Assisted dying should be legalised

2024

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

Physician assisted dying is a term encompassing both assisted suicide and euthanasia. Assisted suicide is the practice of allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs to be administered by individuals who want to die to avoid further suffering. Euthanasia is where someone else – usually a doctor – administers the lethal drug.

The past few decades have seen an international trend of legalising this practice, sometimes for just the terminally ill, sometimes the chronically ill, and sometimes even people whose body is healthy but whose mental illness is so extreme that their suffering is thought to justify the procedure. As this has happened in several liberal societies, many questions have been raised. Can someone ever rationally justify taking their own life, or is it a simple, reasonable choice to make for those who are suffering? What are the wider implications to a society that accepts that sometimes life isn’t worth living? Does the medical profession suffer when the role of the doctor is extended from life-preserver to include life-taker, or is it better that the option to die is put into the hands of professionals?

Continue reading “Assisted dying should be legalised”

Humanity should fear advances in artificial intelligence

updated 2024

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the increasing ability of machines to replicate or even supersede human abilities in complex tasks has been impressive. Already, artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have been used to allow machines to beat the best players in the world at both chess [Ref: Time] and the Chinese board game Go [Ref: Guardian]. IBM’s Watson has beaten the best human players on the long-running US quiz show, Jeopardy! [Ref: Techrepublic]. AI has long been built into consumer goods such as Google search, Alexa and Siri, and is being rolled out in the NHS [Ref: Gov.uk]. Things really took off in September 2022, however, with the release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Its ability to produce convincingly human-sounding text in response to prompts written in everyday language was a sensation, reaching one million users within five days [Ref: Exploding Topics]. Since then, AI applications have hit the mainstream, available and easy-to-use for anyone with an internet connection; alongside text-generation products like ChatGPT, AI-powered tools for generating images, audio, video, code and more have proliferated.

But the implications for society are only just becoming apparent. In January 2024, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund claimed 40 per cent of jobs worldwide will be affected by AI. She warned that it will likely worsen global inequality, but could also enhance some humans’ performance and create new jobs [Ref: Guardian]. Jobs lost could range from call-centre staff being replaced by chatbots to highly-educated law and finance professionals; these industries are now projected to be among the most affected by AI [Ref: Guardian]. Facial recognition systems, combined with ubiquitous CCTV, could erode our privacy. AI-powered autonomous weapons, or bioweapons developed using AI technology, could herald new and deadlier forms of warfare. The world-famous physicist, Stephen Hawking, even claimed that ‘AI may replace humans altogether’ as a ‘new form of life’ that can rapidly learn and improve, making people obsolete [Ref: Independent]. However, AI is also projected to boost the UK’s GDP by up to 10 per cent by 2030 [Ref: PwC] and has the potential to revolutionise fields as diverse as medicine, education and sustainability. So, should we welcome AI’s potential, or are the risks too great?

Continue reading “Humanity should fear advances in artificial intelligence”

Cancel culture is a threat to freedom of speech

updated 2024

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

Cancel culture is one of the buzzwords of the social-media age. It describes the view that there is a new assault on freedom of expression and belief, beyond traditional free speech controversies like ‘no-platforming’. Cancel culture is a form of boycott where a person who has shared a controversial opinion, expressed an ‘inappropriate’ viewpoint, or whose actions are perceived as offensive, is called out and then ‘cancelled’ for their errant behaviour.

It seems there is an example of a celebrity getting ‘cancelled’ every week. Author JK Rowling, singer Winston Marshall, radio presenter Danny Baker and actors Mark Wahlberg and Mel Gibson are just a few who have been fired and lost work for expressing their views. But it’s not just limited to the world of celebrity. Harper’s Magazine published a joint letter from a diverse range of 153 prominent writers, including Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood, concerned more generally that ‘the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted’ [Ref: Harper’s Magazine].

But plenty of commentators think this is no threat to freedom of expression, arguing call-outs are the natural consequence of voicing prejudiced and bigoted opinions, and those who complain that they are held accountable are the ones really trying to crack down on freedom of speech [Ref: Varsity]. So, does this new culture stifle debate and jeopardise free speech, or is it merely what fair and open debate looks like in the social-media age?

