Title of Article: Organ Trading Model in Next 1 to 3 Years
Author: Ng Wan Ching
Print Media: The New Paper, under the News Section
Date: 14 August 2008
Synopsis:
The article reports on a dialogue which our Health Minister, Mr. Khaw Boon Wan, held with a group of medical professionals to discuss the possibilities of organ trading in Singapore in the near future. He explained a system which could be implemented to allow this while protecting donors from exploitation. This includes:
1) Restricting trading to kidneys and no other organs, as it was the safest and least problematic,
2) Intervening by matching donors and receipients through a third party panel set up, to avoid direct transactions, and
3) Health screenings, full disclosure of information and pre- and post- operative care.
He also suggested that all donors should be paid the same amount for giving their kidneys but richer receipients would pay more to help subsidize the poorer receipients. Mr. Khaw then suggested that a better system could be implemented in the next one to three years.
Commentary:
With the recent well-publicized charges put against certain individuals in Singapore for engaging in organ trading, which is currently illegal, this issue is all the more relevant in a changing world today.
Several hundred Singaporeans require transplants of organs every year, be it kidney, heart, liver or cornea. To cope with this demand, the Human Organ Transplants Act (HOTA) was passed. The Act assumes that all non-Muslim Singaporeans who die in hospital are willing to donate their organs unless they have opted out of the Act previously. People who opt out, or those who are not covered under the Act (Muslims who have not opted in, people under the age of 21 and above 60) will be given less priority on the waiting list should they require an organ donation in the future. However, the HOTA is still inadequate to provide for the many patients requiring an organ.
However, the idea of organ trading for Singapore is being proposed to help solve this problem. This works on the fact that people would be more likely to donate should they be paid for it.
Firstly, because of the current shortage of human organs, I would support the implementation of such a programme in Singapore. Patients requiring an organ would have to pay much money in order to continue on life support systems if they do not receive one. For example, those needing a heart transplant would have to go on a mechanical heart, which is not only bulky but expensive to use. Kidney failure patients would need to go for regular dialysis, which is not cheap either. It would also be many years of ongoing pain should they lack an organ or require a new one.
Not many people in Singapore can afford a large sum of money in order to just survive, nor would many want to suffer in pain, and thus would greatly welcome the opportunity to receive an organ if it would cost less and be transplanted quickly in the least time possible.
However, this would lead to the problem of people exploiting the poor and uneducated so that they can receive the organs they need. For example, it has been reported in the newspapers that Indonesians are paid to come to Singapore to donate their organs, and that they often do not know about the risks which come along with such surgeries.
Mr. Khaw's proposal seems to be going in the right direction, as it has made arrangements to prevent such exploitation from occuring. Not only should price and matching be made by an external body created for such a purpose, I feel that they should go one step further and only allow Singaporeans to be involved in such transactions.
This is because our largely educated population would know of the risks which follow, and would thus be easily informed about the entire process. Not only this: by restricting this to Singaporeans, it will also prevent foreigners from taking advantage of such a system and taxpayer's money.
I also agree with the proposal to make more affluent patients pay a standard price for the organ while poorer and more needy patients pay less or be fully subsidized, so that all donors receive a fixed amount of money, which is mostly paid for by the richer patients. This would be infinitely preferable to allowing donors to name their price, as only the richer patients would be able to afford it, and leave a lack of organs for the poor.
However, the largest problem still remains, and that is how to provide an ample amount of organs for all who need it. Altruistic donations, where family members donate to each other, are exceedingly rare in Singapore, numbering only in the dozens. If patients' blood and kin refuse to donate or dare not take such a risk for the very ones they are close to, then what is to say that by dangling a small sum of money we will be suddenly flooded by an influx of donors?
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Discussion from the Social Studies Blog
Flaws in Democracy
Like they say that humans are never perfect, i believe that the systems brought about by mankind should not be totally perfect. Flaws can also be seen in this system. The power of corruption can bring the pure and innocent democracy down to its knees. why is this so? i shall elaborate. a common practice is the act of buying votes. how does bring democracy down to its knees? like wad kaiwen mentioned, democracy is people power. buying votes will bring about money politics and votes will never be fair. the people will not be the ones controling their affairs but rather the rich politicians and those with enough contacts. another key flaw is like what both mingjun and kaiwen mentioned, educating the public on their right to vote is very important. its not just the 'brain washing' that harms the true meaning of democracy but rather there is also another factor that we must address. some uneducated members of the public may not understand what is democracy and some may not even realize that they have the legal human right to vote. as such many will not vote thus making the whole process unfair and bias. the public must be educated to learn that their vote ultimately decides their future and how they want things to go about.
