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.
Thursday, 31 January 2013
Tuesday, 29 January 2013
A quote by Disraeli, from Robert Blake's biography
"We were absent nearly a fortnight and I find a great difference in the colour of the trees - the limes all golden, the beeches ruddy brown, while the oaks and elms and pines are still dark and green, and contrast well with the brighter tints. But not a leaf has fallen; they want the first whisper of the frost and then they will go out like lamps when the dawn breaks on a long festival..."
Disraeli in one of his letters to Mrs. Brydges Willyams, as quoted in Disraeli by Robert Blake.
I posted this quotation for the last sentence alone, just because I love the simile at the end with its comparison of autumn leaves to bright lamps.
Disraeli in one of his letters to Mrs. Brydges Willyams, as quoted in Disraeli by Robert Blake.
I posted this quotation for the last sentence alone, just because I love the simile at the end with its comparison of autumn leaves to bright lamps.
Monday, 28 January 2013
On Mali and the Algerian Crisis
So how worried should we be about Mali in it current state and the Algerian crisis?
More importantly, what does it mean about Islamist terrorists in the region?
This post is based on a recent article in The Economist on Jihad in Africa, as well as an article in the same issue on the Mali situation.
Let's start with the wider context of Africa, especially the region around Algeria and Mali(let's say Northern Africa. I'm not a geographer).
The ease of movement in Africa for extremists is a bit of a threat. Right now this is mostly because they are moving from country to country to escape the security forces, rather than trying to gather support or 'join up' with other Islamist forces. But it also means that through moving to new places they can find new allies. They can move easily because borders mean very little(considering they were drawn by colonialists, whom everyone just loves). States are often fragile, with little security or sufficiently armed policemen on the borders. In Libya some extremists are actually acting as "organs" of the state.
In other states, cases of Islamist terrorism are mostly localised, for example in the Sedan and Senegal. However they are on the rise, which is troubling to say the least.
What we don't want here is for jihadism to be 'infectious', with Islamist forces joining up to support each other and provide both financial support and a place to hide. A common purpose, especially religious, can be frighteningly good at uniting even the most fractious, violent groups.
There is also another potential problem recently created by the liberation of Libya from Gaddafi; terrorist groups who were previously suppressed or had moved elsewhere are now free to return and emerge, causing potential havoc if they have managed to steal any of the weapons stockpiled by Gaddafi.
However encounters with forces in Mali apparently haven't shown any sign of such a problem, which is good for the international situation as a whole. Machine guns and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles are not something you want to see in the hands of terrorists on any given day.
Also, regarding Mali, other African states have pledged over 5,000 troops to help the Mali and French forces in fighting the jihad forces. There are 1600 troops from other regions of Africa fighting in Mali and Niger. Another good thing is that the Islamist forces don't seem to have the support of much of the population, probably due to their violent actions in some of the cities. Most Malians are said to support the armies who are driving back the forces; this is a key difference from, say, Vietnam (to pick an obvious example). Instead of working to gain the local population's support, which Ho Chi Minh rightly saw as essential in fighting the Vietnam war, the jihad's acts of cruelty(such as opening fire on sixteen Muslim preachers who drove past a checkpoint) have driven most Malians to welcome the counter-insurgency.
What we (and by 'we' I mean mainly the French but also the rest of Europe and America) don't want is for the insurgents to regroup before the French succeed in getting to some of the northern towns and stationing soldiers there. For now the retreating rebels in the South, such as the ones who disappeared from Diabaly and are now , may easily be a future problem. However if the French do manage to gain a foothold in the North, some argue it will be a lot harder for the rebel fighters to hide in wait, largely because of the terrain.
The news so far seems to be getting better and better; French forces have captured Gao, as this article in the New York Times reports. Certainly this does not seem to be playing out as a repeat of Afghanistan, although the next month will be crucial in determining whether the French will be successful in breaking up terrorist control as far as possible and sending Islamist forces back into the ground.
