Advance Medical Directive Act - a form of euthanasia?

 

An Advance Medical Directive Act is a legal document that one signs in advance to inform the doctor treating him that in the event he becomes terminally ill and unconscious, one would not want any extraordinary life-sustaining treatment to prolong one’s life. Definitely, this can be seen as a form of euthanasia, also known as “mercy killing”. While euthanasia is carried out to alleviate physical and mental suffering, this Advance Medical Directive Act can as an easy release from the suffering of being a vegetable, dead to the world but still breathing. However,

The horrible part about choosing the easy way out of suffering is that while one does need to undergo such anguish and torment be it emotional, mental or physical, it is extremely selfish to our loved ones. What about them? The emotional pain that we cause them will be so great, and the knowledge that we value the relief of the pain over being with them would hurt them even more. Furthermore, who are we to play God and decide when we want to leave this Earth? Euthanasia being mercy killing, and is still a form of killing; and killing ourselves equates to suicide which is murder. The killing can be for a good intention but killing ourselves is still a form of murder, which is the greatest possible sin.

Worse of all, this Advance Medical Directive Act and euthanasia both are equally horrifying in causing the dehumanisation of man and the desacrilisation of life. The sacredness of human life becomes viewed as mere sentimentalism, and expediency takes priority. Life becomes just a commodity, and can be thrown away when the going gets rough. The problem about opening the door to this form of assisted suicide is that more reasons will surface as to ending one’s life. First came euthanasia which gave the reason that physical and emotional pain was enough to warrant a merciful ending of one’s life, then came this Act which states that we have a right to end our lives if we are dead to this world. If this continues, perhaps next time there could be an Act stating that all people who recently lost a loved one could kill themselves also if they wish to.

In my opinion, unless the cost of life-sustaining treatment would be too much to bear for one’s family, nobody should even be given the option of signing this act to end their lives. Just as euthanasia is banned in all but four countries in the world, this Advanced Medical Direct Act should definitely also be banned by all countries. The decision to turn off the life-support machine should be made by the family, when after observing that there is no chance of every recovering for the person, then should they make the decision, and not leave the decision him.

Swine Flu

 

               Swine flu can be seen as a repeat of the SARS virus that swept the earth in 2003, hitting hardest in Asia and despite all the desperate measures taken by governments of various countries. Viruses are harder to control than terrorists, as even with quarantine of infected people, and use of vaccines, viruses can never be totally contained, as it is far too easy for these microscopic pathogens to slip through our safeguards and stopgap measures. However, though SARS took away thousands of lives, swine flu will not do the same, because of numerous reasons. Not only are we more prepared, united and hygiene conscious than the last encounter with a deadly virus, but the governments across the world are also more experienced in measures they take to contain the spread of this virus, also known as H1N1.

               As of today (28-5-09), there have been less than a hundred deaths caused by H1N1, but it is mostly in North America, where the virus originated from. However, as long as other countries keep up with measures such as quarantining citizens who travel to “hot-spots” of H1N1, such as Mexico, there would be a infinitesimally small chance of the virus spreading, even if one of her citizens is infected.  The only reason why Mexico has so many cases and deaths is because by the time measures were taken, the disease was already spread around the country, and it would be impossible to quarantine every possible person in the country.

               Another measure taken by the governments which I find effective is stocking up on flu vaccines, as if a mass pandemic breaks out, everybody can be quickly treated, averting a possible tragedy. The bright side about this virus is that as long as prompt treatment is sought, it is not potent, unlike SARS. Therefore, as long as everybody is alert to themselves showing symptoms of swine flu and seek immediate medical attention, and as long as the doctors treat all possible cases of swine flu seriously, the vaccines will hopefully not need to be used at all.

               However, is being over cautious good? The Mexican government was outraged over the way their citizens were treated by the Hong Kong authorities. As the saying goes “once bitten, twice shy”, so the Hong Kongers quarantined all Mexican tourists and treated them poorly, but one could hardly blame Hong Kong from being over-suspicious, looking at the number of deaths Hong Kong incurred at the hands of SARS. Also, many Mexicans were repatriated from China for fear of them being carriers of the swine flu virus. Thus, while being cautious, some countries end up being rude and causing unnecessary tension with other states.