Posted by -ÐΣMΘИ- at 6:08 AM 0 comments
Saturday, May 24, 2008
The Problems of Implementing Democracy
'Everyone has an open mind until people come along and put things in it' and 'Some people are so open minded that their brains fall out'.These two quotes are sort of witty and intended to be amusing, but I think they're quite true. In response to Ming Jun's post, I don't think that that's really open mindedness. Training people to accept whatever you say is probably brainwashing, and rather propagandistic, which seems to be somewhat dictatorship-like.Yes, the teaching of democracy is key to getting the people to work in such a manner, but I think that forced education is just undemocratic to start with. Perhaps, people could be educated on the ideals and outcomes of democracy, and once they see the benefits of it, they will wholeheartedly join in.However, that is how communism seems to work too - the people are benefitted, but then corrupt leaders and human factors come in, and the whole system falls apart. Look at Russia or China. The people were shown exactly how they would benefit, and they voted their leaders in, but eventually, there are millions of starving poor in rural areas, and corrupt officials who live padded lives. Communism was a good idea at first, but it is not a successful action. This would be due to human greed and selfishness.Another problem is that the minority is overlooked in democratic votes or decisions. Just imagine, if all the Chinese in Singapore decided to vote for anti - non Chinese laws, there's nothing that can be done about it. Comments?
Posted by Hwang Kai Wen at 7:29 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
How to educate people to accept democracy
Continuing from Kai Wen's point about people looking at the education about democracy as 'brainwashing' and limiting freedom.I feel that the first step to educating people to accept democracy is to teach them to be open-minded. If people are open-minded, they are more likely to accept the democracy education.About the problems of people who insist that the instilling the values of democracy undermines the freedom of the people, I feel that if people are educated to be open-minded, they should be able to accept the teachings of democracy. Anyway, if we thoroughly 'brainwash' the people, they should accept the what is taught to them right?
Posted by Tan Ming Jun at 6:24 AM 0 comments
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Democracy creates stability in a society
Does democracy create stability in a society?I feel that it would, to a certain extent.Key beliefs of democracy include freedom and equality, as well as human rights. If a truly democratic state existed, it would embody all of these in its laws and enforce them. Therefore, all people, including minority groups, would be treated equally. As they are happy, there will not be tension between different groups of the community such as the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, or the Tamils and the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. This will help to prevent unrest, and thus promote stability.However, this would be difficult to achieve. In order to gain such a state, the people's thinking must be in line with this concept of equality across races, religions, ethnic groups, gender, and other differences within society. This is where education should come in to teach the people. They should be taught about equality and human rights and have such values instilled in them.Which brings us to another problem - freedom. Such 'brainwashing' could be considered limiting the people's freedom, which is no longer the democratic way. One could argue that people have the right to think what they want. In such a case, the people might start discriminating against others in their minds, leading to discriminatory actions. If the majority press for it, there will be no option but to pass such discriminatory laws, due to the voting system which guarantees an overwhelming majority the right to decide.It can be seen that democracy will not be easy to achieve stability as long as discriminatory views exist in the minds of the people.
Posted by Hwang Kai Wen at 7:58 PM 0 comments
What is Stability?
Before we can examine if democracy creates stability, we must also define stability.Stability has many different meanings. It can refer to trajectories, chemicals, directions, mathematics, and more. However, stability here probably means how peaceful the state is. A stable state would probably not have riots or unrest, and the people would be contented and happy.
Posted by Hwang Kai Wen at 7:46 PM 0 comments
The Definition of Democracy
Firstly, we must define - what is democracy?Democracy is 'a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections'. In other words, it is a system where citizens control their own affairs, and are given the power to do so. They either do this directly, by voting to pass bills and laws, or indirectly, voting for people to represent them who will make it their jobs to pass such bills and laws.