What about long-term solutions? Although this may not play out as a repeat of Afghanistan, garrisons are probably needed in major cities if the counter-insurgency keeps its current momentum and succeeds in taking over from jihad forces. This is good both for protecting the local population and preventing more from supporting or hiding the terrorists, although the garrisons will need to be careful to avoid resentment from local populations. The French are reported as believing the garrisons may also be needed to maintain order as local town people seek revenge against the Islamist terrorists. This sounds a little far-fetched, as first of all it would be unlikely for terrorist groups to return to towns without any political or military aims, and second of all if they did return with anti-aircraft missiles and machine guns the local population would need to be protected more than they would need to be restrained. Although it is true that the local population probably wouldn't directly be wounded by the terrorists, any intervention or rebellion against jihad forces would lead to tragedy. Stationing garrisons is sensible; but what else? Hollande says his forces will stay in Mali "as long as necessary". This would be a little ominous if the French and Mali forces were not doing so well at the moment, but again the French need to avoid outstaying their welcome(or at least, if they plan on staying for a while, stay friendly). As for stopping the influence of terrorism in Mali and in the wider context, Africa, this is still an impossible problem. It's discussed in a short article, again from the Economist. Politics and religion are an incredibly dangerous mix; who knew?
Hopefully the French intervention may show that intervention can be successful and save many innocent lives. It may also promote foreign leaders to stop being so stand-offish (I'm looking at you, Obama) and start being a little more brave in foreign policy terms, especially when it comes to intervention in troublesome areas where organised, well-thought out help could save innocent lives.
(On a final note, we also might consider the fact that the Mali army has been accused of serious injustices during the fighting. Is this justified considering the lengths the extremists have gone to, in trying to gain more power in the South?)
More importantly, what does it mean about Islamist terrorists in the region?
This post is based on a recent article in The Economist on Jihad in Africa, as well as an article in the same issue on the Mali situation.
Let's start with the wider context of Africa, especially the region around Algeria and Mali(let's say Northern Africa. I'm not a geographer).
The ease of movement in Africa for extremists is a bit of a threat. Right now this is mostly because they are moving from country to country to escape the security forces, rather than trying to gather support or 'join up' with other Islamist forces. But it also means that through moving to new places they can find new allies. They can move easily because borders mean very little(considering they were drawn by colonialists, whom everyone just loves). States are often fragile, with little security or sufficiently armed policemen on the borders. In Libya some extremists are actually acting as "organs" of the state.
In other states, cases of Islamist terrorism are mostly localised, for example in the Sedan and Senegal. However they are on the rise, which is troubling to say the least.
What we don't want here is for jihadism to be 'infectious', with Islamist forces joining up to support each other and provide both financial support and a place to hide. A common purpose, especially religious, can be frighteningly good at uniting even the most fractious, violent groups.
There is also another potential problem recently created by the liberation of Libya from Gaddafi; terrorist groups who were previously suppressed or had moved elsewhere are now free to return and emerge, causing potential havoc if they have managed to steal any of the weapons stockpiled by Gaddafi.
However encounters with forces in Mali apparently haven't shown any sign of such a problem, which is good for the international situation as a whole. Machine guns and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles are not something you want to see in the hands of terrorists on any given day.
Also, regarding Mali, other African states have pledged over 5,000 troops to help the Mali and French forces in fighting the jihad forces. There are 1600 troops from other regions of Africa fighting in Mali and Niger. Another good thing is that the Islamist forces don't seem to have the support of much of the population, probably due to their violent actions in some of the cities. Most Malians are said to support the armies who are driving back the forces; this is a key difference from, say, Vietnam (to pick an obvious example). Instead of working to gain the local population's support, which Ho Chi Minh rightly saw as essential in fighting the Vietnam war, the jihad's acts of cruelty(such as opening fire on sixteen Muslim preachers who drove past a checkpoint) have driven most Malians to welcome the counter-insurgency.
What we (and by 'we' I mean mainly the French but also the rest of Europe and America) don't want is for the insurgents to regroup before the French succeed in getting to some of the northern towns and stationing soldiers there. For now the retreating rebels in the South, such as the ones who disappeared from Diabaly and are now , may easily be a future problem. However if the French do manage to gain a foothold in the North, some argue it will be a lot harder for the rebel fighters to hide in wait, largely because of the terrain.
The news so far seems to be getting better and better; French forces have captured Gao, as this article in the New York Times reports. Certainly this does not seem to be playing out as a repeat of Afghanistan, although the next month will be crucial in determining whether the French will be successful in breaking up terrorist control as far as possible and sending Islamist forces back into the ground.
