I feel that for one to acquire best learning and obtaining information, we need both the sublime library and the convenient internet.
When we use the internet to find information, the onus is on us to decide which information is reliable and which is not. When we use the information sources that are provided by the library, I am sure that they have been selected with users' needs in mind and that they are reliable sources. Moreover, someone could get information on a subject off the internet and get it from a non-legitimate source. If you use the internet you do have a greater chance of finding false information, however, if you go to a library your resources are limited to whatever books or magazine articles that library might contain. I think that using a mix of the two to obtain and compare different information is strongly encouraged. If you do decide to use the internet to gather information then try to look for sights that may have trustworthy information such as organizations dedicated to the topic.
No doubt that the internet is much easier now. The internet has many advantages over the library or a set of encyclopedias where you can have a whole world of information right at your fingertips. Many sources are available on here and you stay right at your desk instead of looking for lots of books and flipping through them to do your research. However, some of the best online information sources are not free. I cannot afford to buy these services. But the library pays the access fee so that all patrons can use these online fee-based resources. Having information that is simply not available on the internet free, we limit our searching to free sources, missing a great deal of valuable information. Therefore, we should use both library sources and free internet sources for a comprehensive search.
The internet is not organized like a library is. Sometimes locating what you want on the Web is a trial-and-error process. I appreciate the ease with which I can find information in an organized library. I think that another major advantage of going to the library is the availability of getting assistance from a librarian. These people have been trained in how to do research. They know the best ways of locating information--stuff that most people don't know about. More than once, I have been referring myself to the reference desk and ask for assistance on certain information which I had been looking for hours with no luck. You would then be amazed when they show me how to find what I want in only a few minutes.
In regards to morality, many people resort to dishonesty when it comes to the convenient internet. Students or even adults often “copy and paste” information found on the internet and do not acknowledge it, furthermore, claiming it their own. It makes them believe that they can rely on internet for their future work which leads to continuous attempts to do so. This would be harmful to an individual when it comes to exams or tests where one would turn blank out of ideas and start panicking at the fact that it is only the first few times when he/she does his/her own work. Some may brush through them and still possess the wrong mindset.
All in all, it is important to strike a balance between internet and the library and always remember and adhere to the dos and ‘don’ts of an honest being.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Leader -- A gift of a programme
Overall, I am in favour of the Gifted Education Programme. It is an academic programme designed for the top 1% of pupils, identified in two rounds of tests at the end of Primary 3. Starting development of talents from young is very effective since the fact that if we realize our strengths and weaknesses earlier, we can more efficiently improve on or overcome each of them. All of us have a commitment to ensure that the potential of each Singaporean is recognized, nurtured and developed. It was recognized that there are pupils who are intellectually gifted and that there should be provisions to meet their needs.
The programme is a model of excellence in the education of the intellectually gifted. This will be achieved by providing professional expertise and exemplary resources to develop intellectual rigour, humane values and creativity in gifted youths to prepare them for responsible leadership and service to country and society. It also strives to nurture gifted individuals to their full potential for the fulfillment of self and the betterment of society. This is very crucial for a country like Singapore as her only resource is no other than human resource. Considerations of such factors, GEP is definitely beneficial to both individuals and society.
Going through the programme, some parents and pupils have argued that the stress is too great. In our lives, we always have to sacrifice for benefits. “No pain, no gain” is a very valid role model for us to push ourselves and put in our utmost efforts to achieve more and not complain about the tough journey. Sometimes the GEP students do not perform as well as those in mainstream and hence been interpreted as an ineffective programme. However, I think that such situations are very common and should not be blindly blaming the source rather than the user. For example, when we are bowling and have multiple gutters, you don't blame the bowling ball or the pins for being useless but reflect on the way you bowl.
