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 \u201d\u02dcdoctrine\u2019 upon which the legislation \u201d\u201c and ensuing praxis \u201d\u201c can be founded. There is actually no way of deciding on such legislation without having some \u201d\u02dcdoctrine\u2019 \u201d\u201c assumed or articulated \u201d\u201c 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\u2019t assume that if you use judgement, you are, by definition, devoid of compassion.<\/p>\n