               Also, swine flu poses as a double whammy to countries still reeling and trying to recover from the recent financial crisis. Not only are millions going to be spent on stepping up health-care measures and stocking up on vaccines, but the tourism industry is going to be dealt a sucker-punch. Countless flights to Mexico have been cancelled, be it for tours, business meetings or other events such as exchange programmes, and this greatly reduces Mexico’s revenue which already took a hit along with the United States in the financial crisis.

               Nevertheless, as long as the human race stays united, there is cause for hope and we will definitely triumph over this disease.  

HOTA

The recent amendments to the Human Organ Transplant Act resulted in an uproar in Singapore, with the major change being that unless one opted out of this scheme, once declared “brain-dead”, his organs would be harvested to give others. I have been thinking this issue over, and while it appears at the surface that this seems like a “win-win” situation, that one can do a good deed with organs no longer needed, and lives be saved, looking deeper into this issue reveals certain problems that are not obvious at first.

Firstly is the issue of ignorance. Not everybody in Singapore is literate, and among the literate, not everybody is well-informed. What if somebody is personally giving up his organs while he is still living, but is not aware of the amendment to this Act? Would not it be a terrible injustice to violate his rights as a human being? True, he is ignorant, but that is no reason to take away his organs. This could be as stupid as the government making a 100% tax policy, and you will get the normal tax rate only if you opt out of this scheme. Why make this scheme in the first place, where it would only inconvenience people who are well-informed, and do a grave injustice to people who are more ignorant?

Singapore has not done enough to make her citizens aware of the amendments to this Human Organs Transport Act, almost as if she is hoping to keep it silent. Perhaps keeping silent after drafting this Act is easier than launching campaigns to educate people about the merits of donating their organs after they are brain-dead or dead. Furthermore, why are the organs belonging to the state in the first place? Should not it be the right of the deceased or the “brain-deceased” family to decide if the organs should go to the state, or for other purposes. After these organs are harvested, what type of person does the family have to bury or cremate? An person without kidneys, livers, hearts and corneas?  Surely, this is too harsh a price for simply being ignorant. If people are ignorant, it is the duty of the state to educate them about this, and let the family and the person himself make the choice whether to sign the form, and not to OPT OUT of the form.

Also, what if the person certified “brain-dead” could eventually wake up at some point later on? While the chance is slim, it would be worth the long wait to the family. Without his organs, he is definitely and 100% dead. Miracles do happen and it is not uncommon for people in comas to wake up later on in their life. Doctors can never be truly sure that somebody is “brain-dead” and that he is ripe for harvesting. Foregoing consent and harvesting somebody’s organs is as good as foregoing consent and raping him, or foregoing consent and murdering him. Well the state may have the right to our property; it should not and will not have the rights to the body and organs of us citizens. We should have a right in deciding whether we want to keep our organs to accompany us into the ground or the flames. True, it may be selfish but it is for us to decide, and not the state.

The solution to this problem is probably to take the easiest and most effective way out. The scheme should be to let people “sign up” to donate their organs, based on their own goodwill and kindness, and not to let them “not sign out”, based on their ignorance. If the government truly wants people to donate their organs, they should step up on campaigns to inform Singaporeans about the merits of doing so, and not by resorting to such schemes.

National Service

National Service- How can this be amended or improved further to alleviate the problem of dodging?

               Despite all the propaganda about National Service being a glamorous and macho way of showing one’s devotion and loyalty to our homeland, many young men would rather skip National Service, if possible. While this rite of passage may be deemed by young boys to be cool, the older we grow, the more we feel that our two years spent in National Service is a total waste of time. With modern values, and as due to higher standards of living, why should spoilt young men waste time and energy on something that does not benefit them? The pay is meagre, the training extremely intensive, the hours long. Thus, many young men choose to ‘dodge’ National Service by staying overseas and not coming back to serve National Service.

