The question of assisted dying is a deeply personal and difficult one. It's an issue of autonomy and dignity in the face of suffering. In the UK Parliament's debate on this topic, a core argument emerges from a fundamental inconsistency in how the state treats personal health decisions. While getting sick or old are personal processes, the state is heavily involved in assisted healing. Therefore, the same logic dictates that the state should also be involved in assisted dying.
The Core Inconsistency
The state already plays a massive role in our healthcare. We have a National Health Service (NHS) that provides a wide range of treatments and care, all designed to help people heal and prolong life.1 This includes everything from simple medications to complex, life-saving surgeries. We spend billions of pounds each year on doctors, hospitals, and medical research.2 This is a form of state-assisted healing, and we collectively agree that it's a necessary and moral function of government.
This state involvement is not seen as an intrusion; rather, it's a fundamental duty to support the health and well-being of citizens. We don't say that treating cancer is a personal matter and should be left to the individual and their family alone. Instead, we have a public system in place to assist.
If the state is so deeply involved in assisting people to live, why does its responsibility stop at the point where a person, facing incurable and unbearable suffering, wishes to die? The decision to end one's life under these circumstances is just as personal as the decision to seek treatment for an illness. To deny assisted dying is to say that the state can help you live but cannot help you die, even when living has become a burden that a person no longer wishes to bear. This creates a moral and ethical imbalance in our healthcare system.
Addressing Concerns
Of course, there are significant concerns about assisted dying. The risk of foul play, pressure on vulnerable individuals, and ethical issues are very real and must be addressed. However, these concerns are not insurmountable. Many countries have already implemented assisted dying laws with strict safeguards, including:
Multiple physician approvals: Requiring more than one doctor to confirm the patient's terminal diagnosis and mental capacity.
Waiting periods: Ensuring the decision is not made impulsively.
Patient self-administration: In some cases, the patient must be the one to take the final dose, ensuring the act is truly voluntary.3
Mental health evaluations: To confirm the patient is not suffering from treatable depression or other mental health conditions that may be influencing their decision.
These safeguards demonstrate that it is possible to create a system that respects individual autonomy while protecting the vulnerable. The debate should not be about whether to allow assisted dying, but how to implement it safely and compassionately.
In conclusion, if the state's role is to assist its citizens in their most vulnerable moments, then that responsibility must extend to both living and dying. To provide a public service for assisted healing but not for assisted dying is a logical and ethical contradiction that the UK Parliament should resolve.
3. SI 單位制已經在使用中：時間的國際單位制（SI）單位是「秒」。它根據銫-133 原子輻射的頻率，利用原子鐘進行精確定義。因此，雖然我們沒有時間的公制系統（如公里或公斤），但其基本單位已經是國際單位制的一部分。我們沒有為分鐘或小時設置公制前綴，因為科學和工程計算已將秒作為基本單位，所以沒有必要。
The Time Problem: Why We Don't Use a Metric System for Time
We don't use a metric system for time because our current timekeeping, based on 60 seconds, 60 minutes, and 24 hours, is deeply ingrained in our culture and technology.1 Changing it would be incredibly disruptive and offer very few practical benefits. Unlike length or weight, where a base-10 system provides straightforward scaling (e.g., 1000 grams in a kilogram), a base-10 system for time would break all our clocks, calendars, and ingrained habits.
All the Reasons Why We Don't Change Time
Here are the key reasons why we stick to the old system:
1. Historical and Cultural Inertia: Our current system is ancient, dating back to the Sumerians and Babylonians who used a base-60 counting system. This system, with 12 and 60 as key numbers, is found throughout history and is part of our shared human experience.
2. Divisibility: The number 60 is a highly composite number.2This means it can be divided evenly by many other numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60).3 This is incredibly useful for splitting time into equal parts, like half-hours or quarter-hours. This makes our current system more flexible for everyday use than a base-10 system, which is only divisible by 2 and 5.
3. The SI System is Already In Use: The SI unit of time is the second.4It's defined precisely using atomic clocks, based on the radiation of a cesium-133 atom.5 So, while we don't have a metric system (like kilometers or kilograms) for time, the fundamental unit is already part of the SI system. We just don't have metric prefixes for minutes or hours because they are not necessary for scientific and engineering calculations which already use seconds as the base unit.
