I have no idea how this one linked into the news. It was obviously something to do with medical ethics, and if I were to hazard a guess I would suggest there was one of those regular debates that arise around the subject of the morality of euthanasia.

One of the things that people here find disturbingly alien about the muslim world is the general acceptance that there should be no separation between religion and politics.

Here we are taught to believe that religion is essentially subjective, as opposed to our secular social and political systems, or the various sciences, which are seen as impartial and objective. We are told that religious differences invariably lead to conflict, and the only safe solution is the secularization of all our social institutions.

We think that science and religion oppose each other, in fact a serious misunderstanding of both, for truth can't be confined to the realm of scientific proof. Science deals with only a fraction of the human life experience, and offers hopelessly inadequate explanations for most of what humans hold most precious.

The bliss of love, the exhilaration of parenthood, the awesome impact of beauty - intellectual, emotional and sensual delight. In subtle movements of the human heart, we experience daily the life of the spirit, that immaterial part of us that doesn't die with the body, a religious truth that lies outside of science. Life goes on, even after our time on this world is over.

Our understanding of religious truth underlies our ethical decisions, in medicine, for instance, involving rights and responsibilities in matters of birth, life and death. In a secular state, our ethical code is seen as a matter of law, framed not by religious leaders, but by Parliament, with decisions made by MP's, or delegated to Government appointees, usually lawyers, for in ethics and morality the debate is not one of scientific proof, but judgement or opinion, what a muslim would call a fatwa.

At present, our medical ethics tend to presume that sustaining life supercedes all other considerations, such as quality of life, or death with dignity, and as with all our great secular institutions, changes of attitude ultimately depend upon the will of Parliament. But secular Government works not to a moral, but an electoral imperative.  MP's can be expected to show concern for moral and ethical issues, only in so far as we do. Our politicians are like the afterlife. We get what we deserve.