Abortion counselling — What’s wrong with it

There’s nothing wrong with abortion counselling per se. Done well, I think it’s necessary.
What’s wrong is just the way we’re doing it here in Sg, going by this Asiaone article

http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130318-409394.html

 

 

And here’s the list of what i think is wrong. Do add on if i’ve left out any.

 

There is mandatory pre-abortion counselling if the women are Singapore citizens or permanent residents; have passed the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE); have at least some secondary education, and have fewer than three children.

There is no counselling for foreigners, rape victims or Singaporeans with three or more children, and those who have not passed the PSLE. If they seek an abortion, they get it right away.

Those who are counselled watch an abortion-counselling video entitled Abortion – Consider With Care, which tells them about the procedure and its implications.

They are also given pamphlets to read on the topics: The Truth About Abortion and Contraceptive Methods – Which One Is Best For Me.

 

Judging from the above criteria

-Crap #1.

Certain types of children (those with educated, Singaporean/PR mothers who haven’t fulfilled their duty of having 3 kids) are preferred. The rest can, literally, go and die. If this is not eugenics, what is this?

 

One common argument is that certain families are in the position to provide better care and hence a better future for their children. Eg. Educated mothers (strange , but i wonder : if the father is a freaking genius with multiple PhDs , would they then counsel the mother if she’s got no education??)
This argument brings me to my next few points

-Crap #2.

You don’t need to be fantastically educated to be a good parent. Having money/no money doesn’t make you a good/bad parent. Surely this doesn’t need elaborating?

 

-Crap #3.

However, it is true that if you are well-educated, you have a much better chance of providing your child with more resources to help him/her succeed. Eg. elite pre-schools & loads of tuition.
Why aren’t our tax money and State resources more equally distributed to give every child a level playing field and a fair chance at succeeding in life? Isn’t that part of our much beloved meritocracy, where you succeed based on your merit, not on the amount of money your parents have?
Why aren’t we helping our families-in-need cope better? Why is abortion subtly encouraged as a solution? “The biggest group of abortions, 44.1 per cent, involved women with secondary, O-level or Institute of Technical Education education. Many said they could not afford to have the baby.”

 

-Crap #4.

They make it seem as if an increasing number of educated women are aborting their babies (Do you hear them saying “Tsk tsk, all these selfish women are more interested in making money and sacrificing their babies to do that?”)
“In 2011, 36.3 per cent of all abortions involved university or polytechnic graduates – more than double the 15.6 per cent in 2003.”
What the article doesn’t state is that the proportion of women with university or polytechnic qualification has tremendously jumped. Going by the Census2010, 74% of women 25-29yr old have poly or uni qualification, compared to 40% of 40-44yr old women. Obviously if we are having a greater proportion of educated women, there’ll be a corresponding increase in the demographics of women undergoing abortions?

 

-Crap #5.

Scarily, some people still believe that smart moms pass on smart genes to their babies. A belief that supposedly justified the Graduate-moms-should-have-more-babies policies in the 80s. This is way more mythical than Santa Claus, the Lochness Monster and aliens combined. I’d rather believe in Santa Claus and aliens. (Yes, I know I’m not providing very logical arguments here, but I honestly can’t be bothered to, when you can simply google “do smart moms pass smart genes to babies?” )

 

-Crap #6

Granted, community help groups in Singapore do see a disproportionate proportion of dysfunctional families with too many kids and not enough education. Like, WAY to many kids. How does our policy of mandating contraceptive education (part of counselling) for those with LESS than 3 kids but NOT for those with MORE than 3 kids help? Isn’t this the best opportunity to provide contraceptive education ??!!! Often, the woman KNOWS that she has way too many kids than what the family can afford. The thing is, having too many kids is sometimes a symptom of much bigger problems —- her inability to negotiate and stand up to unreasonable demands from her husband , for example. It’s a marvelous opportunity to help the woman and her family in a holistic way, and to prevent other problems from happening. But these women are simply given the abortion, no questions asked, no counselling provided, it seems.

 

-Crap #7

I chanced upon this comment on a public Facebook page, “ 7yrs ago wen i found out i was pregnant ,WITHOUT MY OPINION, i was refer for a abortion due to my marital statues… thinking back now i know the reason, being a unwed mother is a disadvantage in our government policy.. their policy indirectly indicating to abort or give ur unborn child for adoption.. if one wants to bring up their unborn child its gonna be a tougher obstacles when it comes to chilcare leave to housing… ect..ect btw my unborn child is now a healthy 7yrs old… im celebrating motherhood every moment of my life im glad ive make a right decision to be a mother…” (Caps mine)

Supporting legal abortions doesn’t make one Pro-Choice, not when the woman’s opinion isn’t even sought and the decision made on her behalf. This applies to every other group of women who are automatically channeled for the abortion without counselling. Women with lower education are more vulnerable to begin with, and may have been pressured by family/relatives to undergo the abortion, when she herself might not want to. Her ability and power to negotiate with her family may be non-existant. Without a proper counselling process, how do the doctors know that this is truly her wish?