The GEP and its students have been criticized by many, the programme as elitist. The issue of the GEP has been raised many times in Singapore, both online in blogs and in the mainstream media. GEP students are sometimes prejudiced against and insulted by others and portrayed as arrogant nerds and academic snobs who spend large amounts of time studying and have no interests in sports or other non-academic activities. While this perception may ring true for some GEP individuals, as a blanket stereotype of all GEP students it does not hold true as there definitely have been and still are GEP students who have been and are good in sports and have taken part in numerous sports competitions, being “cool” and stuff like that to be respected and admired. I think that they are just jealous of GEP students and just pouring out hurtful words that they don’t actually mean it at times. This is a form of verbal bullying and should be totally prohibited.
The GEP is often criticized to be elitist too. This might be true to some where GEP students prefer to mix with their own and despises non-GEP students. At these moments, it is the fault of the GEP individuals and it is against one’s moral values to do so. Equality and unity is always emphasized in schools and the whole nation itself. To encourage greater integration between GEP and mainstream students and combat elitism and encourage socialization, more lessons and activities are conducted with both GEP and non-GEP students.
All in all, such social problems should not deter us from developing our talents and it is encouraged to be promoted further.
The programme is a model of excellence in the education of the intellectually gifted. This will be achieved by providing professional expertise and exemplary resources to develop intellectual rigour, humane values and creativity in gifted youths to prepare them for responsible leadership and service to country and society. It also strives to nurture gifted individuals to their full potential for the fulfillment of self and the betterment of society. This is very crucial for a country like Singapore as her only resource is no other than human resource. Considerations of such factors, GEP is definitely beneficial to both individuals and society.
Going through the programme, some parents and pupils have argued that the stress is too great. In our lives, we always have to sacrifice for benefits. “No pain, no gain” is a very valid role model for us to push ourselves and put in our utmost efforts to achieve more and not complain about the tough journey. Sometimes the GEP students do not perform as well as those in mainstream and hence been interpreted as an ineffective programme. However, I think that such situations are very common and should not be blindly blaming the source rather than the user. For example, when we are bowling and have multiple gutters, you don't blame the bowling ball or the pins for being useless but reflect on the way you bowl.
The GEP and its students have been criticized by many, the programme as elitist. The issue of the GEP has been raised many times in Singapore, both online in blogs and in the mainstream media. GEP students are sometimes prejudiced against and insulted by others and portrayed as arrogant nerds and academic snobs who spend large amounts of time studying and have no interests in sports or other non-academic activities. While this perception may ring true for some GEP individuals, as a blanket stereotype of all GEP students it does not hold true as there definitely have been and still are GEP students who have been and are good in sports and have taken part in numerous sports competitions, being “cool” and stuff like that to be respected and admired. I think that they are just jealous of GEP students and just pouring out hurtful words that they don’t actually mean it at times. This is a form of verbal bullying and should be totally prohibited.
The GEP is often criticized to be elitist too. This might be true to some where GEP students prefer to mix with their own and despises non-GEP students. At these moments, it is the fault of the GEP individuals and it is against one’s moral values to do so. Equality and unity is always emphasized in schools and the whole nation itself. To encourage greater integration between GEP and mainstream students and combat elitism and encourage socialization, more lessons and activities are conducted with both GEP and non-GEP students.
All in all, such social problems should not deter us from developing our talents and it is encouraged to be promoted further.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
The Great Casino Debate -- Don't slay the goose that lays golden eggs
I agree with the author’s views on “when we get impatient with slow but steady yield from honest labour and decide to take a short cut to instant wealth, we slay 'Thrift' and 'Industry' with the 'Knife of Pragmatism'.”
The debate on whether Singapore should open a casino has been a current hot topic among Singaporeans. It is infused with issues such as moral values and social repercussions, on the one hand, and economic values on the other, to whether Singaporeans can be trusted to act responsibly. In my opinion, I personally feel that Singapore should not open a casino in her impatience of gaining economic benefits.