4. It's Not Broken: The current system works perfectly well for all our needs. From a simple kitchen timer to the most complex rocket launch, our 60-second minute and 24-hour day are perfectly precise and widely understood. There's no practical problem that a change would solve.
5. The Astronomical Basis: Our day is based on the Earth's rotation, and our year on its orbit around the sun. While these aren't perfect 24-hour cycles, they are fundamental to our existence. A metric system would force a completely arbitrary and confusing division of the day, disconnecting our clocks from the sun.
6. Massive Cost and Chaos: Imagine trying to replace every single clock in the world. Digital watches, mechanical clocks, computer systems, and even our language would have to be changed. It would be an economic and logistical nightmare, causing a period of unprecedented global chaos.
7. Funny Reason #1: Imagine asking for "half past 5." In a metric system, you'd have to say "5.25 hundred-minutes" or "5.50-metric hours." It just doesn't roll off the tongue! 🤪
8. Funny Reason #2: Under a new system, you'd never be "fashionably late" again. You'd just be "1.789 centi-hours" behind schedule, which sounds way less cool. 😜
Realigning Incentives: A Proactive Approach to the UK's Energy Crisis
The UK's housing and energy crisis, rooted in its inefficient building stock, requires not only a shift in housing strategy but also a fundamental change in the business model of energy companies. While building modern, energy-efficient homes is a long-term goal, immediate action is needed to tackle the existing inefficiency. A significant barrier to this is the current revenue model of energy suppliers, which directly conflicts with the goals of energy conservation. This paper argues for a change in how energy companies are measured and compensated, proposing a system where their profitability is linked to reducing energy consumption, not increasing it.
The Flaw in the Current Model
Currently, energy companies generate revenue and profit by selling units of gas and electricity (measured in kilowatt-hours, or kWh). The more energy their customers consume, the higher their sales and, consequently, their profits. This creates a powerful disincentive for companies to actively promote or invest in energy efficiency measures, such as home insulation upgrades, smart meter installations, or more efficient heating systems.
While some companies may participate in government-mandated efficiency schemes, their core business interest remains tied to consumption. This inherent conflict of interest means that even with good intentions, the system is designed to perpetuate the very problem it claims to solve: high energy use, high bills, and high carbon emissions. The government's efforts to subsidize bills and fund efficiency programs are merely treating the symptoms, not the underlying cause of this market failure.
A Proposal: The "Efficiency-as-a-Service" Model
To realign incentives, we must change the metric of success for energy companies from units sold to units saved. The government should introduce a regulatory framework that allows and encourages energy suppliers to profit from their customers' energy reductions.
This can be achieved by:
Setting a Baseline: For each household or business, a baseline of energy consumption would be established based on historical data. This baseline would serve as the starting point for measuring efficiency gains.
Performance-Based Compensation: Energy companies would be granted a guaranteed profit margin on the energy they supply, but they would also be compensated for every unit of energy their customers save below the baseline. For example, if a home's average consumption is 10,000 kWh per year and the energy company helps them reduce it to 8,000 kWh, the company would receive a pre-determined payment for the 2,000 kWh saved.
Third-Party Verification: Independent auditors would verify the reductions to prevent fraud and ensure accurate reporting. This would guarantee that energy companies are genuinely helping their customers save energy.
This model transforms energy companies from simple commodity sellers into energy service partners.2 Their financial success would directly depend on their ability to help customers make homes more efficient. This would incentivize them to invest in home retrofits, provide expert advice, and innovate in energy-saving technologies.
The Benefits of Realigned Incentives
This proposal offers a workable and reasonable path to solving the crisis. It benefits all parties:
For Consumers: Lower energy bills and more comfortable homes, without having to navigate complex government grant schemes on their own.
For Energy Companies: A stable and predictable revenue stream that is less vulnerable to market volatility. They can become true partners in the energy transition.
For the UK Government: A significant reduction in the need for costly bill subsidies, a major step toward net-zero emissions, and enhanced energy security through reduced import dependency.
By changing the rules of the game, we can transform the energy crisis from a problem to an opportunity, turning the biggest players in the market into the most powerful allies for a sustainable future.
發表文章
