Good Looking Singapore Politicians
The US of A has finally elected a good looking president (the best looking, in my opinion). What about Singapore? Do we have our good looking politicians?
I googled ‘ Handsome Singapore Politician’. The websites came up with Singapore….. Politicians….. Handsome Pay
I googled ‘Beautiful Singapore Politician’. The websites came up with ‘ Politician …. Beautiful wife…… Singapore
Anyway, after spending many minutes which could have been used on more productive work like saving the world, I found this website:
http://www.chanlilian.net/2007/10/08/question-politicians-handsome-zero/
Singapore has no goodlooking politicians??? Wah…so sad meh. I looked again. Oh heng, this one talking about Malaysian politician.
I looked on further and found this one :
http://www.trevvy.com/sgboyx/index.php?showtopic=20787&st=20
But this is a gay website. Only the guys are looking out for good looking politicians here? So jia lat ? To think the govt is against homosexuality. If not for the gays, there won’t be even a single website praising the good looks of our politicians!
Well, to give a balanced view, here’s my opinion, as a Singaporean girl! (Hopefully I don’t lose my respectability (if any) after this….)
From top: Eunice Olsen, Teo Ser Luck, Baey Yam Keng, Vivian Balakrishnan
Source: All this images are taken from google images.
Training assignment in Indonesia
Hotel in Jakarta
Just realised what a strategically located hotel they’ve put us up to in Jakarta. They must have found it through the hotel ads listed on the bull’s eye of the terrorists’ target board.
Yes, I’m going to Jakarta in 2 days. Yes, the terrorists just held their Mother-Of-All-Terrorists-Conventions
http://news.smh.com.au/world/bali-bombers-executions-help-ji-20081111-5m8s.html
Human Trafficking – an ignored injustice in Singapore
The Singapore Citizen has commented on my previous article “How is life valued in Court ?” , disagreeing with some points, agreeing with others, and making good suggestions. Here is a reproduction of my reply to their article, in which I present new information, which I beg everyone to read, because these victims have almost no one in Singapore speaking up for them, whether in the mainstream or alternative media.
Dear Singapore Citizen,
Thank you for considering these cases and highlighting them on your blog. I’m very honored that you chose to comment on my thoughts.
I agree with you when you say that perhaps the law should be reviewed to allow judges more freedom in sentencing drug trafficking cases, rather than making the death sentence mandatory, so that various mitigating factors can be taken into consideration. You are certainly not cruel nor inhumane; your sympathy towards the youth and his ill mother is very heartening and commendable. I also agree with you that laws cannot be changed arbitrarily. Perhaps in this case appealing to the President’s clemency might help.
There are 2 other issues, however, which I beg you to consider, after which I would be curious to know if you would still maintain your stand.
Firstly, drug kingpins would not take MORE advantage of naïve youths to be drug runners, if the death penalty (whether mandatory or not ) was removed. On the contrary, the fact that it carries such a harsh sentence would mean that only the most naïve/ stupid or the most DESPERATE people would be willing to be exploited by the kingpins at the risk of death. By punishing the drug runners, we are punishing them for their stupidity and their desperate circumstances. The kingpins who intend to profit from the drug sale, which you rightly pointed out does much harm to society, would be protected (as the Straits Times pointed out, the mastermind remains unknown). I would agree with the government’s view that the mandatory death sentence serves as a good deterrent, but I’m sure you’ll agree that laws are meant to also serve justice, and punishment proportionate to the crime is an important aspect of punishment.
Secondly, and this is the more important issue, which I hope EVERYONE reading this would think about.
I refer to your statements “Comparison with human trafficking is not apt in this case, in my opinion. This is because the goods smuggled are inherently different.” and “prostitution is a different social ill, and quite different from drugs in its effects of harming society”
The greatest wrong done with human trafficking, is that HUMANs are treated as GOODS.
This was why slavery was wrong, and why slavery was outlawed. The reason why the 36 year old pimp should be punished, is NOT because of the social ill that the prostitute would bring about. The reason why he should be punished, is because of the wrong done to the HUMAN VICTIM being trafficked, and treated like a piece of goods devoid of human rights. This is unlike drug trafficking where the traffickers are punished for the ills the goods bring about. And this is also why, giving him a sentence of one year is as great an injustice as hanging a drug runner who was stupid and desperate, in my view.
Having said that, I do acknowledge that the 36 year old was not charged with human trafficking, but with arranging for paid sex between a minor (below 18) and an adult.
