can only refuse to sell the pill if the customer has no prescription. Therefore by simply getting a prescription the patient can get the pill from the exact same pharmacy.
Perhaps I haven't researched the subject enough, but it doesn't seem like the current situation is really negatively affecting anyone. If it were the pharmacists complaining about having to refer customers elsewhere, then I would perhaps understand. What's the point of refusing to supply the pill if you're just going to give them another way to get it? But it's not the pharmacists that are complaining. They're fine with the policy, or so it seems so far. Their hands are clean. Well, clean enough. We shouldn't impinge upon someone's beliefs, regardless of what those beliefs are.
The piece in the Telegraph is based on a paper published by the Journal of Medical Ethics.(I've linked the free extract here, as the full article is available only to subscribers).
The paper is discussed in an article in the Huffington Post, if you'd like to find out a little more.
The American Pediatrics Journal has published a free(rather long) article on the same subject. There is also a related paper discussing the relationship between conscience and jobs in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
This case makes for interesting reading, at least. Perhaps the reason I don't agree with these researchers is that I haven't read their full paper(it's only available to subscribers or if you're willing to pay a fee). But I feel that the current situation is a neat, if slightly paradoxical, solution.
Thursday, 17 January 2013
On Britain and the European Union
The EU seems to be a big deal now, or something.
Recently I changed my opinion on what we should do about the EU.
I completely agreed with the Euro-sceptics ; if they don't agree to our proposals, we walk.
Freedom from the EU seemed great, as did the independence.
We currently contribute more money to the EU than we gain; many countries, France especially, rely on this subsidising. Also, we'd (arguably) be free from their rules and regulations.
If we just look at that, then it seems pointless to stay in the EU.
Another problem is immigrants from all over Europe flooding in, crowding up our living space and generally taking our jobs (because we all know how crafty and educated those moustachioed Romanians are).
But but but.
We need to realistically look into what would happen if we left the EU.
Think about trade; something like 50% of our exports go to the EU. We simply cannot afford to lose such important trade links. We really do not want to piss off the large number of countries with who we trade, especially in our current, trying economic situation. Trade within Europe and with foreign countries would also become a problem as we'd need to negotiate trading deals with different countries.
Also there isn't really any way to be in the halfway house. There is no way we will get the same position that Switzerland currently has. If we want to be in a similar position to countries such as Norway, it would not benefit us in any way. We'd still be affected by certain EU laws, for example on shipping and agriculture, yet would no longer be able to take any part in the decision making involved in creating and passing these laws. We'd lose our very important central bartering position.
And think about the USA: we currently have a lot of influential power as a core member of the EU, but if we were to drop out we'd lose this important voice. The US is worried about this; refer to this article in the Telegraph Our power as the USA's ally would be severely diminished. This is really not very good.
Though there would be a short-term economic gain, in the long run we really don't want to drop out of the EU, because there's no way of keeping the common market which is essential to our stagnant economy, whilst being freed of all the rest. Never mind there is no actual legislation for how a country is supposed to drop out.
There's an article in a recent issue of Economist about whether we should join the EU. It highlights several good points for why David Cameron needs to sit tight despite pressure from both Ukip and elements of his own party. Read it if you're a Eurosceptic, or if you'd actually like to know more about this.
I talked with a friend recently at the possibility of a referendum on the EU and what it would entail. She told me that if there is a referendum, there will probably be a very low turnout, consisting only of people who have very strong opinons on the subject. More worryingly, this opinion will probably be Euro-sceptic.
Another thing to think about is what the referendum would ask; there are few people who want to abandon the EU altogether, and much more who just want the benefits with none of the stupidity.
Depending on what the choice in the referendum is, the results and decision could vary hugely.
I guess we'll just have to see.
(By the way, I study neither politics or economics. So, if you'd like to actually get an educated opinion, talk to a politics student or read the above articles/find articles discussing this issue.)
Recently I changed my opinion on what we should do about the EU.
I completely agreed with the Euro-sceptics ; if they don't agree to our proposals, we walk.
Freedom from the EU seemed great, as did the independence.
We currently contribute more money to the EU than we gain; many countries, France especially, rely on this subsidising. Also, we'd (arguably) be free from their rules and regulations.
If we just look at that, then it seems pointless to stay in the EU.
Another problem is immigrants from all over Europe flooding in, crowding up our living space and generally taking our jobs (because we all know how crafty and educated those moustachioed Romanians are).
But but but.
We need to realistically look into what would happen if we left the EU.
Think about trade; something like 50% of our exports go to the EU. We simply cannot afford to lose such important trade links. We really do not want to piss off the large number of countries with who we trade, especially in our current, trying economic situation. Trade within Europe and with foreign countries would also become a problem as we'd need to negotiate trading deals with different countries.
Also there isn't really any way to be in the halfway house. There is no way we will get the same position that Switzerland currently has. If we want to be in a similar position to countries such as Norway, it would not benefit us in any way. We'd still be affected by certain EU laws, for example on shipping and agriculture, yet would no longer be able to take any part in the decision making involved in creating and passing these laws. We'd lose our very important central bartering position.
And think about the USA: we currently have a lot of influential power as a core member of the EU, but if we were to drop out we'd lose this important voice. The US is worried about this; refer to this article in the Telegraph Our power as the USA's ally would be severely diminished. This is really not very good.
Though there would be a short-term economic gain, in the long run we really don't want to drop out of the EU, because there's no way of keeping the common market which is essential to our stagnant economy, whilst being freed of all the rest. Never mind there is no actual legislation for how a country is supposed to drop out.
There's an article in a recent issue of Economist about whether we should join the EU. It highlights several good points for why David Cameron needs to sit tight despite pressure from both Ukip and elements of his own party. Read it if you're a Eurosceptic, or if you'd actually like to know more about this.
I talked with a friend recently at the possibility of a referendum on the EU and what it would entail. She told me that if there is a referendum, there will probably be a very low turnout, consisting only of people who have very strong opinons on the subject. More worryingly, this opinion will probably be Euro-sceptic.
Another thing to think about is what the referendum would ask; there are few people who want to abandon the EU altogether, and much more who just want the benefits with none of the stupidity.
Depending on what the choice in the referendum is, the results and decision could vary hugely.
I guess we'll just have to see.
(By the way, I study neither politics or economics. So, if you'd like to actually get an educated opinion, talk to a politics student or read the above articles/find articles discussing this issue.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)