What about long-term solutions? Although this may not play out as a repeat of Afghanistan, garrisons are probably needed in major cities if the counter-insurgency keeps its current momentum and succeeds in taking over from jihad forces. This is good both for protecting the local population and preventing more from supporting or hiding the terrorists, although the garrisons will need to be careful to avoid resentment from local populations. The French are reported as believing the garrisons may also be needed to maintain order as local town people seek revenge against the Islamist terrorists. This sounds a little far-fetched, as first of all it would be unlikely for terrorist groups to return to towns without any political or military aims, and second of all if they did return with anti-aircraft missiles and machine guns the local population would need to be protected more than they would need to be restrained. Although it is true that the local population probably wouldn't directly be wounded by the terrorists, any intervention or rebellion against jihad forces would lead to tragedy. Stationing garrisons is sensible; but what else? Hollande says his forces will stay in Mali "as long as necessary". This would be a little ominous if the French and Mali forces were not doing so well at the moment, but again the French need to avoid outstaying their welcome(or at least, if they plan on staying for a while, stay friendly). As for stopping the influence of terrorism in Mali and in the wider context, Africa, this is still an impossible problem. It's discussed in a short article, again from the Economist. Politics and religion are an incredibly dangerous mix; who knew?
Hopefully the French intervention may show that intervention can be successful and save many innocent lives. It may also promote foreign leaders to stop being so stand-offish (I'm looking at you, Obama) and start being a little more brave in foreign policy terms, especially when it comes to intervention in troublesome areas where organised, well-thought out help could save innocent lives.
(On a final note, we also might consider the fact that the Mali army has been accused of serious injustices during the fighting. Is this justified considering the lengths the extremists have gone to, in trying to gain more power in the South?)
On genes controlling behaviour, or the burrow habits of mice
A recent article in Nature magazine discussed the burrow habits of mice. Scientists are studying these wild burrows, cross-breeding different species of mice.
They've unearthed some interesting stuff on links between behaviour and DNA, for example in studying why some species of mice dig fancy escape tunnels in their burrows whilst others stick with the humble hole-in-the-ground.
By studying the DNA of both wild oldfield mice(doesn't the name oldfield make you think of a mouse with a sergeant's cap and moustache waving around a rapier?) and deer mice, scientists have now been able to find out that burrowing behaviour is in the genes, not learned.
 |
| Deer mice |
 |
| Oldfield Mice |
So basically oldfield mice burrow these incredibly complex tunnels with escape routes when they dig holes in the ground. Researches have now found out that this behaviour is written in their genes, and not learned from watching parents/peers/acquaintances do the same. This burrowing behaviour, which wild deer mice do not exhibit, is interesting. Deer mice, on the other hand, dig simple holes in the ground which contrast
with the vastly complicated structures oldfield mice build. Poor deer mice. (There's a diagram showing both forms of burrow at the end of this post).
This study gives an example of how closely genes can control and influence complicated behaviour are, as well as how complex the genes that determine such behaviour have to be.
The scientists who looked into this behaviour started out by studying burrow patterns of oldfield mice. They looked at the burrows created in a big box they filled with sand and saw the burrows were all very consistent; this suggests the burrows are genetically influenced. They then crossed deer mice with oldfield mice(yes, they can interbreed), and studied the burrow habits of the F1 generation. They then back-crossed this generation with original deer mice and again studied their burrowing habits.
The study follows Richard Dawkin's theory of the 'extended phenotype' (you may have read his book on the subject). Basically this is the effect a gene has on the environment of its particular organism. Mouse burrows is a perfect example of this; a gene affecting the environment. It will be interesting in the future to study other organisms(maybe beavers, or even dogs) to see how their behaviour and the environment around them is influenced by genes.
 |
| From Nature magazine. showing the burrow habits of the two species. |
The BBC, the New York Times and Nat. Geographic have also reported on the research, if you want to read more about it/don't have a Nature magazine subscription.