I’m speculating that’s because Singapore officially does not acknowledge that human trafficking is a problem here. A few of our neighboring countries differ from Singapore’s view however, because they have documented a significant number of trafficking cases involving their citizens. Singapore does not have a law specific to anti-trafficking; it uses other laws depending on the nature of the case. ( http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/singapore) (Note: Singapore officially is not in full agreement with several reports listed here)
Trafficking is not restricted to cases where the trafficked victim is being kidnapped. It encompasses cases where “threat or use of force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or vulnerability, or giving payments or benefits to a person in control of the victim” is involved for the purposes of “exploitation, which includes exploiting the prostitution of others, sexual exploitation, forced labour, slavery or similar practices and the removal of organs” (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/what-is-human-trafficking.html)
Many developed countries are receiving ends for human trafficking networks, and many developed countries acknowledge this problem and are taking steps to deal with it. It occurs especially when there is access for people moving from less developed nations to more developed nations. Singapore is in this situation where we, as a developed country, are surrounded by less developed countries, whose citizens can come in here fairly easily. The Council of Europe states that “people trafficking has reached epidemic proportions over the past decade, with a global annual market of about $42.5 billion.” Trafficking victims typically are recruited using coercion, deception, fraud, the abuse of power, or outright abduction. Threats, violence, and economic leverage such as debt bondage can often make a victim consent to exploitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking )
In closing, I once again to beg you, and all readers, to reconsider your position of considering human trafficking a crime less severe than drug trafficking. I also hope, and encourage you to research more on human trafficking, and feature the information on your well-read blog. It is true, most trafficking cases in Singapore involve foreigners. But foreigners are human too, inherently deserving of human rights. We need to accord these foreigners human rights and justice, which is theirs, because the responsibility to bring an end to crime taking place on our soil, is ours.
How is Life valued in Court?
A 19 year old, to hang at age 20, for being exploited by drug lords to deliver 47g of heroin
A 36 year old, fined $8000, for exploiting a 17 yr old girl, by bringing her in from china to become a prostitute, and living on her earnings. Ok his sentence was upped to 1 year.
The Health Minister, to ask parliament on Monday, to allow our society to kill our vulnerable, weak and suffering, without any criminal charge.
That’s just page8 of today’s TODAY. Turn to page18.
An entire nation prepares a funeral for 10 months and mourns the passing of an elderly woman.
Turn to page 24.
A man imprisons his own daughter for 24 years since she was 18, raping her repeatedly. He’s likely to spend the rest of his life with free food and lodging in an Austrian prison with much better conditions than he ever gave his imprisoned daughter. And being 73 already….
“Mr Fritzl’s daughter was bound in iron chains padlocked to a post in a cell that was frequently overrun by rats. Mr Fritzl regularly beat the soles of Elisabeth’s feel and forced her to perform sexual acts several times a day, often for several hours at a time. Mr Fritzl would also allegedly force her to watch pornographic films with him and make her re-enact the film scenes. Elizabeth gave birth to her seven children on her own while Mr Fritzl only made available a pair of scissors to cut the umbilical cord, a non-sterile blanket and a pack of nappies.”
I wasn’t planning to write this post. I wanted to stick to what I knew, about health care and medical science.
But these events make me wonder about how we, as a human race, value LIFE.
I’m actually pro-death penalty. When I read about what Mr Fritzl has done, I’m pro-death penalty.
Then I read about human traffickers, bringing in young girls to Singapore to become prostitutes, and they are given free food and lodging in our change resort for 1 year. Girls who should be in seconday school, JC, poly. Girls who are not allowed to watch RA(21).
And a 19 year old. I can see all the 19 year olds. They were my JC classmates, they were my brother, my students, the NS boys tired out on the mrt, the boys still waiting to watch an RA(21) movie, the boys whom the state cannot trust to make a vote for their government.
A 19 year old, to hang at 20, for 47grams.
___________________________________________________________________________
Add on: Had feedback that the post was not understandable enough (Thanks Daniel for feedback!), so here’s my point:
Looking at the difference in the sentences given for these 2 crimes, does it say something about the way these crimes are viewed? That exploiting and trafficking young girls gets you 1 yr, but stupidity (ie. being a teenager exploited to carry drugs for $2000) gets you death? What does that say about how human beings are valued, and how the punishments are so disproportionate in both extremes?
Daniel explains it well too, go check it out!
http://informationreadbyme.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-is-life-valued-in-court-from-mathia.html
Preventing HIV/AIDS and STIs : What the State and Church will not tell you
- Many State-run / funded programmes to decrease STIs and unwanted pregnancies need to follow the ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condom use) policy. This is largely due to pressure from conservative / religious groups, to reflect an ideal.
- Abstinence – How practical is this advice? How long can one abstain? Does it apply to just teens, or 30 , 40 year old singles as well? What if you’re gay and cannot marry? If you never marry, will you never have sex too? Fact is, STI rates are highest for the 20 – 40 yr old age group (Teens make up only 10% of STI cases).
More importantly, this is useless advice for married persons. The implied message is of course NOT that celibacy is the ideal state, not when the government is actively trying to get the birth rate up. The implied message is against Premarital Sex.
The implied message is that, somehow Sex is OK when one is married, that somehow Married Sex a person from all STIs and Unwanted pregnancies. IS THAT TRUE???? - Not really. That’s why the 2nd message is BE FAITHFUL
Telling a person that BEING FAITHFUL protects him/her from STIs and Unwanted Pregnancies is the equivalent of telling a person that BEING HONEST protects him/her from being a victim of theft.
In Singapore, 2/3 of HIV positive females are FAITHFUL wives who got HIV from their husband. In other parts of Asia, 25% of HIV patients are women, and 90% of the women get it from their husbands.
The ‘Be Faithful’ message gives people a false sense of security. Being faithful is a MORAL obligation we have to our partners, but is NOT a protective measure for ourselves.
The Be Faithful message is also unhelpful for preventing unwanted pregnancies.