Firstly, I think that by opening a casino, no doubt there may be economic merits, but the social impact is not negligible. By making gaming more accessible and even glamorous, it could encourage more gambling and increase the risk of gaming addiction. A casino could also lead to undesirable activities like money laundering, illegal money lending and organized crime. Although one can try to mitigate these effects, the long term impact on social mores and attitudes is more insidious and harder to prevent.
The government claims to address the non-economic issues, but how effective are they? Does this mean that middle- and high-income earners can afford to gamble away their hard-earned money? Truly, it may be argued that the 'mature and discerning' will only be casual gamblers, not addicted ones. But let us not forget, as with drugs and cigarettes, it all begins with the first curious, 'innocuous' puff. More people will gamble if the IR is built, more people will get into trouble, and more families will suffer. This is the paramount and absolute issue for many who oppose the casino. There is no reason to exclude locals to gamble in the first place. Although they again claimed that they set restrictions to the locals and stuff, how far can these deter them from gambling? Having a high entrance fee of $100 a day or implementing the system of exclusions will only help the problem temporarily. For example those financially difficult people could pay others to help them gamble at the casino. Next, so what if they can ensure that some social good comes out of the gambling at the casino? Saying that the money is used for charitable and worthy causes, they would be usually be donated to the needies, the disabled or charity organizations, but who will help those who have lost all their money at the casinos? Looking from this point of view, are we advocates for the liberty of others who want to gamble or are we choosing to sacrifice those who would fall prey to the vice and destroy their lives for some economic gains we would receive? This is a very vital point that has to be taken note of.
Moreover, with all these restrictions and systems to minimize the social impacts, in my opinion, many debates about them will be raised after a period of time the casino is opened. By then, the government might remove these restrictions due to maybe the policy of democracy or liberty and the interests of the majority that the public would be arguing for. However, this is an assumption but it is a possibility. It is an issue that we cannot overlook.
Furthermore, it could tarnish our brand name which is probably the one of our most previous assets. Organized crimes, loan sharks and money laundering could hinder our current reputation of a safe and well-managed city. Besides, our values could be undermined, such as thrift and hard work. There could be rising number of Singaporeans thinking and submitting to that the easiest way to success is to be lucky at the gaming tables. The government is also neglecting the religious objections. Although it cannot enforce the choices of one group on others, or make these choices the basis of national policy, it clearly shows the tyranny of the majority where minority are silenced.
All in all, I feel that we should not be in such a rush to open the casino unless we are really prepared to be willing to solve the public's concerns and potential problems. Those in favour of a casino may argue that the gambling addicts, etc, are in the minority and it is their choice if they want to muck up their lives. I think that we should adopt a more "communist" view here and not leave anyone astray.
The debate on whether Singapore should open a casino has been a current hot topic among Singaporeans. It is infused with issues such as moral values and social repercussions, on the one hand, and economic values on the other, to whether Singaporeans can be trusted to act responsibly. In my opinion, I personally feel that Singapore should not open a casino in her impatience of gaining economic benefits.
Firstly, I think that by opening a casino, no doubt there may be economic merits, but the social impact is not negligible. By making gaming more accessible and even glamorous, it could encourage more gambling and increase the risk of gaming addiction. A casino could also lead to undesirable activities like money laundering, illegal money lending and organized crime. Although one can try to mitigate these effects, the long term impact on social mores and attitudes is more insidious and harder to prevent.
