Skip to content

Should we forget about organic food?

Should we forget about organic food?

A recent
report by the Food Standards Agency argues that organic food doesn’t bring any
substantial nutritional benefits compared to conventionally produced food.
This contradicts the conclusions of previous studies suggesting organic food to
be nutritionally superior. As one might have expected, supporters of organic
farming have been critical of the report, yet it is unfortunate that the media
coverage on this issue often gives the impression that organic food has been
shown to be a sham (some consumer groups thus expect shoppers to now “think
twice before buying organic”)
and that its advocates are now reduced to using any bad argument they can think
of to prove the contrary. This impression is understandable but misleading.

Read More »Should we forget about organic food?

Artificial Brains and Personal Identity

Professor Henry Markram, Director of the Blue Brain Project in Switzerland, has told a conference in Oxford that an artificial human brain is achievable within a decade: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/5894875/Artificial-human-brain-could-be-built-in-next-decade.html What would count as a ‘human brain’ is debatable, of course, but the prospect of an artificial grounding for cognitive and other mental functions raises many fundamental… Read More »Artificial Brains and Personal Identity

Four… three… two… one… I am now authorized to use physical force!

Noel Sharkey, Professor of Artificial
Intelligence and Robotics at the University of Sheffield, warns that we are well on our way to get military killer robots that have great autonomy in applying deadly force. Current military "robots" such as UAVs have limited autonomy. They are
remotely controlled by humans, but increasingly given ability to
patrol, find targets and attack on their own. It would be a natural
progression to give them increasingly free reign, with the humans
merely granting permission – but in an active situation human reactions
might be too slow. Will the current convention that a properly trained
military human operator has to make the final decision still hold true
in the future?

Read More »Four… three… two… one… I am now authorized to use physical force!

Is it wrong to raise money for charity?

The Guardian yesterday reports on the struggles of independent secondhand bookshops to compete with what one of its interviewees describes as “the Tesco of the second-hand book world”: Oxfam. It may come as a surprise to you to learn that Oxfam is now the biggest secondhand book retailer in Europe (though perhaps it shouldn't given that this is not a market with many large players). Apparently many small second-hand bookstores are complaining about what they see as Oxfam's unfair competition.

Read More »Is it wrong to raise money for charity?

R. v Dudley & Stephens

By David Edmonds

We at the Uehiro Centre keep a careful watch on the latest developments and pride ourselves on being bang up to date with the news.  So I’m pleased to be able to bring you the story of an episode that occurred on the night of July 25th.

Well, July 25th 1884.  125 years ago.

Read More »R. v Dudley & Stephens

A change of heart

Earlier this week fourteen-year old Hannah Jones received a heart transplant. This is eight months after Hannah hit the news for her refusal to have the surgery. There was much debate in the media (including this blog) at the time about whether or not teenagers should be allowed to refuse life-saving treatment, though overall there was a lot of support for Hannah’s decision.

But in the last week Hannah has apparently changed her mind, and elected to have the surgical procedure. What is the significance of this for the decision to go along with her earlier choice? Hannah might well have died in the last 8 months, in which case she would never have had a chance to rethink her position on transplants. Does the fact that she has now changed her mind give us more reason, in future, to overrule similar patients who are declining live-saving treatment?

Read More »A change of heart

What’s special about selling gametes?

Dominic Wilkinson posted yesterday on the issue of whether payment for egg and sperm donation should be legalised. This question attracted significant media attention yesterday after Lisa Jardine, of the HFEA, called for debate on the existing UK ban on payment for donors. Today's Guardian contains a piece highlighting several ways in which people can already sell their bodily parts or products, ranging from livers to breast milk, and from blood to hair. Sale of many of these bodily parts/products is regarded is ethically problematic, and is, in many cases, illegal. But not in all cases. For example, few would have a problem with the sale of hair for use in wigs.

Read More »What’s special about selling gametes?

Feetility – should we pay egg and sperm donors?

Lisa Jardine, the head of the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, has called for public debate about paying egg or sperm donors. Currently donors are given a maximum of £250 in reimbursement for expenses. But donation rates have fallen in recent years, at least in part related to changes in rules in 2005 preventing donor anonymity. As a consequence a significant number of patients seeking donor egg or sperm for in-vitro fertilisation have been forced to travel overseas. In essence Jardine suggests that a regulated local market in donor eggs and sperm may be better than unregulated fertility tourism.

Read More »Feetility – should we pay egg and sperm donors?

A tiny step forward

Researchers have managed to produce live-born mice (original article) descended from induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS cells), cells taken from adult animals and treated to become stem cells. That individuals could be produced from embryonic stem cells was already known, but this proves that the IPS cells can produce all kinds of cells in an adult body. Good news for people uneasy about the need for embryonic stem cells… or is it?

If one argues that it is wrong to use embryonic stem cells because embryos carry moral rights, then the question is whether the creation of IPS cells produce something that also has moral rights.

Read More »A tiny step forward

In a world of low risk obstetrics, is home birth unethical

It is reported that women who give birth at home with an independent midwife are nearly three times more likely to have a stillbirth than those who give birth in hospital; many other outcomes were “significantly better”. 

 

Perinatal deaths following home birth were associated with an underestimation of the dangers of high risk pregnancies such as preterm birth, twins, vaginal breech births and fetal distress (Bastian H et al.  BMJ. 1998; 317: 384–388). Even some IVF pregnancies were managed at home.

 

Midwives are trained in carrying out normal deliveries, not complex high risk manipulative deliveries such as breech deliveries; these should not be performed by unskilled operators. In addition, caesarean section is advocated for most women with a breech presentation or twins. 

 

Home birth in high risk patients is inadvisable and experimental (Bastian) and is opposed by professional colleges and here and here. Women with an increased risk of complications should be delivered in hospital where obstetricians can spot those complications. Women should be told this – in the recent study there is no suggestion that UK midwives told them. 

 

Read More »In a world of low risk obstetrics, is home birth unethical