Posted by Hwang Kai Wen at 7:05 PM 0 comments
Like they say that humans are never perfect, i believe that the systems brought about by mankind should not be totally perfect. Flaws can also be seen in this system. The power of corruption can bring the pure and innocent democracy down to its knees. why is this so? i shall elaborate. a common practice is the act of buying votes. how does bring democracy down to its knees? like wad kaiwen mentioned, democracy is people power. buying votes will bring about money politics and votes will never be fair. the people will not be the ones controling their affairs but rather the rich politicians and those with enough contacts. another key flaw is like what both mingjun and kaiwen mentioned, educating the public on their right to vote is very important. its not just the 'brain washing' that harms the true meaning of democracy but rather there is also another factor that we must address. some uneducated members of the public may not understand what is democracy and some may not even realize that they have the legal human right to vote. as such many will not vote thus making the whole process unfair and bias. the public must be educated to learn that their vote ultimately decides their future and how they want things to go about.
Posted by -ÐΣMΘИ- at 6:08 AM 0 comments
Saturday, May 24, 2008
The Problems of Implementing Democracy
'Everyone has an open mind until people come along and put things in it' and 'Some people are so open minded that their brains fall out'.These two quotes are sort of witty and intended to be amusing, but I think they're quite true. In response to Ming Jun's post, I don't think that that's really open mindedness. Training people to accept whatever you say is probably brainwashing, and rather propagandistic, which seems to be somewhat dictatorship-like.Yes, the teaching of democracy is key to getting the people to work in such a manner, but I think that forced education is just undemocratic to start with. Perhaps, people could be educated on the ideals and outcomes of democracy, and once they see the benefits of it, they will wholeheartedly join in.However, that is how communism seems to work too - the people are benefitted, but then corrupt leaders and human factors come in, and the whole system falls apart. Look at Russia or China. The people were shown exactly how they would benefit, and they voted their leaders in, but eventually, there are millions of starving poor in rural areas, and corrupt officials who live padded lives. Communism was a good idea at first, but it is not a successful action. This would be due to human greed and selfishness.Another problem is that the minority is overlooked in democratic votes or decisions. Just imagine, if all the Chinese in Singapore decided to vote for anti - non Chinese laws, there's nothing that can be done about it. Comments?
Posted by Hwang Kai Wen at 7:29 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
How to educate people to accept democracy
Continuing from Kai Wen's point about people looking at the education about democracy as 'brainwashing' and limiting freedom.I feel that the first step to educating people to accept democracy is to teach them to be open-minded. If people are open-minded, they are more likely to accept the democracy education.About the problems of people who insist that the instilling the values of democracy undermines the freedom of the people, I feel that if people are educated to be open-minded, they should be able to accept the teachings of democracy. Anyway, if we thoroughly 'brainwash' the people, they should accept the what is taught to them right?
Posted by Tan Ming Jun at 6:24 AM 0 comments
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Democracy creates stability in a society
Does democracy create stability in a society?I feel that it would, to a certain extent.Key beliefs of democracy include freedom and equality, as well as human rights. If a truly democratic state existed, it would embody all of these in its laws and enforce them. Therefore, all people, including minority groups, would be treated equally. As they are happy, there will not be tension between different groups of the community such as the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, or the Tamils and the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. This will help to prevent unrest, and thus promote stability.However, this would be difficult to achieve. In order to gain such a state, the people's thinking must be in line with this concept of equality across races, religions, ethnic groups, gender, and other differences within society. This is where education should come in to teach the people. They should be taught about equality and human rights and have such values instilled in them.Which brings us to another problem - freedom. Such 'brainwashing' could be considered limiting the people's freedom, which is no longer the democratic way. One could argue that people have the right to think what they want. In such a case, the people might start discriminating against others in their minds, leading to discriminatory actions. If the majority press for it, there will be no option but to pass such discriminatory laws, due to the voting system which guarantees an overwhelming majority the right to decide.It can be seen that democracy will not be easy to achieve stability as long as discriminatory views exist in the minds of the people.
Posted by Hwang Kai Wen at 7:58 PM 0 comments
What is Stability?