The government claims to address the non-economic issues, but how effective are they? Does this mean that middle- and high-income earners can afford to gamble away their hard-earned money? Truly, it may be argued that the 'mature and discerning' will only be casual gamblers, not addicted ones. But let us not forget, as with drugs and cigarettes, it all begins with the first curious, 'innocuous' puff. More people will gamble if the IR is built, more people will get into trouble, and more families will suffer. This is the paramount and absolute issue for many who oppose the casino. There is no reason to exclude locals to gamble in the first place. Although they again claimed that they set restrictions to the locals and stuff, how far can these deter them from gambling? Having a high entrance fee of $100 a day or implementing the system of exclusions will only help the problem temporarily. For example those financially difficult people could pay others to help them gamble at the casino. Next, so what if they can ensure that some social good comes out of the gambling at the casino? Saying that the money is used for charitable and worthy causes, they would be usually be donated to the needies, the disabled or charity organizations, but who will help those who have lost all their money at the casinos? Looking from this point of view, are we advocates for the liberty of others who want to gamble or are we choosing to sacrifice those who would fall prey to the vice and destroy their lives for some economic gains we would receive? This is a very vital point that has to be taken note of.
Moreover, with all these restrictions and systems to minimize the social impacts, in my opinion, many debates about them will be raised after a period of time the casino is opened. By then, the government might remove these restrictions due to maybe the policy of democracy or liberty and the interests of the majority that the public would be arguing for. However, this is an assumption but it is a possibility. It is an issue that we cannot overlook.
Furthermore, it could tarnish our brand name which is probably the one of our most previous assets. Organized crimes, loan sharks and money laundering could hinder our current reputation of a safe and well-managed city. Besides, our values could be undermined, such as thrift and hard work. There could be rising number of Singaporeans thinking and submitting to that the easiest way to success is to be lucky at the gaming tables. The government is also neglecting the religious objections. Although it cannot enforce the choices of one group on others, or make these choices the basis of national policy, it clearly shows the tyranny of the majority where minority are silenced.
All in all, I feel that we should not be in such a rush to open the casino unless we are really prepared to be willing to solve the public's concerns and potential problems. Those in favour of a casino may argue that the gambling addicts, etc, are in the minority and it is their choice if they want to muck up their lives. I think that we should adopt a more "communist" view here and not leave anyone astray.
Get a JC diploma
So how viable is JC Diploma in choosing the elites?
I agree to a certain extent that the JC Diploma is a viable tool to pick the cream from the crop. In the current era, many students are acing their A-levels. They know what to mug for and are now much better prepared for it. Percentage of As are increasing every year and with people getting them all the time, we are unable to distinguish the best from the better. I feel that the A-levels only gauge how well you are able to memorize concepts, etc but it does not mean you can apply these concepts in life. Although the A-levels have introduced contrasting subjects like General Paper, Project Work and the optional offering of subjects at H3 level, it is still unable to determine the best because students could still be memorizing in general papers and in project work for example, many are acing it and you cannot determine whose A-star project is better then.
The JC Diploma hence strives to differentiate these better students as to get one, students must not only have great grades but also display a wider interest outside their studies. These students not only have excellent academics, electives, and research activities, but also participation and achievements in areas outside of academics like character, leadership, etc. This hence could help to draw a line between the best from the better and recognize the real elites.
However, with the introduction of this JC Diploma, students would definitely be excited to achieve that award and by limiting the number of awardees, people might resort to underhand means to achieve it. Besides, students would also be developing themselves according to the rubric for JC Diploma just for the sake of getting it. We are not grooming passionate leaders from this which passion I think is one of the most vital component of an exemplary leader. Moreover, despite its potential to distinguish the good ones, it could affect the weaker students' confidence and self-esteem when faced with such high expectations/criteria for an award which only the strong ones could get. However, not forgetting the motivational aspect in it but considering those who take it as a threat or an impossible mission, it would affect them negatively.
Considering both sides, I feel that the cons outweighs the pros. When we plan for something, we always strive to strike a balance in those who do and don't benefit, and even including those who could suffer losses from it. In this case, I think that it is unbalanced and bears an unfairness to those who do not benefit. However true that those who works hard have the right to reap what they sow and that deeming others being unfairly treated is ridiculous, we still have to consider the other negative factors stated previously.