Just because you are married and faithful does not mean you won’t get accidental pregnancies. Just because you are married and faithful does not mean you can afford to keep all the accidental babies.
10, 000 out of the 14,000 abortions performed in Singapore EACH YEAR are on MARRIED women.
In this day and age, in this country, where contraceptives are so easily and cheaply (Pills from polyclinic at $5 a month!) available, why do 10,000 of our women even put themselves in the position where they have to consider an abortion! Is there something wrong with our EDUCATION? ( think about this : each year, there are 26,000 babies born in singapore, of which 13,000 are female babies. And 14,000 women go through abortions each year)
Why don’t our women know how to prevent pregnancies they don’t want? Why do they risk their health and bodies?
- Condom use : probably the most useful and practical advice
Condoms are the ONLY method of preventing STIs and HIV
Pills are cheap and prevent pregnancies, but cannot prevent STIs
What are some issues with condom use and promotion?
- public backlash against overt promotion . Many schools are afraid to dish out this advice, lest parents accuse them of promoting Sex
- How to use condoms properly? Hardly ever taught. BIGGEST cause of condom failure is user ignorance , ie. People use it wrongly.
- Condom use is ranked last in the ABC message : Implicit message that Good girls (A grade!) don’t have sex. Not so good girls (B grade!) have sex, but at least they are faithful. If you really cannot make it or cannot control yourself as a good girl or even as a Not-so-good-girl, at least, please use a condom.The result is that no one wants to admit that they fall into the ‘C – grade’. It reinforces the misconception that if you buy condoms, you’re a slut who is asking for sex!
As a result, people put themselves into the position of having sex without a condom . How so? Because they give themselves this excuse : because “we didn’t mean to have sex. We didn’t plan for it. Only sluts and desperate people plan to have sex. Only sluts and desperate people will carry condom. For us, it was a moment of passion. So no chance to get the condom”
- Emergency Contraception / Plan B / Morning-After pill (Go google for more info)
A pill you take within 72 hours of sex to prevent pregnancy. High dose of hormones, not healthy to be used regularly. Use only when your main mode of contraception failed. Available at GPs.Can prevent you from having to go for an abortion.
Can prevent you from getting pregnant AFTER you have sex.
Does NOT prevent STI, if you kenna already, it cannot help you.
Emergency Contraception is NOT ACTIVELY PROMOTED publically à Is it responsible of sex educators (government, mainstream educators, civil groups, religious groups) not to promote the use of EC because of protests from conservative groups???
6. Vaccinations against HPV
HPV causes 90% of cervical cancer cases, and is an INCURABLE STI. The vaccine costs $700. There are no subsidies for this vaccine.
Reason given: it does not cover all strains of HPV, only 70% of the strains.
Currently, regular PAP smears are the main method of preventing cervical cancer. But this is fire-fighting. Because Pap smears detect ABNORMALITIES , which you need to undergo a surgery to remove. Pap smears detect the cancer AFTER you develop the cancer. Vaccines PREVENT the cancer. However, with or without vaccine, please go for PAP smears (VERY CHEAP) because cervical cancer in the early stage is 90% curable, at late stage it becomes incurable.
When should Law and Policy disregard moral values?
In the large majority of cases, the law reflects moral values – its common sense. It’s morally wrong to murder, there’s a law to state what happens to murderers. Same for robbery. Same for whacking up somebody because you felt like it.
But there are some instances, where the law cannot, must not, reflect morality. These are quite a small minority, but a very important minority. What are they? I’ll cover some of these cases here, but these are not exhaustive. They fall mainly into the domain of health. I’m not too sure why; is it because this is the area of my specialty (I’m doing my PhD studying unborn babies….) or because it’s the nature of how our health and psychology works that makes it that way.
Anyway, the areas I’ll be talking about to illustrate my point : 1. Drug use / prostitution 2. Sex with minors (below 16s)/Abortion 3. Euthanasia
- Drug use / prostitution.
During the recent AIDS conference, a HIV prevention activist from Sydney, Australia gave a keynote lecture, describing some of the more successful strategies. Two of them were providing drug addicts with free clean injection needles and de-criminalizing prostitution.
How does that work? Drug addicts who inject drugs usually share needles – they spend all their money on drugs, no money to buy clean needles. Drug addicts also tend to engage in prostitution to support their habit. So the percentage of HIV cases amongst drug addicts is very high because they are constantly engaging in 2 sorts high-risk behavior.
But the percentage of drug addicts amongst the total number of HIV cases is actually very low – because most people in Sydney are not injecting drug abusers!!! However, because enough “normal” men visit prostitutes/ drug users, the prostitutes/drug users become the “seed” through which HIV is spread to the larger community. The “normal” men then take the HIV back to their wives, girlfriends, boyfriends, casual sex partners etc. Therefore, cutting off the infection at the “seed” will reduce spread into the mainstream.
To do that, the Australians set up places where drug users can get FREE CLEAN needles, without getting arrested for drug use. At the same time, the Australians still maintain their opposition to drug abuse.
In the same way, they also set up education programmes to educate and empower prostitutes to practice safe sex , to use condoms, without arresting them for prostitution. At the same time, the Australians still do not view prostitution as a morally acceptable behavior.
