Talk:Hutton Inquiry

Justification for workgroups

I've selected the Politics, Military and Health Sciences workgroup for this article for the following reasons.

Politics is obvious: back in 2003 (and still today) the death of David Kelly and the inquiry into it was an important political moment. The inquiry called a number of important politicians in the Labour government to give evidence on Kelly's death, and there was a lot of politics around who was going to appear (etc.)

Military: Kelly's work and his statements to the media - as well as the outcome of the Hutton Inquiry - had direct relevance to the case for war in Iraq, and for the political viability of said war. In addition, Kelly was working for the Department for Defence in a civilian capacity, and advising both military and intelligence staff on issues related to both Iraq and other aspects of British military and intelligence policy.

Health Sciences: the verdict as to David Kelly's death is a matter of medical science, and while pathologists and doctors mostly agree with the consensus that Kelly committed suicide, a number of doctors have made public claims that the coroner's verdict and the subsequent findings of the Hutton Inquiry are implausible on medical grounds. The basic claim is regarding the cause of Kelly's death: the suicide verdict is based on a complex cause of death - the combination of an overdose of co-praxamol tablets (a strong painkiller that Kelly's wife was taking), blood loss due to Kelly slitting his left wrist and an existing atherosclerosis in the coronary artery. Some doctors have questioned the plausibility of this combination, and there has been a debate carried out in the pages of the newspapers in Britain on these matters. This article will need to be medically accurate, hence the need for the Health Sciences workgroup approval.

I hope this is satisfactory. --Tom Morris 13:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)