Polemic from anti-Saatchi Bill campaigners

Polemic from anti-Saatchi Bill campaigners

Interesting to see the polemic from some anti-Saatchi bill campaigners, which is getting ever more strident as the bill gets nearer and nearer to becoming law. Some of it is quite worrying, if easily dismissed.

The breakthrough announced in the treatment of spinal injuries was trumpeted as evidence that the Saatchi Bill is not needed. Let's have a think about that - the groundwork for this advance was done in the UK, yet the innovative treatment occurred in Poland? This is the same for several other tissue engineering advances. First tissue engineered trachea produced in Bristol. Implanted where? Spain.

The same applies for advances made wholly in other jurisdictions - what bearing can they possible have on the need for the Saatchi Bill in this jurisdiction? 

Another argument is that there's no evidence that fear of litigation inhibits innovation - yet in the next breath we're told fear of the current legal regime is vital to prevent quackery? So does litigation influence behaviour or not? 

There is plenty of evidence from doctors that they are inhibited from innovating. This demand for evidence is however symptomatic of a positivistic philosophy which doesn't fit with normative issues. It is true that if doctors perceive that there is an issue with the law, then there is an issue. The solution that is required is another matter, of course. 
Worse of all, many of the anti-Saatchi Bill campaigners have taken to arguing ad hominem. Best to stick to the issues. There's actually nothing intrinsically wrong with trying to persuade people. The fact that Lord Saatchi is extremely good at it should maybe motivate the critics to be try harder at persuading, not cry foul.