Before we can examine if democracy creates stability, we must also define stability.Stability has many different meanings. It can refer to trajectories, chemicals, directions, mathematics, and more. However, stability here probably means how peaceful the state is. A stable state would probably not have riots or unrest, and the people would be contented and happy.
Posted by Hwang Kai Wen at 7:46 PM 0 comments
The Definition of Democracy
Firstly, we must define - what is democracy?Democracy is 'a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections'. In other words, it is a system where citizens control their own affairs, and are given the power to do so. They either do this directly, by voting to pass bills and laws, or indirectly, voting for people to represent them who will make it their jobs to pass such bills and laws.
Posted by Hwang Kai Wen at 7:05 PM 0 comments
Monday, June 16, 2008
Democracy Creates Stability
I feel that democracy might create stability in society to a certain extent.
Firstly, we must define a few terms. Democracy is ‘a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections'. In other words, it is a system where citizens control their own affairs, and are given the power to do so. They either do this directly, by voting to pass bills and laws, or indirectly, voting for people to represent them who will make it their jobs to pass such bills and laws.
Stability refers to how peaceful the society is. A stable society would probably not have riots or unrest.
Key beliefs of democracy include freedom and equality, as well as human rights. If a truly democratic state existed, it would embody all of these in its laws and enforce them. Therefore, all people, included minority groups, would be treated equally. As they are happy, there will not be tension between different groups of the community such as the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, or the Tamils and the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. This will help to prevent unrest, and thus promote stability.
However, this would be difficult to achieve. In order to gain such a state, the people’s thinking must be in line with this concept of equality across races, religion, ethnic groups, gender, and other differences within society. This is where education should come in to teach the people. They should be taught about equality and human rights and have such values instilled in them.
This brings up another problem – freedom. Such ‘brainwashing’ could be considered limiting the people’s freedom, which is no longer the democratic way. One could argue that people have the right to think what they want. In such a case, the people might start discriminating against others in their minds, leading to discriminatory actions. If the majority press for it, there will be no option but to pass such discriminatory laws, due to the voting system which guarantees an overwhelming majority the right to decide.
Therefore, it can be seen that democracy will create stability in a society, only if they are open to its ideas and concepts. This condition creates problems, and thus, stability might never be achieved.
Firstly, we must define a few terms. Democracy is ‘a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections'. In other words, it is a system where citizens control their own affairs, and are given the power to do so. They either do this directly, by voting to pass bills and laws, or indirectly, voting for people to represent them who will make it their jobs to pass such bills and laws.
Stability refers to how peaceful the society is. A stable society would probably not have riots or unrest.
Key beliefs of democracy include freedom and equality, as well as human rights. If a truly democratic state existed, it would embody all of these in its laws and enforce them. Therefore, all people, included minority groups, would be treated equally. As they are happy, there will not be tension between different groups of the community such as the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, or the Tamils and the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. This will help to prevent unrest, and thus promote stability.
However, this would be difficult to achieve. In order to gain such a state, the people’s thinking must be in line with this concept of equality across races, religion, ethnic groups, gender, and other differences within society. This is where education should come in to teach the people. They should be taught about equality and human rights and have such values instilled in them.
This brings up another problem – freedom. Such ‘brainwashing’ could be considered limiting the people’s freedom, which is no longer the democratic way. One could argue that people have the right to think what they want. In such a case, the people might start discriminating against others in their minds, leading to discriminatory actions. If the majority press for it, there will be no option but to pass such discriminatory laws, due to the voting system which guarantees an overwhelming majority the right to decide.
Therefore, it can be seen that democracy will create stability in a society, only if they are open to its ideas and concepts. This condition creates problems, and thus, stability might never be achieved.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Teenage and Social Issues
For this term, the article I have chosen is about two months old, from 2007.
Title of Article: Teens' Wild Night Out
Author: Melody Zaccheus
Print Media: Straits Times, under the Gen Y Section
Date: 16 December 2007
Background:
Basically, the article talks about how teenagers go to parties and smoke, and abuse drugs and alcohol without the knowledge of their parents. It describes the lengths to which these youths deceive their parents to go for such parties, with some spending up to three days away from home to recover from hangovers after the partying. The author of the article also interviewed two counsellors, who both agree that the teenager cannot be stopped from such activities, but that parents should be alert for warning signs and act when necessary.