               This problem of dodging has led the government to mete out stiffer punishments for draft dodgers, as ‘If we (the government) don’t come down hard on those who default, it would undermine the dedication and commitment shown by those who have gone through NS.” While the government is right in this punishment of dodgers as this is only fair to those who had to go through the full two years of National Service, maybe sometimes the ‘stick’ is not the only approach to solving such problems. One possible drawback would be that to avoid the harsh punishments, dodgers might never dare to return to Singapore. Sometimes, some of the young men who skip National Service may in their later years, voluntarily return to Singapore in remorse over their actions, but even stiffer punishments would further discourage this group of people from returning to Singapore.

               Thus, I advocate amending the very root of the problem – National Service itself. You could hardly blame young men with bright prospects for placing their career and studies over National Service. Furthermore, with globalization, the new world order is now less about geographical borders and absolute national loyalties, and more about global movements of people and talent. National Service either chases away talent who refuse to come back for fear of being punished, or put these talents through 2 years of mundane training for a war which might never come in the next century, wasting precious hours that could go a long way to maximise the potential of these talents, which also benefits Singapore which relies on a knowledge-based economy.

               However, it would also be unrealistic for elitism to decide who goes through the two years of living hell and who does not. Where do you draw the line between talent and average people? Will people who failed at studies in their teens never be successful in their later life? What if Bill Gates went through National Service? Would Microsoft still exist, and would computers be as advanced as today? There would definitely be public out-cry against this elitism and people who do not make the cut may out of anger at the system; decide to skip National Service also. It is terribly unfair to see fellow countrymen being able to skip the two hard years that one underwent, so it would be understandable that people who went through National Service expect others to do the same.

Another solution is for the appeal system, which could be on a case-by-case basis. If one wants to skip or rather, postpone National Service because of issues pertaining to furthering studies, then perhaps if he does seem serious and is not skipping National Service for other reasons, then perhaps permission could be granted. Such cases will have to be dealt with care, as like I said, it is hard to draw the line. To prevent public grievance, National Service should remain as it is, and the stricter laws should stay. It is impossible to please everyone, but it is possible to please the majority.  

Are IRs a boon or bane to Singapore?

               In 2 more years, Singapore’s hotly debate integrated resorts should be up and running. Before I make my stand, I think that it is more important to define the topic, rather than foolishly misinterpret it and distort its meaning.  Since this proposal burst forth in 2003, many discussions or debates have been centered around mostly on are casinos a boon or bane to Singapore, while the term IR is ignored. True, a IR without a casino is not a proper IR, but we have to remember that an integrated resort comprises of many amenities, such as theme parks, cinemas, hotels, shopping malls, exhibition and convention spaces, theatres and even museums. To forget about this wide range of other facilities and just focus on the casino itself would be misleading.

               While the building of two integrated resorts will pose many problems to Singaporeans, we have to look into the long term. In globalization, with many countries opening up to the world, spending billions of dollars to reinvent, repackage and revamp themselves, complacency could very well result in the elimination of Singapore’s status as a vibrant city. London and Hong Kong have already begun giving themselves a face-lift, and are full of drive and energy just like Singapore. Both cities have been looking into casinos, with Hong Kong seeking to compete with Macao by building a casino, after their successful launch of Disneyland. We are not the only global city that is developed in just Asia alone, with Seoul, Tokyo, Beijing and Hong Kong proving themselves to be vibrant and cosmopolitan cities.

               Thus, in this rat race, only the strong survive. Unless we find ways to continually keep up with this relentless pace of improvement, we will be bypassed and left behind many other countries. Already, Singapore has lost ground in tourism over the past years. We need something other than the Singapore Flyer and F1 among our newest additions to tourist attractions. Already, we have not been blessed with beautiful scenery unlike many large countries and we need manmade attractions to resist tourists flocking to the new and rising powers such as China and India. Thus, the main case for the integrated resort is this very point. In short, the economic merits to Singapore that these integrated resorts bring could revive and revise Singapore’s global image and whether we get eliminated in this race could depend on this.

