Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
Oh dear.. BBC Breakfast had two people on to discuss this story:

And managed to end up with two people who had the same (anti-) point of view. I don't know quite how they fucked that up, but it meant that the entire interview was basically the presenters playing devil's advocate, having to argue the points for the procedure themselves.. Which kind of damages impartiality.

And one thing I found amusing was on the BBC 'Have Your Say' site, somebody's argument against it included this gem:

"Medical technology is likely, during Ashley’s normal life span, todeliver new devices and techniques, which will enable individuals withspecial needs to live much better than we can achieve today."

Surely this is a new technique that can deliver her a better quality of life though.. Or do they just mean a different one that sits better with their own personal views?

"Oh no, you can't use that treatment, wait for one that I like.."

Ho hum..

  • 1
From what I could see of catching the end of the dicussion, one of the people they had in to talk didn't seem to know anything about reasons that the girl's parents have given for going ahead with the procedures.

  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account