GIVEN the propensity of our spineless liberal establishment to yield slavishly to every scientific innovation (this time hybrid embryos) in the name of so-called social and scientific progress, thereby spurning the time-honoured principle that "the end does not justify the means", the area of greatest concern is the sanctity and respect for human life from conception to death.

Given the endless liberal momentum to push back hitherto sacrosanct boundaries, who would bet that within 100 years we won't have state-sponsored (legal) euthanasia of the mentally impaired, terminally ill, infants with birth defects, etc, the "end" being their expense to the economy and unproductivity?

In the absence of a universally recognised moral point of reference (did someone mention God's law?

Yes, Solzhenitsyn did in Communist Russia) what moral grounds, or effective moral imperatives, exist now to suggest this won't happen, given our "anything science says, goes" mentality?

Incidentally, what our "progressive" authorities have allowed, remains banned in scientifically ambitious countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, France and Germany. Why so?

Mike Baldasera, Darlington.