Saturday, 26 January 2013
A quote by Bismarck as recalled by Disraeli
"There never will be socialism in England. You are a happy country. You are safe as long as the people are devoted to racing. Here a gentleman cannot ride down the street without twenty persons saying to themselves or each other, ’Why has that fellow a horse, and I have not one?’ In England the more horses a nobleman has, the more popular he is. So long as the English are devoted to racing, Socialism has no chance with you.”
Disraeli recalling a conversation with Bismarck, in one of his letters to Queen Victoria.
The letter is discussed in this interview with Jonathan Steinberg about Bismarck.
This quote is a little unusual, but I just love the idea that socialism can be avoided through horse-racing.
Disraeli recalling a conversation with Bismarck, in one of his letters to Queen Victoria.
The letter is discussed in this interview with Jonathan Steinberg about Bismarck.
This quote is a little unusual, but I just love the idea that socialism can be avoided through horse-racing.
Thursday, 24 January 2013
On drug users as 'patients' and not 'criminals'
How should we identify drug users?
Should we look at drug abuse as a criminal activity or a health problem?
There was an article in today's Telegraph about the negative aspects of identifying drug addicts as criminals. Prof. Dame Sally Davies claims that it would be much more effective to see addicts as 'patients' and, therefore, addictions as 'health problems'.
A report from the British Medical Association agrees, saying that drug users are often discouraged from seeking help because of the criminalisation of drugs(although exactly what kind of help would be offered isn't very clearly explained).
Martin Barnes, from the DrugScope charity, says that "drug misuse should be treated largely as a health and public health issue".
Personally I believe there is a problem in labelling drug addicts as patients rather than 'criminals'. The point of making drugs illegal is to discourage people from using them; taking a softer approach to drug users is therefore probably not a good idea, as people will be more inclined to do drugs because the consequences are less severe.
If we really wanted to 'decriminalise drugs', instead of identifying drug users as patients we should do something about the distribution of drugs in the first place. Personally I don't think we should both continue to ban drugs(but still widely available, with no limits placed on what is added/the amount of drug you are sold) and label drug users as 'victims'.
It goes back to the philosophical debate about the effectiveness of punishment; if there was a death penalty for drunk driving and therefore noone ever drove drunk, would it be fair? Should we continue the largely ineffective 'war on drugs' or try a much more radical approach, sweeping away old policies following the lesson of the Prohibition?
We shouldn't simply treat drug users as 'victims', because it creates the impression of helplessness. It encourages inertia on the part of the user, who convinces themselves that they cannot shift the habit without professional aid, and shifts the blame from the user to their situation. Whatever happens, the user is not at fault.In some cases, this is true. It is very easy to get addicted to drugs, and because they are ridiculously expensive(again due to their illegal status and therefore the lack of supply) it leads to a downward spiral. But it is also very popular amongst celebrities to use drugs, and then claim it was a 'mistake' and go to rehab to 'fix' themselves. This illusion created around the safety of drugs, and this dependency on intervention rather than self-help shouldn't be encouraged. Seeing drug abuse as a health problem rather than a criminal offence may help drug users come forward for help, but it also makes drug-taking seem less serious. Also, it all depends on what 'help' they can get from the NHS or charities like DrugScope.
At best, this recommendation could encourage thousands more to kick the habit and get their lives back on track without putting themselves in danger by using drugs. It could encourage them to seek help where before they were too afraid of the implications of admitting to drug use.
In the long term, this could be a step in legalising drugs and putting regulations on distribution, manufacture etc.
At worst the concept could make illegal recreational drug taking forgivable and make it easier for people to get addicted to drugs like heroin because of the leniency of punishment. This would potentially create more drug addicts, who would feel safe in the knowledge that there would be very little punishment if they were caught.
Either way the drug debate is interesting, as is the question of how best to stop people putting themselves and others in danger through drug-taking, either indirectly or directly.
There's some similarities between this and the alcohol debate; New Scientist recently released an article about the potential effect of raising the price of alcohol. I may do a blog post on this later, but we'll see.
Should we look at drug abuse as a criminal activity or a health problem?
There was an article in today's Telegraph about the negative aspects of identifying drug addicts as criminals. Prof. Dame Sally Davies claims that it would be much more effective to see addicts as 'patients' and, therefore, addictions as 'health problems'.
