It is often said that if free speech means anything it means freedom for the thought we hate. This core idea is generally referred to as “viewpoint neutrality” and is consistent with the liberal intuition that governments should remain neutral with regard to conceptions of the good life. None of the traditional defenses of free speech seem to secure viewpoint neutrality, however. Instead, each justification leaves room to censor some viewpoints. Ironically my defense of viewpoint neutrality does not come from (...) the liberal assumption that governments should remain neutral about the good life. I defend a version of the virtue argument for free speech that is explicitly perfectionist—-government does not have to remain neutral when promoting good lives for its citizens. Free speech is not just a means to promote virtue but is part and parcel of intellectual virtue—-a decidedly perfectionist value. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences in the Light of Second-Order Cybernetics” by Laurence D. Richards. Upshot: This commentary gives voice to Richards’s desire to move away from traditional formats, such as the paper presentation, by digressing from the OPC format by illustrating how the proposal inspires and disseminates rather than merely adding any critical commentary.

Ongoing serious breaches in medical professionalism can only be avoided if UK doctors rethink their approach to law. UK medical education has a role in creating a climate of change by re-examining how law is taught to medical students. Adopting a more insightful approach in the UK to the impact of The Human Rights Act and learning to manipulate legal concepts, such as conflict of interest, need to be taught to medical students now if UK doctors are to manage complex (...) decision-making in the NHS of the future. The literature is reviewed from a unique personal perspective of a doctor and lawyer, and practical proposals for developing medical education in law in the UK are suggested. (shrink)

This volume offers an analysis of ethical concepts based on positive legal principles and court decisions, describing what actually happens in practice, or where there are no precedents available, what is most likely to happen. Broadly, it deals with the wide range of potentially difficult situations in which the community, as represented by the law, may come into conflict with the medical profession.