Commentary:
Youths today are often seen as rebellious and desperately wanting to be 'cool', and this image is further reinforced all too often.
Recently, a writer for the Straits Times investigated the parties of teenagers. She found that such gatherings are often used to use cigarettes, drugs and alcohol. The teenagers, often students, say that they are mature enough to handle their activities and manage their lives, and thus can do whatever they like, while parents do not know what they are doing. All teenagers interviewed say that it is 'healthy fun' and is for destressing.
Personally, I feel that the shocking, illegal, underage activies occurring at the parties are obviously wrong and should not be done by anyone, let alone immature youths. While I have never been exposed to such activities, it is probably all too common in today's youths. A group of teenagers spending time together will succumb to peer pressure and do all sorts of stupid things, only to regret it later.
These teenagers, despite enjoying themselves now, will suffer later. Taking drugs, drinking alcohol and smoking all take a toll on one's health, and these youths will eventually get lifelong diseases like cancer, or even overdose on drugs in a moment of folly and take their lives in the process. Even if they somehow miraculously avoid these problems, if they are caught by the police for violating underage laws, they will have a black mark on their records, impairing their job opportunities and future.
These narrow minded teenagers cannot see how their actions will lead to their downfall, with one even saying 'What harm does a little tobacco and alcohol do?'
Fortunately, counsellors interviewed by the author warn parents to be alert and ensure that their children do not err on the wrong side of the law. Hopefully, action will be taken appropriately, because in the long run, the youths will definitely be grateful that their parents stepped in to prevent a lifetime of misery and suffering.
Title of Article: Teens' Wild Night Out
Author: Melody Zaccheus
Print Media: Straits Times, under the Gen Y Section
Date: 16 December 2007
Background:
Basically, the article talks about how teenagers go to parties and smoke, and abuse drugs and alcohol without the knowledge of their parents. It describes the lengths to which these youths deceive their parents to go for such parties, with some spending up to three days away from home to recover from hangovers after the partying. The author of the article also interviewed two counsellors, who both agree that the teenager cannot be stopped from such activities, but that parents should be alert for warning signs and act when necessary.
Commentary:
Youths today are often seen as rebellious and desperately wanting to be 'cool', and this image is further reinforced all too often.
Recently, a writer for the Straits Times investigated the parties of teenagers. She found that such gatherings are often used to use cigarettes, drugs and alcohol. The teenagers, often students, say that they are mature enough to handle their activities and manage their lives, and thus can do whatever they like, while parents do not know what they are doing. All teenagers interviewed say that it is 'healthy fun' and is for destressing.
Personally, I feel that the shocking, illegal, underage activies occurring at the parties are obviously wrong and should not be done by anyone, let alone immature youths. While I have never been exposed to such activities, it is probably all too common in today's youths. A group of teenagers spending time together will succumb to peer pressure and do all sorts of stupid things, only to regret it later.
These teenagers, despite enjoying themselves now, will suffer later. Taking drugs, drinking alcohol and smoking all take a toll on one's health, and these youths will eventually get lifelong diseases like cancer, or even overdose on drugs in a moment of folly and take their lives in the process. Even if they somehow miraculously avoid these problems, if they are caught by the police for violating underage laws, they will have a black mark on their records, impairing their job opportunities and future.
These narrow minded teenagers cannot see how their actions will lead to their downfall, with one even saying 'What harm does a little tobacco and alcohol do?'
Fortunately, counsellors interviewed by the author warn parents to be alert and ensure that their children do not err on the wrong side of the law. Hopefully, action will be taken appropriately, because in the long run, the youths will definitely be grateful that their parents stepped in to prevent a lifetime of misery and suffering.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Background
This blog is for English Language, to write a commentary about current affairs from print or online media. Three posts are due over three terms:
-Term 1 Week 10, on teenage and social issues.
-Term 2 Week 10, on political systems, interdisciplinary with social studies
-Term 3 Week 10, on any issue that engages me personally
-Term 1 Week 10, on teenage and social issues.
-Term 2 Week 10, on political systems, interdisciplinary with social studies
-Term 3 Week 10, on any issue that engages me personally
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)