Baby pictures from geocities!
Funny baby picture slideshow of the brother & me. Was saving my good ole’ geocities files before they close down on the 26Oct & found this gem.
Meritocracy, as we would like it
This is a brilliant speech, and he explains in the most elegant way, why the way we measure success and practise meritocracy brings us down
Alain de Botton: A kinder, gentler philosophy of success
Marital Rape documentary on Channel News Asia
Jolene Tan sent a message to the members of http://www.facebook.com/l/27bab;NoToRape.com
——————– Subject: 14 Sept 8.30pm CNA documentary on marital rape
We are pleased to announce the exciting news that Channel News Asia is airing a documentary on marital rape – and No To Rape will be featured.
We know that the producers have been looking at the issue from many angles and expect it to be well worth watching.
Series 8, Episode 4 of Get Rea! will be first televised on Monday 14 September 8.30pm with follow-up broadcasts at the following times:
Monday 14 September at 11.30pm
Tuesday 15 September at 1.30pm
Wednesday 16 September at 5.30pm
The Channel News Asia TV guide offers the following blurb: “She falls in love and gets married. It’s a ritual every girl looks forward to. But what happens when her husband starts forcing himself on her?”
Those located overseas can also watch the programme via streaming at Channel News Asia Live:
CNA Live:
http://www.facebook.com/l/27bab;www.channelnewsasia.com/live/
Tell your friends and family, and be sure to tune in!
No To Rape team p.s. please sign the petition at http://www.facebook.com/l/27bab;www.NoToRape.com/Petition/
if you haven’t yet done so!
Why are medical costs on the rise and why is it getting higher?
One of the readers posted this question to me, and I thought I’ll share my perspective as someone who is closely involved with the earliest phase of medical research and drug discovery
It is due to the very expensive process of drug/treatment discovery.
Over the last few thousands of years, humans have been doing science by observing our surroundings and our own bodies using our 5 senses — our eyes, noise, ears, mouth, skin to touch. Over this long period of time, we have discovered almost everything that can be discovered using this 5 senses.
In the last century, because of electricity and other fundamental inventions, we have been able to invent machines that have in turn allowed us to make greater quantum leaps in science. Machines like the telescope, the microscope, the x-ray machine etc.
Today, drug/treatment discovery in the field of medicine is made primarily with through the use of all these sophisticated equipment. These equipment costs a bomb — many of them the price of a HDB flat easily. So you can imagine to cost of research for one single drug.
Because these discoveries and inventions are not easy to make (there are no model answers at the back of life’s books) , the success rate (drugs making it from the start of the reseach process, to passing the safety tests etc and going on sale) of drug inventions is 1 in 10,000.
So when companies sell these drugs, they have to cover the cost of the 9,999 failures, by selling that 1 remaining drugs.
Also, there needs to be a sufficient profit margin so that investors would be willing to take on such huge risks (1 in 10,000 and no one knows when this 1 will pop out) in investing in the drug research process.
I’m sure many of you have heard about generic or low cost medicines. Such medicines are cheaper usually because the company’s patent has expired, or is willing to allow generic versions to be made. In this case, the cost of the drug is used to cover the cost of the manufacture —- it usually doesn’t cover the cost of the 9,999 failures, or the risk that the investors need to take.
So why don’t we go the way of producing low cost generic drugs from the start, for everything? Why do we use intellectual property and anti-piracy laws to protect rich pharmaceuticals? Because without this financial incentive, many investors would no want to take on such huge risks of failed drugs — they’ll channel their money into more profitable investments. Without this financial investment, research will slow and consequentially medical advancement will slow. While some argue that the State should take on these investments, others argue that it is irresponsible to use taxpayer money for such high risk ventures, and this should be left up to high-risk venture capitalists.
At the end of the day, all these makes new drugs/treatments very expensive, and the aged need more repairing than the young , and so we need to decide who and how to pay for them.
Ageing populations: Determining YOUR future
The Ageing problem is not simply an Ageing problem. It’s MY problem. Because in 2050 when the silver tsunami hits, I’ll be one of those old women.
Ageing is a problem for countries mainly because of 2 issues
1. Exponentially increasing health care costs ( relative to the average person’s entire lifetime)
2. Inability to be economically active
Below are some of my thoughts off the top of my head. I’m raising it here, not to convince everyone or to campaign for certain things, but more to iron out some of these ideas — are they valid? are they useful? These 2 issues are also NOT comprehensively explored here …. just exploring a different angle.
1. Exponentially increasing health care costs
Medical technologies/treatments are increasingly advanced and costly.
No medical tech/treatment in this world can guarantee you a cure — it’s all about chances of survival.
Eg. Drug A — 20% of patients survive
Drug B — 40% of patients survive
Drug C — 80% of patients survive
No Drugs — 5% of patients survive
When you go on a certain drug, you pay a certain financial cost for the drug, and you enter a system where you have a certain chance of survival
It’s a lottery.
You choose which lottery you want to play, based on the cost, and the chance of your survival.
And bear in mind, the cost doesn’t correlate with the chance of survival.
