When did doctrine become emptied of compassion? Doctrine is simply doctrine. But, there is a principle here: law (which is what this is about) cannot be made on the basis of subjective judgements based on emotion; law requires a dispassionate clarity about the ”˜doctrine’ upon which the legislation ”“ and ensuing praxis ”“ can be founded. There is actually no way of deciding on such legislation without having some ”˜doctrine’ ”“ assumed or articulated ”“ that legitimises or demands such a judgement. In my language, it is the fundamental anthropology that shapes this: what is a human being, why does a human being matter, and why does it matter that these questions are admitted and addressed before moving to emotion/compassion? History is littered with examples of law being established without a clear articulation of the anthropology that underlies it….We clearly need a deeper debate and one that doesn’t assume that if you use judgement, you are, by definition, devoid of compassion.