-Crap #8

Considering how abortions are, at the end of the day, medical procedures , a patient’s understanding of the possible side effects, known consequences and alternatives are important for the patient to make informed decisions. Women with lower education are at greater risk of not understanding such information, since they may lack the access or ability to fully understand publicly available information. This means that it is particularly important that these vulnerable women be provided the necessary information before undergoing the medical procedure. Ironically, these women are “spared” the mandatory counselling

-Crap #9

I’ve not had the opportunity to find out details of what the counselling really entails, but going by anecdotal stories and by their inclusion criteria, it’s very believable that the “counselling” is really an unethical effort t guilt-tripping these women during this emotionally-trying period of their life. Really, these women need support, regardless of the choices available to them. Not more guilt, on top of what they might already be feeling.

 

-Crap #10.

So it seems apparent that the State is trying to persuade women to hang on to “unwanted” babies, in an attempt to up our TFR. Multiple studies have shown that women know when an environment or situation is bad for bringing up babies, so I’m not sure if it’s a good idea upping the TFR within such environments, by inducing guilt. Since many married women give up their pregnancy because they “cannot afford it”, I honestly wonder if part of the counselling package also includes financial assistance to help the mother. That would at least be a tad more sincere, and the least the State could do while they are benefitting from the TFR. I doubt so though. I’ve long been a strong proponent of comprehensive sexuality education, where we teach girls (while you still can catch them in school) contraceptive methods, and skills to negotiate for the use of contraception within a relationship. I strongly believe that prevention is better than cure , and that we should be PREVENTING women from even getting an unwanted pregnancy and having to make the painful decision of whether to keep the pregnancy. Having ineffective sexuality education increases unwanted pregnancies both within and outside of marriage, and these pregnancies are not the way to increase our TFR

 

 

- Crap #11

Foreigners.

The most vulnerable group. A group that not only gets insufficient support and counselling, but often are pressured by both law, employers, and their need of a job to undergo abortion. Seeing as many domestic workers here are either Muslim or Catholic, I’m wondering why the religious conservatives aren’t crying bloody murder and demanding the laws be changed. I’d have thought they would, after how they hijacked ESM Goh’s walk to make their political statement. I think it might be because too many of them have maids themselves.

 

 

Why is it illegal to beat your wife but legal to rape her?

In Singapore, it is illegal to beat your wife

it is illegal to hold her against her will

But it is not illegal to forcefully have sex with her when she refuses to.

That’s rape. Marital rape is not recognised by the law, unless the couple is seperated.

 

Why?

 

If you can’t think of a reason why either,

Sign the petition here http://www.notorape.com/

“Because I said so” – Rule internalization

Rule internalization is a horrible scourge throughout the world. It is utilizing a rule with only the rule itself in mind. Say a mother tells her daughter not to throw toys. Her daughter later throws a ball around while outside. Her mother then punishes her for breaking one of her rules. This is, of course, an absurd scenario. It is clear the reasons for the rule were that throwing toys can result in damage to the toys, hurt people in the process, and cause damage to furniture/items in the house. However, because the rule was stated more broadly than that, it technically applied to all scenarios, even throwing a ball outside. The girl violated the rule, but not the reason for the rule. This brings me to my main point.

This week, prosecutors in Greensburg, Pennsylvania charged six teens ranging in age from 14 to 17 with creating, distributing and possessing child pornography, after three girls were found to have taken photos of themselves in the nude or partially nude and e-mailed them to friends, including three boys who are among the defendants.

These are the real world results of rule internalization. This is what happens when people cease their thinking and become robotic in their ‘reasoning’.

These teenagers are not criminals. They do not deserve prison, probation, or to be designated sex offenders. Perhaps a persuasive argument can be made that they should be grounded from their cell phones, but they are not criminals. The reason for child sex offender laws is to prevent the exploitation of young individuals by older people who have some sort of authority mystique, whether it be through a job (teacher, coach) or through age – or just people who have the physical ability which allows them to act in perversion. The law was not designed to punish horny teenagers who willingly take pictures of themselves.