As a society deciding which lottery costs should be borne by all ( through State subsidies using taxpayer money), we need to decide on the criteria for distributing health subsidies (eg. deciding whether to give more resources to the young or the old? ) It’s not enough that we agree on a set of criteria or values. The ORDER of PRIORITISATION of this common set of values will also significantly change the distribution pattern.
Some criteria I”m thinking of, off the top of my head, in no order of prioritisation (because everyone has a different order anyway)
- absolute cost of the treatment required
- cost effectiveness of the treatment
- age of the person
- economic value of the person
- life expectency of the person
- popularity of the person
- financial health of the person (ie how much can the person afford on his own)
- amount of suffering caused by the illness
- amount of happiness gained without this illness
- political power of the person
- past contributions of the person
- future contributions of the person
- effectiveness of the treatment
- responsibility the person has in acquiring his illness
etc (will add on, with your suggestions, and with more thought into this)
Just to do a little social experiment here:
How much agreement is there amongst the general population, on how we want to prioritise these distribution criteria??
If you would be so kind, do leave YOUR order of prioritsation here in the Comments, and we can take a look. If there are too many criteria, just list the top 5 or top 10.
2. Inability to be economically active
If we assume that, on average, the current ratio of the econ active : inactive is 10: 1 , across all the economically significant nations , and if we assume projections that this ratio will drop to 2:1 by 2050, what would the impact be? That sounds like a 30% unemployment rate to me.
Think about the assets you currently hold. Your property. Your insurance policies. Your stocks etc. What would the value of these assets be if there is 30% unemployment?
Think of your savings. Your salary, your taxes. What happens when there is 30% unemployment?
Am I unduly worried? Is this a valid concern?
Unlike big potential crisises eg. energy shortage crisis, global warming etc, I’ve yet to hear a decent proposal for addressing the Ageing population from anyone. Enforcing the “parents’ maintainance act” is not addressing the problem — it’s re-distributing the problem.
The issue about the state of medical advancement is this: currently we can effectively treat / cure /replace every single body part, except the brain. The reason why we have this Ageing population at all is because we are getting more physically healthier people way into old age. But the mind ages, and degenerates, before the body does. In a knowlege based economy, that’s big trouble.
What we really need is to reduce the number of years between the time people retire from economic activity and death.
Several ways to achieve that:
1. Improve mental cognition of the elderly — this is difficult, we can only place our hope in the neuro scientists out there.
2. Create dignified means of economic viability that do not depend on the mental cognition of the elderly
3. This one will raise the most protests. I’ll just qoute a friend here to illustrate my point :
“i had a friend in college, Pat, who smoked and gave out that i did exercise too much. I said to him, it’s extending my life and those cigarettes are taking years off yours. He said Yeah, but they are the years where i wont be able to poop without help!”
When a woman is violent towards a male
Recently a video clip of a woman hitting a man in the groin, in public has been circulating. A reader has asked me to “explain myself” given that I’ve been campaigning for anti-domestic violence, and anti-marital rape. ( http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/wanted-female-police-officers/#comment-1876 )
( The video clip: Woman beats up man in Singapore )
Behaviour like that of the woman’s is UNACCEPTABLE.
Violence of this sort should NEVER been condoned, whether is a committed by a woman against a man, a man against a woman, a woman against a woman, a man against a man, and most horrifyingly, an adult against a child.
It is especially difficult when a woman commits violence against a man. Because of societal norms, when a man is violent towards a woman, society sympathizes with her.
On the other hand, men are often expected to be physically tougher and able to protect themselves. This causes some men to feel embarrassed or ashamed to admit that they were victims of physical violence, and to seek help or redress. As a result, many don’t.
Also, many men are unwilling to hurt the woman under any circumstances. So they would never retaliate when a woman is violent towards them. Because this issue is hardly ever dealt with, many men also do not know the appropriate means to deal with this sort of violence. Many continue putting up with escalating physical violence silently.
The same issues apply towards emotional/psychological violence. Where’s the line between having a bad day and committing acts of violence? It’s really hard to say.
A lot of anti-domestic violence campaigns focus on men committing violence towards women, or adults towards children. This is due to the perception that most of the violence is committed this way. However, I agree that we might be contributing to the myth that women are the main victims, because we are encouraging further under-reporting of female violence towards males.
Ideally, anti-domestic violence campaigns and laws need to be gender-neutral: not targeting a particular gender, but the act of violence itself.
On a related note, I’ve come to observe that the issue of consent and respect in the area of sexuality is often focused on the woman’s consent, or on consent between homosexual partners.
Anecdotally, I’ve heard stories of men being pressured into having sex by their female partners. While these stories cannot be considered rape — because he wasn’t physically held down or locked up and could have simply walked away if he wanted to — it does reflect the need for increased public education and awareness, for the need to be sensitive to the needs of males too. Societal notions that men should always be wanting and ready for sex. This creates unfair situations where men find it very hard to say No.
Also, where is the line between … seduction (for want of a better word)…., persuasion, and pressurisation ? I once found myself in the curious position of hearing a guy say to me “Do you realise if a man said just this to a woman, it would be illegal? that’s the line many guys use to justify date rape.” I was quite taken aback and it certainly got me thinking.
3 comments