A report from the British Medical Association agrees, saying that drug users are often discouraged from seeking help because of the criminalisation of drugs(although exactly what kind of help would be offered isn't very clearly explained).
Martin Barnes, from the DrugScope charity, says that "drug misuse should be treated largely as a health and public health issue".
Personally I believe there is a problem in labelling drug addicts as patients rather than 'criminals'. The point of making drugs illegal is to discourage people from using them; taking a softer approach to drug users is therefore probably not a good idea, as people will be more inclined to do drugs because the consequences are less severe.
If we really wanted to 'decriminalise drugs', instead of identifying drug users as patients we should do something about the distribution of drugs in the first place. Personally I don't think we should both continue to ban drugs(but still widely available, with no limits placed on what is added/the amount of drug you are sold) and label drug users as 'victims'.
It goes back to the philosophical debate about the effectiveness of punishment; if there was a death penalty for drunk driving and therefore noone ever drove drunk, would it be fair? Should we continue the largely ineffective 'war on drugs' or try a much more radical approach, sweeping away old policies following the lesson of the Prohibition?
We shouldn't simply treat drug users as 'victims', because it creates the impression of helplessness. It encourages inertia on the part of the user, who convinces themselves that they cannot shift the habit without professional aid, and shifts the blame from the user to their situation. Whatever happens, the user is not at fault.In some cases, this is true. It is very easy to get addicted to drugs, and because they are ridiculously expensive(again due to their illegal status and therefore the lack of supply) it leads to a downward spiral. But it is also very popular amongst celebrities to use drugs, and then claim it was a 'mistake' and go to rehab to 'fix' themselves. This illusion created around the safety of drugs, and this dependency on intervention rather than self-help shouldn't be encouraged. Seeing drug abuse as a health problem rather than a criminal offence may help drug users come forward for help, but it also makes drug-taking seem less serious. Also, it all depends on what 'help' they can get from the NHS or charities like DrugScope.
At best, this recommendation could encourage thousands more to kick the habit and get their lives back on track without putting themselves in danger by using drugs. It could encourage them to seek help where before they were too afraid of the implications of admitting to drug use.
In the long term, this could be a step in legalising drugs and putting regulations on distribution, manufacture etc.
At worst the concept could make illegal recreational drug taking forgivable and make it easier for people to get addicted to drugs like heroin because of the leniency of punishment. This would potentially create more drug addicts, who would feel safe in the knowledge that there would be very little punishment if they were caught.
Either way the drug debate is interesting, as is the question of how best to stop people putting themselves and others in danger through drug-taking, either indirectly or directly.
There's some similarities between this and the alcohol debate; New Scientist recently released an article about the potential effect of raising the price of alcohol. I may do a blog post on this later, but we'll see.
Wednesday, 23 January 2013
A quote from "Regeneration" by Pat Barker
"Rivers had often been touched by the way in which young men...spoke about feeling like fathers to their men. Though when you looked at what they did. Worrying about socks, boots, blisters, food, hot drinks. And that perpetually harried expression of their. Rivers had only ever seen that look in one other place: in the public ward of hospitals, on the faces of women who were bringing up large families on very low incomes...it was the look of people who are totally responsible for lives they have no power to save.
One of the paradoxes of war - one of the many- was that this most brutal of conflicts should set up a relationship between officers and men that was...domestic. Caring."
From Regeneration by Pat Barker.
Quite a long one today, but I didn't have the heart to cut it down any more. Here Rivers, an army psychologist treating patients at Craiglockhart hospital during WW1 , reflects on the odd similarities between officers in WW1 and mothers at home, and the domesticity the static nature of warfare created for the men.
I urge you to read this novel; it examines so many paradoxical aspects of the war as well as questioning the relationship between doctors and patients.
One of the paradoxes of war - one of the many- was that this most brutal of conflicts should set up a relationship between officers and men that was...domestic. Caring."
From Regeneration by Pat Barker.
Quite a long one today, but I didn't have the heart to cut it down any more. Here Rivers, an army psychologist treating patients at Craiglockhart hospital during WW1 , reflects on the odd similarities between officers in WW1 and mothers at home, and the domesticity the static nature of warfare created for the men.
I urge you to read this novel; it examines so many paradoxical aspects of the war as well as questioning the relationship between doctors and patients.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)