What’s more, in Pennsylvania “teenagers aged 13, 14 and 15 may legally engage in sexual activity with partners who are less than 4 years older”. Apparently these teenagers are allowed to have sex and, presumably, view each other naked. As soon as their nudity is placed on some sort of media device, whoa! Watch out! That violates a rule!

Authorities argue that bringing child porn charges against teens is designed to educate them about the dangers of creating and distributing such images, which could fall into the hands of commercial pornographers, pedophiles or others who might want to harm or exploit them.

That’s some pretty harsh education. “Why, Sally, I’m just trying to educate you. That’s why I am making you a felon, ruining your chances at a good college or job, and forcing you to be a pariah in society. You’re welcome.”

This argument makes no sense. Plenty of things could fall into the wrong hands. The children themselves could fall into the hands of a predator. I suppose (in the name of education, of course) children should be prosecuted for being children. That’s the only way we can prevent their exploitation.

The really disturbing thing here is that police obtained warrants to view this child pornography. Given the obvious fact that these teenagers were far from running afoul of the reason for the rule, the officers and the judge who issued the warrant should come under some scrutiny. These people went out of their way to find nude 14 and 15 year olds who may legally engage in sexual activity with the two other teenagers involved. They have no worthwhile basis for wanting to see these naked teens. If anything, that’s the most disturbing part of this all.

Justice, Law, and the Courts II

From : http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_321763.html :

Mr Shanmugam, who is also the Second Minister for Home Affairs, said that the Chief Justice’s remarks on the rule of law were timely.

‘But an aggressive small group of people think they can change those laws by going out there and protesting and the courts have repeatedly emphasised they will apply the law as it is. That is justice according to the law,’ he said.

‘Unfortunately, even publicly sometimes, this is forgotten. People forget that some of these protests are really aimed at breaking the law and changing the law and is that what we want?’

 

From “The Best I Could” by Subhas Anandan, quoted from http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/justice-law-and-the-courts/ :

‘’They say that sometimes justice and law are distant cousins. In the case of some countries, you’ll be lucky to say that justice and the law have the same parents. In Singapore’s case, it is sad to say that sometimes we feel that justice and law seem to be indifferent to each other. The law says something but when it is interpreted in the courts, it says something else. Most of the time, it is to the detriment of the accused person. This is sad. If it is not kept in check, one day we’ll come to a stage when justice and law will not only be indifferent to each other, it can be hostile. That will be a sad day for Singapore”

 “Many a time the prosecution has erred in exercising its prosecutory prerogative which is so rigid and strong that compassion is considered a weakness. Why they must take such a tough stand, I cannot understand. …. In this case, justice and law were not distant cousins. They were total strangers.”

 

 

From: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/399970/1/.html :

 

Law Minister K Shanmugam also emphasised on Saturday that if someone wants a particular law to be changed, he should do so by getting elected into Parliament.

 

 

 

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Singapore :

 

Opposition parties exist, but have never been able to get enough votes to gain control of Singapore’s government. Hence Singapore has been governed by one single party since 1959.

 

 

 

From: http://informationreadbyme.blogspot.com/2009/01/respect-must-be-earned.html :

 

do the people of Singapore really have no say at all in how things are run or managed? Why must we be elected into Parliament to effect a change? Then what is our MPs job since we need to be elected in to do it ourself? Isn’t our MPs there for that reason?

Is this statement saying that our MPs cannot effect a change in the law? And that to effect such a change, we personally must try to be elected into Parliament?

 

 

 

From: http://www.todayonline.com/articles/291620.asp :

 

If no satisfactory answers are forthcoming, you cannot blame the man in the street for thinking that there is one law for the rich and one for the poor,” Mr Anandan said.

 

From: Ghandi (Quoted from :  Gandhi’s Words http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/Gandhi.quotes.html#CIVIL )  :

 

Civil disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it denies.

Civil disobedience presupposes willing obedience of our self-imposed rules, and without it civil disobedience would be cruel joke.

Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the State becomes lawless corrupt.

Civil disobedience means capacity for unlimited suffering without the intoxicating excitement of killing.

Disobedience to be civil has to be open and nonviolent.

Disobedience to be civil implies discipline, thought, care, attention.

Disobedience that is wholly civil should never provoke retaliation.

Non-cooperation and civil disobedience are different but branches of the same tree call Satyagraha (truth-force).