Because the drug users/ prostitutes can adopt healthier practices without the fear of being arrested, they of course do! And in doing so, they prevent the rise of HIV infections. If they will be arrested, or if the authorities refuse to help them at all and still criminalize them on moral grounds, then it will drive them underground, where the HIV will go up and go into mainstream society. Not that Australia condones drug use or prostitution – they don’t.
This is a classic example of how, on one hand, everyone holds to the same moral value – NO to drug abuse and prostitution – but policy, (even if the law must be there still) has to be different from the moral values, and TOLERATE it, because the cost of policy adopting a moral high ground would be a much larger cost to the health of a greater number of people.
- Sex with minors (under 16)/Abortion
In Singapore, having sex with a girl under 14 is considered Statutory Rape , with 20 yrs jail, 12 strokes. Having sex with a girl or boy under 16 carries 10 yrs jail. That law upholds the moral value that adults should not take advantage of the ignorance and emotional immaturity of the child. Great moral value there, and certainly a very useful law to bring these child exploiters to justice.
What’s the backlash?
In the course of my work with the teen girls, I’ve met girls who really loved their boyfriends( could be teens like them, even more immature, could be adults), so much so that when they get pregnant, or get an STI, they never go to the doctor, never tell a single soul. Because they are so afraid their boyfriends would have to go to jail for 10 or 20 years, when the doctor finds out.
What do they do?
I tell them, your life and health is the MOST important. No matter what, go to the doctor, ASAP! And no doctor can make you reveal who your boyfriend is. No doctor will imprison you in his clinic for days and days until you confess. If you never reveal, no one can arrest your boyfriend.
There was a recent case, where people were very appalled because a 12 year old girl went to the abortion clinic and she didn’t dare to disclose or report the rapist. The parents didn’t know and so could not help her. The public felt that parents should be made to know, to help her. I fully agree with their thoughts, but I will never want to see parental consent made compulsory by law, because the consequences will mean the deaths of even more young girls. I would rather pay the price of having disobedient or even bullied teenagers. Bad as that may be, death is worse.
- Euthanasia
Firstly, bear in mind that medical care, even the most basic, HAVE to be State subsidized, or else it will be beyond the reach of the majority. Even your polyclinic is VERY VERY subsidized. But countries usually subsidise only a specific list of STANDARD medicines. The newer, more expensive, better medicines are not on the STANDARD list and not subsidized. The number and cost of medicines on the STANDARD list will depend on how much subsidies the State wants to provide. Drug companies tend not to sell lousy medicines when good ones are already available, or they will not make lousy medicines more expensive than good ones – that’s common business sense. Furthermore, if the expensive ones are not better than the cheap ones, your doctor won’t even prescribe to you!! So what’s this argument about expensive not being better?
So, if State subsidies are low, people tend to not get the best treatments, and of course they will suffer! Or they will say, don’t waste more money on medicines. And so they will wish for death. And they will be happy that euthanasia is legal. And since they are allowed to die and solve the problem, why should the State increase medical subsidies or palliative healthcare? Why should I care for you when you can just go and die?
We MUST NEVER support LEGALISED euthanasia, because it is iimportant that you have enough medical subsidies from the government and not have them tell you, sorry too expensive, but we allow you to go and die.
You think such people like the daughter-in-law don’t exist? Then why is there so many old-folks homes? Siblings fighting over who should look after parents? The Parents Act where kids must be forced by law to care for parents?
So yeah, I agree with many people that we have the MORAL right to choose our own death, and I might even do so myself. But I will never agree to LEGALISED (read: State ENDORSED) euthanasia.
Religion and policy were separated a long time ago – and we need to keep that separate.
The above post is 3rd in a series of posts reviewing info brought up during the 6th Singapore AIDS conference. The first described the conference. The second described the life of someone with HIV in Singapore, and hopefully makes you want to do something about the situation. This third post hopefully establishes the principles on which I evaluate and recommend policies with regards to HIV.
Living with HIV in Singapore
If you are a Singaporean, and male, and you went to a public hospital for a twisted ankle, you would be asked to do a HIV test, even though it is completely unrelated to your condition – it’s just screening.
You do have the option to opt out, but, gee, what would the nurse think? More importantly, your wife is sitting beside you. What would she think if you opened your mouth to tell the nurse ‘errr … can don’t want or not?’ ? The nurse would reply ‘ routine testing, nothing one lah, not pain lah, you scared pain ah?’ Your wife would turn to you and say ‘Why, you scared ah? You outside got woman ah? You never do anything wrong, scared what?’
You really don’t want to dig your grave, even though you gave in to pressure from your buddies the last time you guys went to Vietnam for a business trip. But that was a year ago, and you have been fine since. Not like you’re sick and in pain. And she was young, a young teen, couldn’t have had that many men. Oh well, the HIV test would be good too, just to confirm what you already know ie. That you are alright….Right?
The results, unfortunately, are tragic. You do have HIV. In fact, so does your wife. What happens now?
Firstly, you learn that the drugs for HIV in Singapore costs $1000 a month. Plus your wife, that’s $2000. There are no government subsidies at all. Even though you’ve been paying all your taxes all these years. Even though you will continue paying tax. Because it’s your fault , your behavior. Your wife gets no subsidies too. Even though it’s not her fault. Even though she’s always been a faithful wife and a good mother for the required 3 children. You are thankful that your youngest child, was born after you got infected. If your child was HIV positive, your child would not get a single cent of medical help.