Moreover, if we accept this, in the future when many can achieve the JC Diploma, it will be hard to differentiate the elites and more "in-between"s will be proposed again. We are not solving the core of the problem whereas we are just procrastinating the development of our youths, by including such unnecessary politics to them to fight for the awards with one another. We should just let this matter rest and continue with our current system of just O'levels and A'levels, it is one's freedom to beef up their portfolios and achievements themselves, performing well in interviews and strive to be in the best books in the interviewer's eyes.
An extra diploma is unnecessary and I think that current system is perfectly fine.
I agree to a certain extent that the JC Diploma is a viable tool to pick the cream from the crop. In the current era, many students are acing their A-levels. They know what to mug for and are now much better prepared for it. Percentage of As are increasing every year and with people getting them all the time, we are unable to distinguish the best from the better. I feel that the A-levels only gauge how well you are able to memorize concepts, etc but it does not mean you can apply these concepts in life. Although the A-levels have introduced contrasting subjects like General Paper, Project Work and the optional offering of subjects at H3 level, it is still unable to determine the best because students could still be memorizing in general papers and in project work for example, many are acing it and you cannot determine whose A-star project is better then.
The JC Diploma hence strives to differentiate these better students as to get one, students must not only have great grades but also display a wider interest outside their studies. These students not only have excellent academics, electives, and research activities, but also participation and achievements in areas outside of academics like character, leadership, etc. This hence could help to draw a line between the best from the better and recognize the real elites.
However, with the introduction of this JC Diploma, students would definitely be excited to achieve that award and by limiting the number of awardees, people might resort to underhand means to achieve it. Besides, students would also be developing themselves according to the rubric for JC Diploma just for the sake of getting it. We are not grooming passionate leaders from this which passion I think is one of the most vital component of an exemplary leader. Moreover, despite its potential to distinguish the good ones, it could affect the weaker students' confidence and self-esteem when faced with such high expectations/criteria for an award which only the strong ones could get. However, not forgetting the motivational aspect in it but considering those who take it as a threat or an impossible mission, it would affect them negatively.
Considering both sides, I feel that the cons outweighs the pros. When we plan for something, we always strive to strike a balance in those who do and don't benefit, and even including those who could suffer losses from it. In this case, I think that it is unbalanced and bears an unfairness to those who do not benefit. However true that those who works hard have the right to reap what they sow and that deeming others being unfairly treated is ridiculous, we still have to consider the other negative factors stated previously.
Moreover, if we accept this, in the future when many can achieve the JC Diploma, it will be hard to differentiate the elites and more "in-between"s will be proposed again. We are not solving the core of the problem whereas we are just procrastinating the development of our youths, by including such unnecessary politics to them to fight for the awards with one another. We should just let this matter rest and continue with our current system of just O'levels and A'levels, it is one's freedom to beef up their portfolios and achievements themselves, performing well in interviews and strive to be in the best books in the interviewer's eyes.
An extra diploma is unnecessary and I think that current system is perfectly fine.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
How far would you consider the measures taken by various countries to contain the spread of swine flu adequate and effective?
Since the outbreak of the formerly known as Swine Flu, now the H1N1 virus, it has brought chaos to the world and many countries immediately took measures against it to contain the spread of the virus. Are they effective or adequate?
Asia, a continent that has battled deadly viruses such as the H5N1 bird flu and SARS in recent years, began taking steps over the weeks to ward off a new strain of flu virus H1N1. China's quarantine authority an issued emergency notices requiring people to report flu-like symptoms at ports of entry when coming from swine flu-affected places. The ministries of health and agriculture say they are closely monitoring the situation. The government of South Korea has stepped up quarantine and safety checks on travelers arriving from the United States and Mexico, as well as pork imports from these countries. Emergency quarantine system was up and running, with simple tests conducted on people arriving with flu symptoms at airports. Besides Hong Kong had stepped up surveillance at border control points and travelers found with swine flu symptoms will be taken to hospitals for further checks. Samples taken from people with flu-like symptoms and who had traveled in the affected places within seven days before the onset of symptoms will be tested in laboratories. People who develop respiratory illness within seven days after returning from the affected places should put on a surgical mask and seek medical consultation from public clinics and hospitals immediately. This is also implemented in Singapore. Europe and Africa has also taken precautionary steps being taken to combat the H1N1 virus.