 

From The Penal Code (http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=2008-REVED-224&doctitle=PENAL%20CODE&date=latest&method=part&segid=1228207124-002776#1228207125-003966) :

377A. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

 

From : Lee Kuan Yew ( quoted from : http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSSIN33351020070423 ) :

“If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual — because that’s the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes — you can’t help it. So why should we criminalize it?”

 

 

From:  PM Lee Hsien Long (quoted from : http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/pdf/20071023/pmlee-377a.pdf ) :

 

“we inherited Section 77A from the British ¡V imported from the English Victorian law, from the period of Queen Victoria in the 19th century, via the Indian Penal Code, via by the Straits Settlement Penal Code into Spore law”

 

“So the question is, what do we want to do about it now? Do we want to do anything about it now? If we retain it, we are not enforcing it proactively. Nobody has argued for it to be enforced very vigorously in this House. If we abolish it, we may be sending the wrong signal that our stance has changed and the rules have shifted. But because of the Penal Code amendments, Section 337A has become a symbolic issue, the point for both opponents and proponents to tussle around”

 

“for the majority of Singaporeans, the attitude is a pragmatic one – we live and let live”

 

 

“we’ve decided to keep the status quo on Section 377A. It’s better to accept the lega luntidiness and the ambiguity. It works, don’t disturb it”

 

 

 

From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_declaration_on_sexual_orientation_and_gender_identity :

 

As of December, 2008, homosexuality is illegal in 77 countries, in seven of which it is punishable by death.[2] In its 1994 decision in Toonen v. Australia, The UN Human Rights Committee, which is responsible for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), declared that such laws are in violation of human rights law.[3]

Justice, Law and the Courts

A Book Review
(Disclaimer: This is not a paid advertisement, nor am I writing at the request of anyone)

 

 

“The Best I Could ” written by Subhas Anandan, has kept me occupied this entire weekend. I couldn’t put it down until I had read it cover to cover. In line with the frontpage news on the law and courts in today’s The Sunday Times (http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_321763.html) (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/399970/1/.html) , I thought this latest book release by an insider of our judicial system would be a good read. Subhas Anandan has recently made known his views on this subject in the Today paper as well ( http://www.todayonline.com/articles/291620.asp )

 

 

Quoting the cover summary,

“Subhas Anandan is undoubtedly the best-known criminal lawyer in Singapore. From taking on Singapore’s most infamous cases, such as that of Anthony Ler, Took Lng How and Ah Long San, to espousing his views on the mandatory death sentence and police entrapment, Subhas Anandan has become the face of criminal defence in Singapore. But why does he choose to represent clients who are to all intents and purposes guilty? And are the criminals he represents the monsters the yare made out to be?”

 

 

The first part of the book tells of his school-going years, his years of being detained in prison without trial, and his first murder trial. 

 

In the second part, he describes his feelings and thoughts about some cases he has handled. These are not boring, detailed-laden, technical pieces. They are all written for the layman, and reads more like a private journal. Here is a reproduction of the contents page for the second section, and my own descriptions in brackets:

 

Magnet

 

Drugs, Stupidity and Abuse (He describes how the embassies of foreign nationals can help their citizens in drug cases. I quote “…judges’ hands are tied by the laws that govern drug offences …. Critics…say…Singapore has reversed the burden of proof, requiring the accused to prove they are innocent.” )

 

Constance Chee – The air stewardess who fell from grace

 

Took Leng How – The Man who should not have been hanged ( I quote “It reminded me why I am so against the mandatory death sentence. In my opinion, when there is a split decision as was the case for Took, the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment)

 

Ramu Annadavascan – A rake and the burning man ( He describes how some people may get away with murder under an evidence – based court system, but how “divine justice” can ultimately bring these criminals to justice)

 

Nadasan Chandra Secharan – Escaping the death sentence (I quote “ I always reply that I didn’t save her husband’s life and that sometime the system works”)

 

Leong Siew Chor – The body parts murder

Abdul Nasir – A landmark case ( He writes about how our current interpretation of Life Sentences came to be – the possibility of parole after 20 years)

 

Muhammad Nasir – the 16-year-old lover ( My favorite quote “ They say that sometimes justice and law are distant cousins. In the case of some countries, you’ll be lucky to say that justice and the law have the same parents. In Singapore’s case, it is sad to say that sometimes we feel that justice and law seem to be indifferent to each other. The law says something but when it is interpreted in the courts, it says something else. Most of the time, it is to the detriment of the accused person. This is sad. If it is not kept in check, one day we’ll come to a stage when justice and law will not only be indifferent to each other, it can be hostile. That will be a sad day for Singapore”  “ Many a time the prosecution has erred in exercising its prosecutory prerogative which is so rigid and strong that compassion is considered a weakness. Why they must take such a tough stand, I cannot understand. …. In this case, justice and law were not distant cousins. They were total strangers.”

