David Hockney has been talking to the BBC about the UK’s smoking ban: he’s not a fan, and suggests that there ought to be “smoking rooms” available.  It’s not the first time that he’s gone public in his opposition to the ban - a few years ago he was interviewed on the Today programme and spent his time banging on about how the ban was “destroying bohemia” - because, clearly, sitting in a smoky pub is a necessary condition of artistic achievement.  Take away the smoke, and the talent vanishes.  Or something.  In actual fact, he just sounded like a very confused and crotchety old man.

I suppose that Hockney’s position is broadly libertarian - in the interview on the link I provided above, he makes accusations about governmental paternalism.  If it is the case that the smoking ban is paternalistic, then he may have a point: though I think that there are times when paternalism is warranted (and I’m certainly suspicious of the kneejerk “paternalism=wrong” response that you sometimes see in bioethics), I can also see the arguments against it.  However, I simply disagree that the ban is all that paternalistic: yes, it does make smoking that bit less attractive when it’s cold and rainy outside; but a concerted paternalism would have meant that smoking was also banned in open spaces and, where possible, in private.  (Escalating the tax on fags, by contrast, may be more straightforwardly paternalistic; the acceptability of doing so is for debate at another time, though.)

One of the better arguments for a ban - and one that Hockney doesn’t address - is motivated by a concern for the people who’d have to work at one of these smokers’ havens. more…

Dependably right-wing blogger Paul “Guido Fawkes” Staines has been circulating the idea that Gordon Brown may be taking anti-depressants - specifically, Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors - under the touching and understanding heading “Is Brown Bonkers?”  and making some sniggering schoolboy allusions to Malcolm Tucker-like tantrums.  This allegation - and quite why it’s an allegation is beyond me - leads Fawkes to muse that

[i]n the context of all this speculation and his manifest physical unease, surely somebody in the Lobby has to publicly ask the question at the PM’s next monthly briefing: ”Prime Minister, have you been taking medication that may affect your judgement?”

But it’s not just Staines that’s casting doubt on Brown’s mental health: he’s asked me to point out, and I’m happy to clarify, that he’s simply following up a story in the Independent that was saying the same thing, except more speculatively (and coquettishly)

Senior Whitehall bods are reported as noting that [Brown] was recently given a long list of things he absolutely must avoid, and that among these are Chianti and cheese. Both are well-known for causing a violent, even lethal reaction to a specific group of heavy duty antidepressants known as MAOIs (Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors).

See how it works: there’s a rumour that Brown has been given a list of foods to avoid, a suggestion that this might be because of some medication, and BINGO! he’s a nutcase.  Of course, because his article’s in the Indy, Matthew Norman is careful to add all kinds of “Of course, I’m not saying…” caveats -

[w]hether literally the case or not, however, this rumour carries the kind of psychological truth that tends to be more damaging than fact.

- but only after having demanded disclosure:

You’d have thought that whether our Prime Minister is severely clinically depressed falls loosely under the public interest header, but what can you do? Our political system regards secrecy less as desirable than its raison d’etre.

See?  From “There might be some foods the PM’s avoiding” to “There’s a conspiracy to cover up the fact that he’s bananas” in two easy steps, with a little side-helping of “I’m not saying that… except I am” as a garnish.  Of course, there’s a range of references to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, natch, because there was a law passed in 1473 saying that every media story about mental health had to have at least one such citation.  Possibly.

There’s a range of things to question about this story: more…

This year marks the tenth anniversary of my first wife’s death. Kerry Anne (KAS to her friends) had cystic fibrosis and passed away after a good hard fight on the 12th of September , 1999 a year and a half after we married.

Kerry taught me many things and was really my main impetus for becoming interested in medical ethics. It was a natural extension of the many discussions we had had.

more…

It’s all very well to vanish off to a conference and put faces to names… but that can’t help with the important questions, like What does the internet think of you?.  Fortunately, this little app can tell you.  Type in your name, and it’ll do the Google version of a genetic fingerprint.

In the interests of openness, here’s what the internet thinks of your humble editors:

Possibly by virtue of having a more frequently-occuring name than either of the other two, David seems to have the most interesting “genome”, and I’m really rather dull compared to both - although I’m about as illegal as social, which must be because of all those parties.

I’m currently at the ESPMH conference in Tübingen - and having found a cybercafe, I’ll try to make the odd post about what’s happening if I get the chance.  In the meantime, have some of this:

I went to see Hegel’s house in Stuttgart on Monday.  It was closed.  Then open.  Then somewhere in between.

Badum-tish.  I’m here all week, folks.

I’ve recently been reading some work on health incentives - the kind of incentive that may be used to encourage people to pursue ostensibly desirable courses of action in return for some kind of reward (frequently monetary).  Some schemes are aimed at promoting a vague healthy lifestyle, as when people are rewarded for losing weight or smoking less; others are directed at ensuring that people stick to a course of medication.

This has got me thinking about a debate in metaethics between internalists and externalists. more…

Image courtesy of Bela Lugosi’s Dad

We get spammed.  Of course we do.  It’d be lovely if we didn’t, though… so please stop it.

A particularly egregious example from a source I’d've expected to know better arrived yesterday - I’ve decided to let it through for the sake of setting an example.

Most spam, of course, gets filtered out; and, if anything gets through the filter, David, Søren and I catch and delete it ourselves.  I’m going to change my policy a little, though: from now on, I’m going to consider myself at liberty to approve certain spam messages, but with the warning that I’ll change all the links to make the sender look silly - usually by directing readers here.  I’ve started already with the comment I just mentioned.

If you happen to be a spammer, you know who you are; but, thanks to an IP locator, so do I.

Predictably enough, the anti-vaccination lobby has been turning its attention to H1N1 vaccinations of late in articles such as this one and the rather more hysterical “ZOMG!  Genocide!” blather I mentioned before.  With that in mind, I’d thoroughly recommend this article on the Lay Scientist blog: a mature, non-hysterical examination of the strongest plausible worry that ought (in a reasonably well-put-together world) head off the critics at the pass.  There is a risk from vaccinations - that’s because we’re injecting people with biologically active stuff, duh - but there’s a risk in not being vaccinated, too.

For the few reprobates among our blog readers who are not regular visitors to our parent journal’s web-site I thought that I should point out that this months issue of the JME contains the first instalment of our new medical ethics “soap” Eyewitness in Erewhon academic hospital

So, if you think that moral philosophy is too dry and complicated click on http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/35/7/400

Maybe it’s all those essays I’ve been marking that’ve melted my brain a bit and made me unduly receptive to the potential for puerile jokes about pregnancy porn… but I saw this on the BBC News front page last night, and it made me giggle…