The main and common problem in these countries are that people still get infected in the end. This clearly shows the ineffectiveness of the measures taken by the countries. Probably these are the best out of all other alternative measures against the pandemic but I think that the ultimate cause of the continual spreading of the virus is due to our lack of preparations and precautions before even the virus is founded. We have to discuss and defend possible future worldwide problems such as this. I am sure we have learned our lesson from SARS and should have anticipated and prepared for such other possible uprising pandemics. Although we have reacted very fast, implemented measures as soon as possible and communications was well done among the countries, I think we could have done even better if we had prepared beforehand.
Moreover, such measures are desperate ones whereby it affects many other areas of a country such as tourism, development and economy in general. There were many inconvenience made to people who traveled abroad probably due to lack of manpower so I think that we should have planned for all these beforehand. The measures taken are inadequate. If there were sufficient, it would have been much more effective and the virus would not spread so quickly.
Asia, a continent that has battled deadly viruses such as the H5N1 bird flu and SARS in recent years, began taking steps over the weeks to ward off a new strain of flu virus H1N1. China's quarantine authority an issued emergency notices requiring people to report flu-like symptoms at ports of entry when coming from swine flu-affected places. The ministries of health and agriculture say they are closely monitoring the situation. The government of South Korea has stepped up quarantine and safety checks on travelers arriving from the United States and Mexico, as well as pork imports from these countries. Emergency quarantine system was up and running, with simple tests conducted on people arriving with flu symptoms at airports. Besides Hong Kong had stepped up surveillance at border control points and travelers found with swine flu symptoms will be taken to hospitals for further checks. Samples taken from people with flu-like symptoms and who had traveled in the affected places within seven days before the onset of symptoms will be tested in laboratories. People who develop respiratory illness within seven days after returning from the affected places should put on a surgical mask and seek medical consultation from public clinics and hospitals immediately. This is also implemented in Singapore. Europe and Africa has also taken precautionary steps being taken to combat the H1N1 virus.
The main and common problem in these countries are that people still get infected in the end. This clearly shows the ineffectiveness of the measures taken by the countries. Probably these are the best out of all other alternative measures against the pandemic but I think that the ultimate cause of the continual spreading of the virus is due to our lack of preparations and precautions before even the virus is founded. We have to discuss and defend possible future worldwide problems such as this. I am sure we have learned our lesson from SARS and should have anticipated and prepared for such other possible uprising pandemics. Although we have reacted very fast, implemented measures as soon as possible and communications was well done among the countries, I think we could have done even better if we had prepared beforehand.
Moreover, such measures are desperate ones whereby it affects many other areas of a country such as tourism, development and economy in general. There were many inconvenience made to people who traveled abroad probably due to lack of manpower so I think that we should have planned for all these beforehand. The measures taken are inadequate. If there were sufficient, it would have been much more effective and the virus would not spread so quickly.
Advance Medical Directive Act- How is this different from euthanasia? What concerns or considerations should be further refined so that's not abused
An Advance Medical Directive is a legal document that you sign in advance to inform the doctor treating you, in the event you become terminally ill and unconscious, that you do not want any extraordinary life-sustaining treatment to be used to prolong your life. Making an AMD is a voluntary decision. It is entirely up t you whether you wish to make one. In fact, it is a criminal offense for any person to force you to make one against your will.
I think that it is different from euthanasia to a certain extent. Assisted suicide is a form of euthanasia where the patient actively takes the last step in their death. It refers to the practice of ending a life in a painless manner. Voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have been the focus of great controversy in recent years. Euthanasia is more direct whereby it aids in ending one's live whereas the AMD is an act whereby it only stops aiding to prolong people's live but not speed up the ending of one's live.