Critical Illness private insurance? Doesn’t cover HIV at all. Sorry you’ve been paying so much premiums for nothing. Medishield? No HIV coverage. Medifund? Cannot buy HIV drugs with that. Medisave – sure you can, it’s your own money! And soon there’ll be hardly any!
You ask the doctor, isn’t there any cheap medicine? I don’t need the top quality ones….. I don’t need the “High-end top-of-the-range” medicine, just give me the “ordinary 20-inch” type of drug…. Like what Health Minister say, no need overconsumption……
The doctor explains to you, Well HIV is not like flu or diabetes or illnesses where you have a choice between low end cheap drugs that are subsidized , or high end fancy expensive drugs. For HIV the ONLY options are the expensive one. But Thailand can buy cheaper one, 10 times cheaper, just as good. The government produces the cheap ones for the patients there. So you have to fly to Thailand every 3 months (Singapore Customs let you bring in only 3 months supply) to get drugs for the rest of your life (which can be another 40 yrs , in very good health with the drugs, so actually you can live till 80yrs old, since you’re now only 40. That’s longer than the average life expectancy in Singapore)
Then, as part of your annual medical check up that your company makes you go through, your company learns you are HIV positive. You are fired. Your wife is also fired. There’s no law to protect you from such discrimination. So now you have to pay nearly $2000 for drugs each month or $500 if you get from Thailand, you and your wife have no jobs, and you have 3 children in primary school.
Your relatives don’t ever want to talk to you. They won’t look after your kids when you’re dead. Your church kicks you out because you were immoral. Your neighbours say ‘Luckily euthanasia soon going to be legal, at least they can go and kill themselves if they tah boleh tahan’. Your children have no friends in school because somehow, they found out.
Everybody thinks it’s your fault, you deserve it. And you kinda agree. You have been faithful all along, but that one time, just one time, all your colleagues, including your boss went there, you bo pian, so you go along, and had that girl. Why other people also do the same thing, why you kenna? Why only you get punish? Then your wife leh? Also kenna punish. Other people also have STI, have pregnancy scares, but that’s all. Why you must get AIDS and suffer all this?
More importantly, how now? What can you do to even live?
——————————————————————————————————————
This is not just a true story. This are MANY true stories, that happen in Singapore.
Added on the 2nd December : Please support treatment subsidies at this ChannelNewsAsia Poll (hopefully the govt will get the message!!!) http://www.channelnewsasia.com/polls/commentform.php?id=168
6th Singapore AIDS conference
Attending the 6th Singapore AIDS conferene was an incredibly meaningful experience. There were politicians, MPs, ministers, public health policy makers, doctors, healthworkers, social workers, religious leaders, activists, people living with AIDs….. the list goes on…… everybody came together to share their experiences and knowlege, to work together, to inspire each other. We have 2 common goals: To bring this dreadful illness to an end, and to bring justice so deserved by the sufferers. In my subsequent posts, I’ll be giving you my perspectives on the various issues raised during this conference. These are not objective views; they are my views and also the views of those who care.
Over the next few weeks, I’m also hoping to meet up with some of the people I got to know ath the conference, and hopefully by working together or sharing our expertise, we can further amplify what contributions we are already making.
Legalised Euthanasia (Read: STATE ENDORSED)vs the Pro-Choice euthanasia: A Debate
A friend of mine (not local) and I had a conversation over msn, and he was questioning my stand against legalised euthanasia, because he empathises with people who are actually seeking euthanasia to relieve suffering. Here’s our conversation, him (A) and me(Me)
A http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23283804-2,00.html
it’s REALLY strong to watch
you can google for more images of her and about what she had…. she committed suicide….
it’s about someone that had a weird kind of cancer…. but it deformed her….
Me here’s what i think. There are some laws which you can’t enforce, and they do more harm then the good it’s supposed to. example. laws against abortions. Whether you legalise them, they happen. When they are legalised, girls go to hospital, where the death rate from abortions are below 2%. Make them illegal, and they STILL do happen, in backstreets where the deathrate is 40%.
If you clamp down on illegal abortions, abortions will still be done — by the girls themselves. And then the deathrate really shoots up. So it’s better to legalise abortions.
Another example. Laws against sex with minors (girls below 16) Again, you can’t enforce them, and girls below 16 will still have sex with their boyfriends. But if they get pregnant or get an STI, they will be terrified to go to the doctor because they love their boyfriends. So they risk their own lives with DIY cures
Another example Laws against homosexuality. You can’t enforce them, and it still happens. But then educationists and the media (in singapore at least) cannot talk about it, so they cannot increase awareness or safe sex or they cannot seek legal protection or anything !
The same thing with euthanasia. I’m pro-choice. Whether or not you legalise suicide or euthanasia, it will happen., But the moment you legalise Assisted suicided, or assisted euthanasia, you’ll get a lot of abuse cases which are hard to prove. In essesne you are legalising murder, not suicide
Plus, what is the incentive for the government to subsidise sophisticated, but expensive healthcare, if death is always an option you can provide?
