Talk:Medical Innovation Bill

Edit warring
is adding unsourced information to the article, information which is undue (view of one person), and information from the Daily Telegraph which need to be handled carefully as that newspaper is campaigning for the Bill. Alexbrn talk 14:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The recent edit brings in a significant update, that the Medical Innovation Bill has passed its Third Reading in the House of Lords.


 * Noting original concerns regarding references to the Medical Innovation Bill’s own website, new references have been inserted to support all claims.


 * These references are, Hansard – the official Parliamentary record, an official Ministerial statement to the House of Commons, an academic paper and the Daily Telegraph. The latter mirrors references to the Telegraph in the original article and therefore cannot be ruled out.


 * However, recognising your point that one article referenced is by Dominic Nutt, who campaigns for the Bill, I am happy to remove that reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewrjacques (talk • contribs) 19:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't use primary sources like Hansard. Any secondary sources must be duly weighted and given that major medical bodies seem to be against the Bill (are any for?) using an individual opinion (that of "medico-legal academic Jo Samanta") as a "counter" would be undue. Alexbrn talk 19:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)