Never, never, attempt to answer a hypothetical question. Here's one. If a medical charity like Medicin Sans Frontieres had existed in 1945 and Hitler turned up at their tent flap wounded - would they have treated him? Then what would they have done? And if the British or Americans found out that Hitler was in the tent hospital, would they have been justified in bombing it? There are those who suggest that aid charities actually prolong conflicts and that without the food and other humanitarian supplies they provide, one side in a conflict would be forced to surrender sooner and the killing would end earlier. There are even those who say that sending out rescue ships to look for sinking migrant ships in the Mediterranean does not reduce the number of drownings. The argument goes that a greater number of people take to the seas in leaky rafts, dinghies and derelict fishing boats in the belief that they will be rescued if things go pear-shaped. And therefore, so the argument continues, a greater number of ships sink and despite the efforts of the rescue ships, a record number of people are being drowned in the Mediterranean. What do you think? I think we have to think carefully about the full consequences of the things we do in our attempts to help.