should decide I AGREE Yvonne Taylor in Socialist Challenge (27 Aug) when she argues that many of the problems facing handicapped antleren Locay are product of callous and hvpocritical attitudes capitalist society. As socialists we have to fight Ior beler conainons ana lives for handicapped people.
However, it seems to me that this is not reallv the point question. What is being debated in the press at the moment is whether parents or doctors or both have the right to decide to take away the life support. severely maltormed babies.
In an opportunist fashion Ine anaabortionists have uD alu a yuc al lic decision to take away a life support machine is murder (in the same way that they argue tis and l disagred think that in general we should defend parents and doctors who are attacked for taking such decisions.
The article is wrong to argue that in this instance important; no has rights aosurac born baby cannot establish such a choice in practice on this particular GucsuoR. DonicDouv to make a choice though and I think it should be the parents.
his cholce does give parents absolute children OVCI powers of life and death in general. But lee poll thạt this decision which ettects the lives the parents and especally the mother and they al c шле опу реоріс guanted to take it.
typical of SPUC ana Lirt inat Iney nave no concern whatever on Equality children parents but about abstract.
Issue much an issue of rights as one orwno decces skor that reason it is difficult and dangerous to draw out general principles in relation to it since it is specific I do think, however, that Socialist Challenge should defend the doctor currently on trial and the parents from attack.
J Arkwright East London. Letter! Anger is no substitute SOCIALISTS have a responsibility reach as wide an audience as possible particularly now. Socialist seeking to win new readers but 1 am worried that we may be putting obstacles in the path to our politics.
Selling the paper outside Metal Box factory some months ago, one worker vocally scorned the paper because, as he said, it's biased. My comrade instantly replied, 'Of course it's biased... favour of the working class.
I was impressed both by the speed of her reply and by its sentiment, but now I'm not sure. I think the man has a point.
Socialist journalists have a harder task than their bourgeois counterparts. Not only do socialists have to provide facts and counter the media's distortions, but they also have to which favour of the type of measures to Challenge is то вете on and argument standing.
ting. Or.
Rob Jones provide London E9 be used by Miami. I was struck by A lot of the time we fail in these three areas because we rely only on our anger Isse. Most of the paper smacks of righteousness, and unreasoned bias in favour of the working class We do not have a monopoly on anger and it is no substitute for clear analysis Emotive words may help and pad out a paragraph but they do not aid underThe crimes of capitalism are stark enough to withstand stark reporas Lenin preferred to say facts have hard heads.
I don't need someone else to be shocked, indignant or horrifiea for me. I can do it all for myself.
I HAVE just returned from a visit to the United States where I attended several metings of the air traffic controllers' union (PATCO) in • their determination and the strength of their collective leader-