Stephen, just one small point. I don't want to sound pedantic, but the criminal madman Hitler was not democratically elected. His party did have some election successes, but in 1933 it was actually in a decline. The NSDAP had never won an absolute majority at the polls.
Hitler was handed the position of Kanzler on a plate by short-sighted politicians (who imagined he would soon fail) with the more or less tacit support of unscrupulous big businessmen and much of the academic elite.
He did, admittedly, have popular support, as many hoped he would lead Germany out of the economic misery of the thirties' depression. Which he did. Unfortunately, that was not all he did, but once in power, nobody in Germany could stop him.

alan, germany,

Dr Stopes-Roe makes the bold claim that a lack of agreement on fundamental principles means that there cannot be experts.

Those who can present a normative position persuasively, clearly and with consistency, even when the issues and biology become complex deserve to be called experts. If fundamental disagreement implies that all arguments are equally good (with no legitimate experts), is there any hope for academia?

Furthermore, he is mistaken in thinking that because of these differences, we should give absolute authority to democratic decision making in matters of medical ethics. Hitler was democratically elected, but there was something seriously wrong at the heart of what he thought it meant to be human. This should point us towards the view that moral judgements about his actions and indeed about any law are independent of public opinion, and must rest on an underlying natural law.

Stephen , London, UK,

Udo, to assert "we have taken over the job of God" itself is an assumption that there is a God. As a Humanist I believe this assumption to be wrong, and this goes to the heart of the point being made by the article above. A religious person can assert their is a God and therefore the concept of a Soul, without being able to prove this assertion, and a Humanist can assert that there isn't a God and that there is no concept of a Soul, again, without being to prove this assertion. Therefore we are left with two views, neither of which can be proven in terms that are beyond question, and therefore by definition, neither can claim to be 'right' or to "claim the moral high ground". Your views on havesting embryo body parts may be shared by many, and if it is shared by the majority in society, then the democratic process should be seen to work, whereby society does not support such activities. However, if the majority do not share your view, then democracy should still be seen to be work.

Richard, Portsmouth, UK