However, in terms of a life lost, it is definitely similar. Both are not considering the chances of living but ending it more quickly than it possibly could allow. I personally think that this issue holds a ambiguous viewpoints. Some might think that during the course of being seriously ill or met with any fatalities, AMD is the right decision for you so as to end your pain once and for all. However some think that we should live on and cherish every second of your life or even await for a miracle, but not to give up on yourself.
One issue is that modern medical technology can technically prolong life in the final stages of a terminal illness. However, it cannot stop the dying process. In such situations, further medical intervention would be medically ineffective, and a decision has to be made whether to withdraw such futile medical intervention. Some terminally ill persons who are unable to express their wishes at that time, may want to be spared further suffering and be allowed to die naturally, in peace and with dignity.
Moreover, AMD could be abused by people if not handled in the right manner. People might force people to opt for AMD so that they could claim their insurances and not waste money on further medication which are medically ineffective and this is illegal. Although it is a criminal offense, people could settle it under the table without anyone else's awareness and this could avoid the law easily. Hence, we must seriously consider and get to the bottom of the reasons why one would opt for AMD before certifying for him.
I think that it is different from euthanasia to a certain extent. Assisted suicide is a form of euthanasia where the patient actively takes the last step in their death. It refers to the practice of ending a life in a painless manner. Voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have been the focus of great controversy in recent years. Euthanasia is more direct whereby it aids in ending one's live whereas the AMD is an act whereby it only stops aiding to prolong people's live but not speed up the ending of one's live.
However, in terms of a life lost, it is definitely similar. Both are not considering the chances of living but ending it more quickly than it possibly could allow. I personally think that this issue holds a ambiguous viewpoints. Some might think that during the course of being seriously ill or met with any fatalities, AMD is the right decision for you so as to end your pain once and for all. However some think that we should live on and cherish every second of your life or even await for a miracle, but not to give up on yourself.
One issue is that modern medical technology can technically prolong life in the final stages of a terminal illness. However, it cannot stop the dying process. In such situations, further medical intervention would be medically ineffective, and a decision has to be made whether to withdraw such futile medical intervention. Some terminally ill persons who are unable to express their wishes at that time, may want to be spared further suffering and be allowed to die naturally, in peace and with dignity.
Moreover, AMD could be abused by people if not handled in the right manner. People might force people to opt for AMD so that they could claim their insurances and not waste money on further medication which are medically ineffective and this is illegal. Although it is a criminal offense, people could settle it under the table without anyone else's awareness and this could avoid the law easily. Hence, we must seriously consider and get to the bottom of the reasons why one would opt for AMD before certifying for him.
Human Organ Transplant Act- How far is it viable to forego consent in harvesting organs? What recommendations and guidelines would you implement to so
"Before HOTA, we could only save 5 lives a year. After HOTA, we now save a life a week. This is the reality of HOTA. HOTA is good both for the dead and the living. But we respect the wishes of those who want to opt out of HOTA. We will facilitate it. Every year, about 2,500 opt out of HOTA. The number went up soon after the SGH incident but has since come down to 80 a day. I respect the wishes of those who opted out but I worry for the poor patients on the organ waiting list.", said Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Minister for Health.
However true that HOTA has saved many lives of people, it is definitely not viable to forego consent in harvesting organs. The act kicks in right after a person is certified dead. One of the main controversy here is ethical concerns. We are being unethical to take someone else's organs and let it be "used" in another person's body without permission. Some might argue that as long as it could save a life, as long as it does not affect the dead which is always true, the ethical concerns does not matter. But I think that it is not right as a person to take anyone's even the deceased organs without his/her permission, it is no different from stealing and this should not be the case which the government also must not encourage to do. Imagine a rich family who is so loaded that it could last them for thousands of years of living, indirectly meaning that taking some money from them would not affect a single bit of their living. If we support the HOTA, we are coming to an agreement where everybody is right to steal/rob from this wealthy family as long as you do it discreetly. This is totally wrong and unethical, so is HOTA. Even if the people would starve and die if they do not steal, it is still wrong as a person, as a man, as a human, to do so unless the family is willing to donate the money. Therefore, it is definitely not viable to forego consent in harvesting organs.
