If you have friends who are doctors (or keep a close eye on the national news) you will have heard of the recent bust up over a contract for junior doctors. The very short summary is the Department of health wanted to reform existing contracts for doctors, and started negotiations with the BMA. These broke down, but the government threatened to impose the contract anyway, junior doctors, in turn have threatened to strike. [ref] For much, much more detail, consider reading NHS Employers, the BMA, and the DDRB (renumeration board) proposals.[/ref]
I am much more ambivalent about the contract than most of my peers, who are varying shades of outraged. I’m not sure why. Continue reading
It is said there is a distinction between an act, and being orientated or predisposed to perform the act. This often comes into play with homosexuality, in defence of positions like:
Gay sex is wrong but I don’t have a problem with gays as people.
Although we oblige members not to have gay sex, that isn’t discrimination against homosexuals.
Marriage is to recognise procreative-type unions. Non-procreative type unions should not be recognized as marriages. As the latter group includes homosexual unions, these should not be recognised as marriages.
In one sense, this is obviously right. Particular moral judgements about behaviour don’t necessarily imply particular moral judgements about the people who behave this way. You can ‘hate the sin yet love the sinner’.
In other senses, though, something’s off. We wouldn’t take seriously someone who proclaimed they didn’t mind the ‘orientation’ of Jewishness, yet wanted to ban behaviours like reading the Torah, Rabbinical office, and Jewish religious services. They’re just anti-Semitic under a pretence. So what is it about certain behaviours (or sets of behaviour) of people that mean being ‘against’ these behaviours implies you are ‘against’ these people? Continue reading