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.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
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.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
National Service- How can this be amended or improved further to alleviate the problem of dodging?
The problem of the NS dodging is getting more common and serious now. NS dodgers are viewing it as a waste of time and hindrance to their life and future plans. We have to tackle this problem as soon as possible before it worsens.
I think the main reason why people in the first place dislike serving the NS is because they do not understand the need to do so. Explanations saying that it would boost our country's defense, helping to keep one fit and also to be exposed to greater experiences and interactions are ignored by these NS dodgers. Furthermore, many are influenced by their peers' complaints and dreadful thoughts about NS, developing in them an aversion towards serving NS. It is somewhat like a widespread cycle where the 'aversion towards NS' virus spreads around the people. Some others find it a hindrance to their future plans such as studying overseas or pursuing a higher level of education instead of spending the next 2 years 'camping and marching'. Moreover, we should ask ourselves how they are able to escape. The ones who truly should be punished also are the parents who find ways and every means of 'contacts' that they have in order for their children to escape doing their NS. That attitude alone teaches those children that they can do what ever they want as the parents alone are the ones who are willing to do anything.
Firstly, I suggest that we implement a stricter law towards these NS dodgers. People would hence not risk dodging NS and exposing themselves to an unbearable consequence. However, this method of solving the problem is not the most effective way. Besides that, we need to tackle the root of the problem, which is the ‘aversion towards NS’ virus that I had emphasized above. I suggest that more road shows, talks, or exhibitions be organized to showcase the many benefits and fun that we can achieve from serving the NS. The main targets are not only the people serving the NS, but their parents as well. If even their parents think that serving the NS is also a waste of time, there is almost no way to change the viewpoint of their children already.
I also think that we should give them more benefits if they are actually planning to pursue higher levels of education but it actually clashes with their period of NS. We should promise him some compensation in terms of what the individual is pursuing after the NS and his circumstances. For example, if he is financially challenged, we should help subsidize his study fees. We must show to these individuals that they are not neglected for spending 2 years in NS instead of going to upgrade themselves in terms of education and other areas.
Lastly, I think that we must also implement a law towards the parents who helped their children to dodge NS. It is really unethical of them to do so. Instead of persuading them to accept NS, they actually encourage them to escape. I think that these parents are to be despised. Perhaps the parents themselves cannot bear to part with their children and thinking that NS is too tough for them to handle. I feel that we must assure them of their children’s safety and probably shorten the period of NS or allow them to go back home more frequently.
All in all, we must not only look into solving this problem on the surface but it’s tackling the roots which is crucial.
I think the main reason why people in the first place dislike serving the NS is because they do not understand the need to do so. Explanations saying that it would boost our country's defense, helping to keep one fit and also to be exposed to greater experiences and interactions are ignored by these NS dodgers. Furthermore, many are influenced by their peers' complaints and dreadful thoughts about NS, developing in them an aversion towards serving NS. It is somewhat like a widespread cycle where the 'aversion towards NS' virus spreads around the people. Some others find it a hindrance to their future plans such as studying overseas or pursuing a higher level of education instead of spending the next 2 years 'camping and marching'. Moreover, we should ask ourselves how they are able to escape. The ones who truly should be punished also are the parents who find ways and every means of 'contacts' that they have in order for their children to escape doing their NS. That attitude alone teaches those children that they can do what ever they want as the parents alone are the ones who are willing to do anything.
Firstly, I suggest that we implement a stricter law towards these NS dodgers. People would hence not risk dodging NS and exposing themselves to an unbearable consequence. However, this method of solving the problem is not the most effective way. Besides that, we need to tackle the root of the problem, which is the ‘aversion towards NS’ virus that I had emphasized above. I suggest that more road shows, talks, or exhibitions be organized to showcase the many benefits and fun that we can achieve from serving the NS. The main targets are not only the people serving the NS, but their parents as well. If even their parents think that serving the NS is also a waste of time, there is almost no way to change the viewpoint of their children already.
I also think that we should give them more benefits if they are actually planning to pursue higher levels of education but it actually clashes with their period of NS. We should promise him some compensation in terms of what the individual is pursuing after the NS and his circumstances. For example, if he is financially challenged, we should help subsidize his study fees. We must show to these individuals that they are not neglected for spending 2 years in NS instead of going to upgrade themselves in terms of education and other areas.
Lastly, I think that we must also implement a law towards the parents who helped their children to dodge NS. It is really unethical of them to do so. Instead of persuading them to accept NS, they actually encourage them to escape. I think that these parents are to be despised. Perhaps the parents themselves cannot bear to part with their children and thinking that NS is too tough for them to handle. I feel that we must assure them of their children’s safety and probably shorten the period of NS or allow them to go back home more frequently.
All in all, we must not only look into solving this problem on the surface but it’s tackling the roots which is crucial.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Free Will's a Gamble / Integrated Resorts- How far do you agree with PM Lee’s decision? Propose a solution to any 2 social repercussions encountered.
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? 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 IR. 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 IR? 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, I totally agree with the writer commenting that 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 have to be taken note of.
Moreover, with all these restrictions and systems to minimise the social impacts, in my opinion, many debates about them will be raised after a period of time the IR 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 are 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 IR 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. I do not agree with PM Lee's views and kindly urge to think twice before opening the IRs.
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? 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 IR. 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 IR? 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, I totally agree with the writer commenting that 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 have to be taken note of.
Moreover, with all these restrictions and systems to minimise the social impacts, in my opinion, many debates about them will be raised after a period of time the IR 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 are 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 IR 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. I do not agree with PM Lee's views and kindly urge to think twice before opening the IRs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)