Continue reading “Cancel culture is a threat to freedom of speech”

Western museums should repatriate cultural artefacts

updated 2024

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

In January 2023 it was revealed that the British Museum has been in talks with Greek officials about returning some of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece on loan in a ‘cultural exchange’ for other ancient artefacts. Legal ownership of the marbles would, however, remain with the British Museum [Ref: Daily Mail]. 

The news reopened debate about what should happen to the Marbles and other artefacts removed from the Parthenon by Lord Elgin in the early nineteenth century. Former cabinet minister Lord David Frost wrote in response: ‘My view is that it is time for a grand gesture. Only the government can make it. It is to offer to return the marbles as a one-off gift from this country to Greece, as part of a new wider Anglo-Greek partnership.’ [Ref: Telegraph]

But William Atkinson, the assistant editor of Conservative Home, argued that the loan offer by the British Museum’s chair, George Osborne, ‘should horrify not only his fellow Tories, but anyone with even a passing interest in history. It would be an act of vandalism, based on spurious historical and legal arguments, that would fatally undermine a world-leading museum.’ [Ref: CapX] He cites historian David Abulafia’s argument that the British Museum is ‘one of a select number of what might be called Great Universal Museums’, ‘embrac[ing] the history of all the world’s civilisations’ [Ref: The Telegraph]. Abulafia argues that this allows visitors to experience the Marbles not just in the context of Greek history but informed by, and in the presence of, all the world’s civilisations.

Continue reading “Western museums should repatriate cultural artefacts”

Corporate sponsorship is good for the arts

updated 2024

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

In December 2023, the British Museum announced a new £50m partnership with BP, six months after the end of their previous sponsorship deal was hailed by climate protesters as a ‘seismic shift’ [Ref: Culture Unstained]. Climate groups immediately announced plans to protest it and pursue legal action to block the deal, while reports emerged of ‘strong personal disagreement’ among trustees [Ref: Museums Association]. This follows a decade of campaigning for major arts institutions to divest from fossil fuels [Ref: BP or not BP?]: in 2019, a trustee of the British Museum resigned in protest against the Museum’s relationship with BP [Ref: LRB blog]. In 2016, BP ended its 26-year sponsorship of Tate Galleries, as well as its 34-year sponsorship of the Edinburgh International Festival, with suggestions that the possibility of controversy influenced the move [Ref: Guardian]. 

The Sackler name is another high-profile example of the push in recent years for arts institutions to reject funding from bodies deemed ethically questionable. In February 2019, the American photographer Nan Goldin threatened to boycott the UK’s National Portrait Gallery if it accepted a £1m donation from the Sackler fund, which was deemed controversial given the Sackler family’s connection to the opioid epidemic in the US [Ref: Guardian]. Numerous arts institutions have since stopped accepting Sackler funding including the Tate [Ref: Guardian], the Louvre [Ref: Art Newspaper] and the V&A [Ref: Guardian]. 

Continue reading “Corporate sponsorship is good for the arts”

Healthcare workers should not be allowed to strike

2023

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

With the UK economy in the doldrums and following a period when inflation significantly outpaced wage growth, a wave of industrial action has hit the UK. While many strikes have been in industries accustomed to industrial action, there have also been strikes in essential healthcare roles like nurses, ambulance crews and doctors. This has been divisive, triggering some to accuse healthcare workers of neglecting their duty of care for their patients and jeopardising the already overstrained National Health Service.

In reaction to the upheaval caused by this fresh phase of striking, the government has put forward a bill to further curb the right to strike and ensure, by law, minimum levels of service [Ref: UK Government]. This has been heralded by some as a saver of the public’s time (in the case of transport, communications and postal strikes) and protector of many lives (in the case of healthcare strikes). On the other hand, opponents argue this takes away the fundamental democratic right to withdraw one’s labour, as well as ignoring the fact that minimum levels of service are already maintained during healthcare strikes.