Many people choose euthanasia because they don’t want to be a financial burden. If the govt does not increase subsidies, but uses legalised euthanasia as an option when medical budgets get “too high” you will have more people opting for legal euthanasia
I agree some people would choose death over suffering , and no one can stop them from suicide if they are really determined. I think they have a moral right to. but its their choice not for the state to endorse or encourage
A ok, the first 3 I am completely on your side….. the more a subject becomes taboo because it goes against religion or whatever, the worse it gets….. I say religion because sex and homosexuality usually are banned/persecuted/illegal because of a goverment’s proximity with churches and religion….
now, in Euthanasia…. let’s split it in two, let’s talk about health care first, because you said some interesting things about cost and burden there, and then there is the moral and ethic decisions there…
Health care: let’s go utopia for a second, imagine we have a perfect health care system that allows you to be able to receive the medical attention you deserve for a cost that doesn’t make you a burden on your family, like hopefully Obama will do in the USA……. now, there are a bunch of cases in which euthanasia is practised but not with that name, like stage-4 cancers in which patients are put off life-support because all that is left for them is to suffer….. but on the other hand, and me being in science community feel a little guilty, is that we don’t have answer for every disease that is out there….
I had an aunt (fav aunt) that died in one year and we all knew it was going to happen since the beginning…. or this woman I just showed you, I can’t imagine how she felt, what she thought about, how she managed to go outside without feeling rejected by society, which is why she pleaded for death, and in the end she got it….. now, didn’t she deserve better?
Me now what if your aunt, or child had a terminal illness, and all the standard cures that were subsidised (in singapore, only certain things are subsidised) were useless to help her. You hear of this potential cure, but it is REALLY expensive. But you really love your child and want him to live. If you were very rich, you give up your holiday to europe, to pay for the treatment for your child.
If you were middle class, you sell your house and belongings for your child. If you were poor, you choose euthanasia for your child because there is no way you can afford and the government will not pay, because euthanasia is a legal option
What if that’s not your child. What if that’s your aged parent? Then would you even sell your house for your parent?
A I see your point…. and I think your problem is more with the current health care situation than Euthaniasia itself…. yes, I agree that you shouldn’t help someone die if there’s a hope to save him…… although the situation in which the cure might work would maybe would mean more suffering for that person…..
I know I’d without a shadow of a doubt save my child…
I also know my mother would ask me not to lose all my savings for her because she already ‘lived her life’
Me I’ve no problem with euthanasia itself, i’ve a problem with the state using it as a healthcare option, which is what they are aiming for in legalising it
A Ok, we are on more common ground then…. because when I think of euthanasia, I think about the patient first….. is he/she suffering (and by that I don’t mean only pain, I also mean mental anguish)? is there hope for him? does he want that hope?…… but yeah, having euthanasia FORCED on you because no one will pay, I’m against that too
Me where do you draw the line? If the person was poor , could not afford, and choose to let his mother die, is that legal euthanasia? If the person was rich, but chose not to give up his europe holiday, and chose to let his mother die of the same cause as the poor guys, is that legal euthanasia? or if the person did not want to sell his house?
legalised euthanasia does not aim to protect the patient, it aims to protect the people who assisted the patient.
A Where do you draw the line? I honestly can say I don’t know…. with my aunt we did our best to keep her with us as long as possible…. with this woman, I’m guessing she wanted the total opposite….. But, money or resources should NOT be the main deciding factor of something thinking about life and death…… and when it is, it just throws everything off-balance, for everyone…..
q for you… can you imagine a way in which you had the resources to save yourself but would chose not to?
Me i can……. and i would support anyone who made that choice….. but it has to be a personal choice, not something other people choose for you. Money should definately NOT be the main deciding factor, but you know humans. The moment you give it that legal loophole, every murder case will become a case of legalised murder…….
A I know, but I do believe pacients should, in some cases, have access to it, but those “cases” should be entirely medical and not economical….. but actually I think the goverment would make a better health care than private insurance companies….. but you are right, drawing the line is tricky……
Me in a perfect Utopia, where everyone is perfectly ethical , and the government is perfectly responsible in providing the best health care, i will applaud legalised euthanasia……… but given what reality is …… And the health minister proposed in the context of “an aging population” and “overwhelming cost of medical care” and the “need for creative solutions”
A “need for creative solutions”? isn’t creativity like one of the utmost principles of life?
Me its like , should we allow private citizens to keep guns at home, given that we have the right to defend ourselves…. yes……………… it is……….. they just want to market euthanasia and justify capping medical benefits
the sad thing is, few people see it that way
the catholic church came out against it today, and many people opposed the church , because they resent religious decrees….
but no one really looks at the motivation behind the governments proposal
even the right thing made for the wrong reasons is a wrong thing to do……
A the thing we might not understand is that maybe (based on what my mother has told me) they (older people) are ok with this because they don’t want to burden their families, they don’t want to be tied down to a bed or a hospital, they’d rather go than have a half-quality-life……
Me sigh……. yeh i can see where your mother comes from
and i can see why people may support it for those reasons
many parents think that way too……
Against State LEGALISED Euthanasia (as opposed to Euthanasia)
(This article is being written in response to the Singapore Health Minister’s and the Catholic Church’s position on Legalised Euthanasia in Singapore. The original articles are reproduced below, after the author’s blog posting)
Last month, Mr Khaw Boon Wan asked: ‘Imagine that your TV is paid for by your Government or employer, as a gift.