 

Anthony Ler – That certain smile ( He contrasts 2 cases, one where a female adult instigated her teenage lover to commit murder and goes to jail for 6 years while a male adult who instigated a teenage boy to commit murder gets death)

 

Tan Chor Jin – The one-eyed dragon ( I quote “… we really do give everyone a fair trial under our system…. It may appear to some as being unfair, but the fact is that trials in Singapore follow the letter of the law.” “Before you give the supreme punishment to an accused person, namely the death sentence, I think you should give him every opportunity to have a different verdict. We live in a society where our judicial system is such that every man – no matter what his offence is, even if it is the most heinous offence under the law – should be given every opportunity possible to defend himself before being convicted and punished under the law. Only then can we say with a clear conscience when a man is hanged, that everything possible has been done for him and the law must take its course.”)

 

Chua Tiong Tiong – Ah Long San

 

Pal (Milk), the Bookie

 

Johnny Tan – The impersonator

 

University Martin – The public prosecutor vs the bomoh (I quote “ .. instances of lawyers being approached by families of the accused to do unusual thing…. We try to oblige them most of the time and more often than not, it appears to work, strange as it may seem. So much so that I really don’t know whether it’s my skill as a lawyer or the skill of the bomoh behind the acquittals I have obtained for some of my clients. For this reason, I will not come to any sort of conclusion about black magic.”

 

Public Prosecutor vs Heng Boon Chai ( I quote “… there is no such thing as lead counsel and assisting counsel. .. the both of us are equally important and that should be the way … many people do not understand that it is the assistant who carries the workload … the lead counsel merely presents the submission in court, for which he gets all the credit..”

 

In the third part of the book, he describes what it was like defending JB Jeyaretnam in politics, his views of various Law Society presidents including Francis Seow, his views about David Marshall, who once acted for him, and the jury system. Finally he talks about how a promise made to a gangster played an important role in making him the figure he is today.   

 

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       

 

1. 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.

 

1. 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?

They stick things up their birth canal hoping to DIY abortion, risking a high chance of death. They give birth and abandon their baby. They bear with the STI until it becomes complicated and life-threatening, when it could have easily been cured in the early stage. They do abortions at the late stage – this is a major issue doctors face, because it becomes so dangerous.

So what do I tell them?

 

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.

I often wonder if what I’m doing is right, because it will defeat the purpose of that law. And I still strongly support the law, because if caught, we cannot let a guy who is blatantly lying and cheating young girls to get away with it, because he manipulated her to consent to sex out of youthful curiosity or ignorance or naivety. But what do I do?

This is the reason why abortions are legal in Singapore, for girls of any age, and they can get it done without parental knowledge or consent, at a very affordable price. For this I applaud the wisdom of the policy makers. If girls who are very young must bring their parents along ,they may be so scared of how the parents might punish her, and go to a backstreet doctor who will keep her secret. And the rate of deaths at backstreet abortion clinics can go up t0 40%, at proper doctors, it is 2% or less.

 

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.

 

1. Euthanasia

I’ve 2 blog posts on this, but I will say it again. It is one thing to support the MORAL principle of euthanasia – where people choose for themselves death over suffering, versus the LEGALISING of euthanasia – which protects the relatives, the doctors, the State who killed the patient, and NOT the patient, who is already dead and cannot be punished whether or not euthanasia is legal.

 

 

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.

 

The second, and very common argument against LEGALISED euthanasia is, how do you prove that someone really wanted it, and not that he was coerced?

For example,  if the daughter-in-law is taking care of her cancer-stricken mother-in-law every day. She’s so sick of it, and rather use the money on a nice European holiday. So every day she says “Mother, don’t worry, we will take care of you no matter what. My husband (your son) working OT again tonight, so he will have the money to take care of you. Mother, we cannot waste electricity, must save money. Mother, don’t worry, Ah boy very smart, no need tution, the money save for your medication better. Mother, actually can I ask uncle to lend us some money or not? Cos we quite tight. But Mother don’t worry, your health more important than money”  The mother-in-law will slowly be persuaded that euthanasia is the best for the family she loves, even though in actual fact , the family has lots and lots of money, but she’s being lied to subtly. How do you prove that she was coerced, when she willingly persuades the doctor she wants euthanasia, and signs all the application forms without her family even knowing?

 

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 3^rd in a series of posts reviewing info brought up during the 6^th 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.