Admirable Chrichton wrote:
Can't find much in that article to disagree with.
hmm, well, part of her argument is that the new system of determining appropreateness for treatment is unfair, which ia a good point, it is a tad simplistic. however the previous assesment criteria (age and nothing else) was also simplistic, not taking into account a womans actual health, just assuming health on the basis of an age cut off. it is this even more simpltic measure that mel wants to stick with, i could see her point were she arguming for a proper case by case assesment, but she's lambasting the new measure whilst saying we should also keep with the older worse one. that doesn't make sense.
other than that its just anti-equality rambling, and her classic use of the term "evidence" as if just saying that makes something true, and so on, i made this point clearer here.
i have an art blog: http://procrastinationathon.blogspot.com/
and a review blog: http://blindwithwoodenhands.blogspot.com/
double blog! what does it mean?