‘Would you just settle for a 20-inch ordinary TV, or would you go for the top-end home cinema system, complete with karaoke and flat-screen LED monitor?’
But this is what is happening in health care, he said, adding that ‘gross abuses and over-consumption will have to be paid for, by all citizens, through higher taxes’.
If your child’s life depended on a medical drug to save him from death, would you go for a “20-inch ordinary” type of drug, or would you go all out to get him that “top-end home cinema system, complete with karaoke and flat-screen LED monitor” type of drug?
Mr Khaw is an engineer by training, and he is applying the economic principles of engineering to health-care. When you’re buying a TV, or buying a machine, you are balancing the economic value of your entertainment or machine productivity against the price you fork out. When the cost of repair exceeds the value it generates, you toss it out.
Health-care is totally different. How do you balance the value of a human life against a monetary price? When the state prevents people from getting more expensive healthcare by curbing subsidies, this is exactly what the state is doing. By legalising euthanasia, the state is sending out the message, ‘When the cost of repairing you exceeds the value you generate, you toss yourself out”
I am not a Catholic, and there are issues which I disagree with them, issues which I think they should practise but not impose on the larger public. But we should not be quick to dismiss or disagree with certain views just because they were first brought up by religious groups to which we do not belong.
In the issue of legalised euthanasia, we should really look at what the State is proposing. The State is trying to cut down on health and medical expenditure, by suggesting that “dying” should be one of the options to be considered. How far would the State subsidise your medical treatments before it deems that it is more cost effective for you to die than continue searching for a cure? This is a question we have to ask before agreeing to legalised euthanasia.
Let’s remember, there is a difference between euthanasia, the private individual’s decision, verus LEGALISED euthanasia, which we all must take a public stand on.
Legalised euthanasia is not just society’s collective position on euthanasia; it is also society’s collective position on healthcare. Should healthcare do everything to restore a person to health, or should healthcare do what is necessary to restore a person to health, for as long as it is economically viable? This is the crux of the issue, when the State begins to talk about the overwhelming cost of medical treatments, borne either by the state or the family. The next question, if you support legalized euthanasia, would of course be, how do you define the point where it is no longer economically viable for you to pursue healthcare?
Privately, many individuals and families already make this decision, when they decide whether or not to pursue medical treatment. That is an internal decision which is not feasible for the State to police or enforce, hence quite irrelevant to legislature. It is when the State agrees that economic viability should become a factor in public healthcare policy, that the issue of legalized euthanasia becomes very relevant. It affects how medical subsidies are given, it affects how the State pressures doctors to make recommendations to patients, it affects what kind of treatments the State chooses to make available to the masses.
I’m not sure if this is already happening anyway, at least not with critical end-of-life situations. However, with Cervical Cancer, we see that the State is already factoring in economic viability. It actively promotes regular Pap Smear screening for early detection of Cervical Cancer, which has a very good prognosis. But it does not promote, nor does it SUBSIDISE the cost of vaccines preventing cervical cancer, which currently costs SGD$700. To the state, when controlling the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer, spending $700 on each female is far less cost effective than spending much less on subsidized Pap Smears. However, to each individual female, the cost of getting cancer, and then doing something about it, is far most costly than getting a vaccine. But the average Singaporean female does not know about this and takes the government’s advice for everything.
Euthanasia is very different from the issue of abortion. I’m highly opposed to LEGALISED euthanasia (I’m not opposed to the individual making his or her own choice) , but I’m highly supportive of LEGALISED abortion.
Why the distinction?
If abortions were not legalized, what happens (and it happens in many countries without legalized abortions) is that females tend to go for backstreet jobs, where the mortality rate of abortions can go as high as 40%. Where abortions are legalized, as in Singapore, proper hospitals have reduced the mortality rate of abortions to below 2%.
Euthanasia is different. Whether it is legalized or not, people who really want to die will die, and the mortality rate of illegal euthanasia being 100% is not something we need to be indignant about, because that’s their goal! Where people have lost the capability to kill themselves, there is already the Advanced Medical Directive, which in its present state (the Health Minister wants it altered and expanded) enables people to prevent Assisted LIVING and not Assisted DYING – brain death is a mandatory criteria. With people who are not brain dead, but are physically unable to commit suicide, legalizing euthanasia might not help them, because this is a group of people most susceptible to abuse – physical, mental, emotional abuse. It is the State’s obligation to safeguard these people, and not put a price tag on their head to justify the abuse.
Nov 3, 2008
Euthanasia is immoral
Catholic Church condemns practice and urges doctors to reject it as it ‘violates medical ethics’.
By Lim Wei Chean
(http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_297852.html)
THE head of Singapore’s Catholic Church yesterday publicly condemned euthanasia, a topic that has grabbed headlines in recent weeks as the Government considers changes to the laws that govern dying.
Archbishop Nicholas Chia wrote a letter on mercy killings that was read out during Sunday services at the country’s 30-plus Catholic churches.