Continue reading “Healthcare workers should not be allowed to strike”

DM Berlin: Healthcare workers should not be allowed to strike

2023

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

As a new recession begins to take effect and inflation has outpaced wage growth, a wave of industrial action has hit the UK, Germany and other European countries. While many strikes have been in industries accustomed to industrial action, there have also been strikes in essential healthcare roles like nurses, ambulance crews and doctors. This has been divisive, triggering some to accuse healthcare workers of neglecting their duty of care for their patients and jeopardising already overstrained health services. In Germany, for example, health workers in the Verdi trade union staged a two-day strike in March 2023. [Ref: The Local Germany]

In reaction to the upheaval caused by this fresh phase of striking, the UK government has put forward a bill to further curb the right to strike and ensure, by law, minimum levels of service [Ref: UK Government]. This has been heralded by some as a saver of the public’s time (in the case of transport, communications and postal strikes) and protector of many lives (in the case of healthcare strikes). On the other hand, opponents argue this takes away the fundamental democratic right to withdraw one’s labour, as well as ignoring the fact that minimum levels of service are already maintained during healthcare strikes. In Germany, there are certain legal guidelines in place concerning who is allowed to strike and under what conditions [Ref: Artz.de]. But even where there is legal guidance, a number of ethical questions remain [Ref: BDI.de].

Continue reading “DM Berlin: Healthcare workers should not be allowed to strike”

DM Berlin: The German government should legalise commercial surrogacy

2023

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

Commercial surrogacy is when a woman gets pregnant with another person’s child in exchange for payment from the child’s genetic parents. This is often because the wanting parents are biologically incapable of safely gestating a child themselves. But, in many cases, time-starved, wealthy individuals choose to have a surrogate rather than putting life on pause with pregnancy. Some countries like the UK [Ref: UK Government] and the Netherlands [Ref: Government of the Netherlands] allow altruistic surrogacy, where the surrogate acts out of kindness, being paid no more than their living expenses. However, Germany’s ‘Embryonenschutzgesetz’ [Ref: ESchG] forbids all forms of surrogacy.

But surrogacy as a paid service has been brought back to public awareness by various high-profile celebrities in the USA, such as Elton John, Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Rebel Wilson and Jimmy Fallon [Ref: People]. This has led to debate around whether commercial surrogacy should be opened up as an option in other countries.

Continue reading “DM Berlin: The German government should legalise commercial surrogacy”

The UK Government Should Legalise Commercial Surrogacy

2023

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

Commercial surrogacy is when a woman gets pregnant with another person’s child in exchange for payment from the child’s genetic parents. This is often because the wanting parents are biologically incapable of safely gestating a child themselves. But, in many cases, time-starved, wealthy individuals choose to have a surrogate rather than putting life on pause with pregnancy. Since the 1985 Surrogacy Arrangements Act [Ref: UK Government], this practice has been illegal in the UK, with only altruistic surrogacy (no more payment than expenses) being allowed.

But surrogacy as a paid service has been brought back to public awareness by various high-profile celebrities in the USA, such as Elton John, Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Rebel Wilson and Jimmy Fallon [Ref: People]. This has led to debate around whether commercial surrogacy should be opened up as an option in the UK.

Continue reading “The UK Government Should Legalise Commercial Surrogacy”

Billionaires owning media companies is bad for democracy

2023

Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.

INTRODUCTION

Since Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in October 2022, further fuel has been added to the debate over the influence of rich media owners on democracy. A self-described ‘free-speech absolutist’, Musk has promised to protect the ‘de facto public town square’ [Ref: Guardian] that Twitter has become. Some have argued this helps support democracy, as free speech is one of its foundational principles. But critics point to Musk’s subsequent acts of censorship [Ref: Guardian] on Twitter as evidence that billionaires can’t be trusted with absolute control of the means through which we receive or consume information about society.

Musk isn’t the only billionaire who has recently added a media company to his portfolio. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon and another one of the richest people in the world, purchased the Washington Post in 2013 [Ref: Washington Post] and Marc Benioff bought Time in 2018 [Ref: New York Times]. Some commentators worry that this trend gives disproportionate political power to the super-rich elite, distorting democracy away from the interests of the people. But others dismiss this, pointing out that legacy media has historically been in the hands of the very wealthy. Moreover, they argue that a free media within a free market is essential to democracy and that without today’s billionaire interventions, the shrinking journalism industry would be on its way to oblivion [Ref: Time].

Continue reading “Billionaires owning media companies is bad for democracy”