Currently, one must opt out for oneself, while one is alive and able to do so, meaning that one's family cannot opt out on one's behalf once one is in a coma,etc. Moreover, if you opt out of HOTA, you will receive lower priority on the organ transplant waiting list, if you ever need a transplant and this rule also applies to those not covered by HOTA (i.e. Age < 21 or > 60, and Muslims who have not opted in). Looking from these regulations, I wonder where have our democratic nation gone to. It is simply ridiculous to discredit those who are unwilling to carry out HOTA and give priority to those working classes if they ever need a transplant. I feel that this is a very unfair treatment. Besides, it also meant that HOTA can also be carried out even without the person's permission if he had a sudden death.
I recommend that if such cases occur, every action has to be agreed upon all the next of kin of the deceased. We never know if the deceased himself agrees upon it or not. Although some might argue that if he disagreed why did not he opt out earlier? If he opt out, it would meant that he will be given lower priority for organ tranplants if he ever need. Who would do something that would negatively affect themselves? I think that HOTA is playing mind games with the people and forcing and leaving us with the best choice which is not to opt out of it. Hence, I think that we must obtain the permissions of all the deceased next of kin before HOTA can be implemented.
However true that HOTA has saved many lives of people, it is definitely not viable to forego consent in harvesting organs. The act kicks in right after a person is certified dead. One of the main controversy here is ethical concerns. We are being unethical to take someone else's organs and let it be "used" in another person's body without permission. Some might argue that as long as it could save a life, as long as it does not affect the dead which is always true, the ethical concerns does not matter. But I think that it is not right as a person to take anyone's even the deceased organs without his/her permission, it is no different from stealing and this should not be the case which the government also must not encourage to do. Imagine a rich family who is so loaded that it could last them for thousands of years of living, indirectly meaning that taking some money from them would not affect a single bit of their living. If we support the HOTA, we are coming to an agreement where everybody is right to steal/rob from this wealthy family as long as you do it discreetly. This is totally wrong and unethical, so is HOTA. Even if the people would starve and die if they do not steal, it is still wrong as a person, as a man, as a human, to do so unless the family is willing to donate the money. Therefore, it is definitely not viable to forego consent in harvesting organs.
Currently, one must opt out for oneself, while one is alive and able to do so, meaning that one's family cannot opt out on one's behalf once one is in a coma,etc. Moreover, if you opt out of HOTA, you will receive lower priority on the organ transplant waiting list, if you ever need a transplant and this rule also applies to those not covered by HOTA (i.e. Age < 21 or > 60, and Muslims who have not opted in). Looking from these regulations, I wonder where have our democratic nation gone to. It is simply ridiculous to discredit those who are unwilling to carry out HOTA and give priority to those working classes if they ever need a transplant. I feel that this is a very unfair treatment. Besides, it also meant that HOTA can also be carried out even without the person's permission if he had a sudden death.
I recommend that if such cases occur, every action has to be agreed upon all the next of kin of the deceased. We never know if the deceased himself agrees upon it or not. Although some might argue that if he disagreed why did not he opt out earlier? If he opt out, it would meant that he will be given lower priority for organ tranplants if he ever need. Who would do something that would negatively affect themselves? I think that HOTA is playing mind games with the people and forcing and leaving us with the best choice which is not to opt out of it. Hence, I think that we must obtain the permissions of all the deceased next of kin before HOTA can be implemented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)