Whose life is it anyway?

Although not reaching the front pages, recent news stories from around the world have prompted further contributions to the well-rehearsed debate about the rights and wrongs of euthanasia: an Italian doctor who switched off the life support machine of a paralysed man was cleared of wrongdoing by a medical panel; the British Social Attitudes Survey found that eight out of ten people support a law change to allow doctors to actively end the lives of terminally ill patients who want to die; the Indian Supreme Court admitted a public interest litigation seeking the 'right to die' with dignity of persons suffering from chronic terminal diseases and likely to go into a permanent vegetative state; and Australian Senator Bob Brown plans to introduce a private member's bill to legalise euthanasia.

I find that the debate on euthanasia tends to be conducted between two opposing viewpoints, which can be broadly described as: "euthanasia is ethically valid, and should be legal"; "euthanasia is unethical, and should be illegal". You generally don’t hear anyone say: "in my view euthanasia is an immoral act, but should not be illegal".

My personal view on the morality of euthanasia is irrelevant to my point here which is that arguing that something is immoral should not necessarily lead the speaker to argue that it should be illegal. In debates of this nature I always refer back to J.S. Mill's distinction between 'self-regarding acts' - whose primary effects are on the agent himself - and 'other-regarding acts'. In my view this distinction is key to describing the proper role of the state in regulating social behaviour. In On Liberty Mill argues that:

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."

Making a deliberate choice to end one's own life is clearly a self-regarding act. I would not take issue with the right of opponents of euthanasia to argue that it is an immoral choice, or not in the individual's best interests, and therefore to seek to dissuade people from making such a choice, but it is not appropriate to legislate to prevent it.

I would add that the (incorrect) assertion that euthanasia is unnecessary because palliative care is adequate is beside the point - arguing about the practical merits of an issue is not the same as arguing about the ethics. To say "the Iraq war will not lead to the establishment of a stable democracy in Iraq" is qualitatively different from saying "it is not justifiable to invade a country in order to establish democracy, even if that objective is clearly achievable" - either statement may be true (or false) independently of the veracity of the other. In my experience resort to arguing over practicalities usually indicates a failure to make a convincing case on the ethics: "yes, ok, but it won't work anyway".

Sweet Science

I was listening to some discussion on Radio 5 this morning about this news item, in which the anti-boxing participant (Peter McCabe - chief executive of Headway, a brain injuries charity) went on to voice his support for the BMA's call for boxing to be banned.

The BMA is not professionally competent to argue that boxing should be banned. It is professionally competent to argue that boxing is physically harmful, but that is not the same thing. The question of the harmfulness of boxing is a medical one, but the debate about whether it should be banned is a political and ethical one, which medical expertise can inform but not decide.

I take the liberal view that adults* should be entitled to knowingly expose themselves to risk. Such a choice involves weighing up the costs and benefits of different courses of action. In the case of boxing, the BMA is only qualified to comment on one element of the cost - risk to health. There are many other factors in the decision, including: time, effort, and money expended on training and equipment (costs); enjoyment, physical fitness, and the possibility of professional success, status and wealth (benefits). There are others (such as boxing coaches) who may be qualified to give advice on other elements of this equation, but the only person who is competent to weigh costs against benefits, deciding how much value he places on each element, to reach a decision, is the individual.


*This post is intended to discuss the general issue of the status of boxing. I am aware, with reference to the original story, that liberalism does not demand for children the same liberty to take risks that is granted to adults, and that the school could be in the wrong if the activities offered ('fitness for boxing' and sparring) expose children to unacceptable risk.

hello and welcome

So, what to say in the first entry on a new blog?

Rather than launching straight into the great controversies of the day I might start with some ground-rules / notes-to-self and a bit of background on the things that influence my opinions.

Firstly, I'm not going to attempt to provide a one-stop-shop for a full range of opinion on current news and other matters of interest - Daniel Finkelstein already does a marvellous job of this on his 'Comment Central' blog and you should visit it often. I'm also going to try to avoid simply restating points of view that have already been widely debated by more eloquent and informed pundits than I.

As long as I've got the settings right for this site you shouldn't be able to post comments on this blog, and neither can you email me. If you find that you can leave comments this will indicate that I'm a technological incompetent rather than a willing recipient for your informed and constructive criticism or demented ramblings. I'm afraid that as an amateur pundit and full time occupation-other-than-pundit I don't have time to dispute every point and reply to correspondence. However at variance this may be with my views on the external world this blog is a pulpit, not a parliament.

On my own political outlook, you'll see from my profile that I describe myself as broadly centre-left, and I normally vote Labour. However, with my politics being more Euston Manifesto than Campaign Group I often find myself drawn into fairly lively debates with others who would describe themselves as left and Labour. I find this doesn't stop right-wing people thinking I'm a raving revolutionary, but there you go.

On social issues I take a fairly liberal line, with J.S.Mill's distinction between 'self-regarding' and 'other-regarding' acts being something of a guiding principle:

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."

As a teenager I'd have considered myself a red-flag waving ideological socialist, but I've come round to the view that, to steal from Churchill's famous quote about democracy, "capitalism is the worst form of economic system, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Actually, it's worse than that - I've accepted the ethical as well as the pragmatic case for (regulated) capitalism, in admitting that the practical demands of sustaining a socialist economic system would trample all over the liberal principle espoused above.

I found that James Surowiecki’s 'The Wisdom of Crowds' provides a good logical argument for both capitalism and democracy being superior to any form of rule by experts.

In my student days I spent a lot of time reading George Orwell, particularly the non-fiction books and essays, and while these don't utterly shape my worldview I suspect they still have a fair influence on my thinking. If you only read one essay make it 'Notes on Nationalism'.

As for my day-to-day reading, I read the Times more or less cover-to-cover on my way to work in the morning, and usually skim the comment sections of the other broadsheets on the internet to print out some reading for the return journey. Among blogs by professional journalists Oliver Kamm is probably closest to my own location on the political spectrum, while Stephen Pollard is good for providing a well argued centre-right challenge to some of my own assumptions. I also keep an eye on Spiked for its bracing argumentativeness.

That should have given you a fair idea of what to expect, and if it hasn't utterly put you off you'll find my assorted pontifications here in due course.