In it, he underlined the Church’s views on death, describing euthanasia as ‘immoral’ and also calling on doctors to reject the practice.
‘One cannot choose death and ask to be killed. When they do this, they are not only committing the crime of suicide, but also compounding it by making another person a partner in a crime,’ he wrote.
Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan discussed the issue of euthanasia last month after it was raised in the press.
The Government has not proposed legalising the practice, but has broached the idea of making changes to the Advance Medical Directive, or living will. The document instructs doctors not to artificially prolong the life of a terminally-ill patient with machines. The changes would make it easier for Singaporeans to turn down that care.
Opponents say that is one step on the slippery slope to euthanasia, which the Catholic Church has long considered taboo alongside other controversial practices like abortion.
Archbishop Chia condemned mercy killings in his letter, which was read out All Souls’ Day, the annual day of remembering the dead.
‘One must not yield to another’s person’s request for euthanasia. To yield to such a request is false compassion,’ he wrote to Singapore’s 320,000-strong Catholic population.
‘To have true compassion for the person is to understand (they are) actually feeling lost, confused, hopeless and alienated. Mercy entails supporting such person through care and friendship.’
The archbishop also called on doctors to reject mercy-killings, saying they were a violation of medical ethics. ‘No health-care professionals must even contemplate the option of administering euthanasia,’ he wrote.
The Head of the Catholic Medical Guild, a group of religious medical professionals, said she wholeheartedly agrees with the archbishop.
‘Taking one’s life or assisting another person to take his life is immoral,’ said Dr Sally Ho.
Most times, people do not want to die, she said. Instead, they want to end the pain they are feeling, so ensuring patients receive proper palliative care is crucial.
The Catholic Church in its fortnightly newsletter had an article on euthanasia written by one of its priests. In the Catholic News, the priest said it is important to offer palliative care.
The Methodist and the Anglican churches, as well as the National Council of Churches, could not be reached for comment yesterday.
While several countries make it relatively easy for the terminally-ill to decline treatment, few have actually taken the step of allowing doctors to end the lives of patients. Only the Netherlands and the state of Oregon in the United States allow the controversial practice.
Archbishop Chia told The Straits Times in an interview yesterday: ‘This is a matter of life and death. It is not up to you or me to decide.’
Oct 18, 2008
Yes or no to euthanasia?
Health Minister raises ethical end-of-life issues Singapore will have to confront
By Salma Khalik, Health Correspondent
(http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_291904.html)
FOR the second time this week, the Health Minister has surfaced euthanasia as an ethical dilemma that Singapore would have to confront.
‘Do we allow euthanasia or assisted dying?’ asked Mr Khaw Boon Wan when he spoke on challenges in the health-care sector last night to an audience of engineers.
As he did on Wednesday, he noted that the Chinese daily Lianhe Zaobao has published several letters from readers on ‘this complicated but pertinent issue’.
One man, he said yesterday, even photocopied a page of letters for him, asking that he legislate euthanasia – a message the man conveyed in red ink.
End-of-life issues are expected to be on his ministry’s agenda next year, but it appears that he wants more debate on other ethical dilemmas that ageing and developed countries are grappling with.
He referred to the recent debate on organ trading, a divisive issue sparked by the recent nabbing of a case here.
It is expected to be raised again when the planned changes to the Human Organ Transplant Act to increase the supply of cadaveric kidneys come up for debate soon.
Yesterday, he threw up another example yesterday: ‘Should we allow surrogate pregnancy?’
India has legalised this but critics say the poor are being exploited by the rich who can afford to ‘rent a womb’, he noted. Others, however, see it as a normal commercial transaction benefiting both parties.
Besides confronting ethical issues, another challenge is deciding how much to spend on health care, given a rapidly ageing population, rising expectations and escalating costs.
The current health-care model is ‘inadequate’ for future needs.
So long as someone else pays – be it the Government, employer or insurer – demand for medical treatments will be high, including some that are unnecessary.
He asked: ‘Imagine that your TV is paid for by your Government or employer, as a gift.
‘Would you just settle for a 20-inch ordinary TV, or would you go for the top-end home cinema system, complete with karaoke and flat-screen LED monitor?’
But this is what is happening in health care, he said, adding that ‘gross abuses and over-consumption will have to be paid for, by all citizens, through higher taxes’.
This is further fuelled by unrealistic expectations. He said: ‘In times of grief, family members often do not accept the limits of medical science. Many seem to forget that we are all mortals.’
Whatever the solution, some basic principles should be maintained, such as focusing on prevention rather than cure, said Mr Khaw at the the Institution of Engineers’ annual dinner and dance.
Himself an engineer by training, he said: ‘As engineers, we know the preventive strategy instinctively.’
They know, for example, that servicing a car regularly is cheaper than sending it to a workshop for repairs. But he added: ‘The average car owner looks after his car better than his own body.’
Another principle: Making health care more like other sectors, with competition leading to greater choices, higher standards and cheaper services.
Like other industries, innovative business models should be encouraged.
‘Hence, my preference for diversity in health-care providers, the more the better.’ They will give patients more choice, and create space for mavericks and innovators.
‘Not all innovations will succeed, but if there is no opportunity to even experiment, we will be stuck with the status quo,’ he added.
salma@sph.com.sg
4 comments