               The sentiment of most Singaporeans is that the integrated resort is a bane to Singapore. While the other amenities are harmless, unless people want to bring up the issue of shopaholics or theme park addicts, the main bone of contention is irrefutably the casinos.  In every country, just as there will be murderers and thieves, there will be gambling addicts. What better way for these addicts to sate this insatiable appetite then to just take a bus down to the casinos conveniently situated in Singapore itself? Many other problems come with gambling, such as breakdown of family, spouse and children abuse, loansharks, money laundering or even thefts. True, this problems are by no means trivial, but if these gamblers are that hardcore, they would already be gambling in Macau or nearby countries. Why not let them spend their money here? The government has already made a regulation whereby families can ban a family member or themselves from entering the casinos, to counteract this threat.

               The casinos will not actually make gamblers, but would rather convert gamblers. Gambling is not altogether illegal in Singapore, with illegal and legal forms of gambling, such as mahjong, horse racing, betting on soccer, Toto and 4D, to name a few. Thus, speaking of the casinos as if Singapore has no other forms of gambling can distort the actual picture. Furthermore, the government has taken measures to provide a better safety net against these gamblers. Firstly, a high entrance fee will be charged, so the casinos will be catered more to the tourists than locals. Thus, casual gamblers will be deterred. Furthermore, the casinos will not be allowed to extend credit to locals, thus it is harder for us Singaporeans to lose more than we can afford.

               With these safety measures, I am sure that the integrated resorts will help to boost Singapore’s image and tourist numbers, and at the same time safeguard its citizens effectively.

Question

In the passage, the author argues how advertising can work to our benefit. To what extent do you agree with his arguments? Examine the impact of honesty and integrity in the world of advertising.

Imagine that you were a Creative Director of an advertising agency which has been assigned to design an advertisement for a tobacco company. How far would you compromise on honesty and integrity. 

 

        I agree with the author’s statements to a certain extent.  What I disagree with him is that through advertisement, we consumers get information at no extra cost. This is not wholly true as firstly, the information may be false, and that would be lies and false statistics already, and not information as it does not increase our knowledge about anything.  Also, he said that consumers benefit from lower prices due to price-advertising. True, prices may be lower but do consumers benefit? Is this ‘lower’ price low to begin with? Take branded goods such as Adidas and Nike. They rival each other in selling sport apparel and the money they spent on advertisements go up to tens of millions or even hundreds, but do we consumers benefit? Even if the prices are lowered slightly, do we benefit if this price is still high?

 

         Another point that I find contentious is that advertising related to health will provide a storehouse of significant observations on the ways in which the benefits of advertising extend beyond the interests of advertisers to include the interests of the public at large. Firstly, advertisements like to be ambiguous about what they say. More of the effect than the figures are used, such as if a sports drink merely boosts the performance of athletes by 1%, this trivial amount will not be mentioned, but rephrased into a catchy and still correct slogan which perhaps says ‘gives you the cutting edge over fellow competitors’ or ‘feel energised with our sports drink which has been proven to boost your performance during competitions’. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that while the welfare of the public is taken into account, their interests are never, are not, and never will be taken into account substantially. The role of the consumer or buyer is not to stay healthy, but to stay spendthrift, and to buy things that benefit mostly the advertiser.

 

         I do agree with the writer on his point that information sells therefore people will research on more information so that products will sell together with information. Advertising companies require research, so they will employ people to research on these information for them, and people will want to research on this information. Thus, it can be seen that the more products needed, the more information wanted, thus products sell together with information. Also, I agree that advertising also elicits additional information from other sources.

                             Moving on to the world of advertising, honesty and integrity are not of vital importance for some companies as long as nobody knows that they are faking information and still fall into their scam and they are still raking in profits. Of course, there will be other companies that would rather lose profits then lose their customer’s face in them, and will never fake information, as it is not only unjust to the consumer, but could possibly endanger his or her lives. Companies have to get their priorities right: to fake information, keep their fingers crossed, and get as much profit as possible or to ensure that honesty and integrity are maintained, and keep their fingers crossed that they will still make a profit.

               If I were the Creative Director of an advertising agency that has been assigned to design an advertisement for a tobacco company, I will not compromise on honesty and integrity as if I am found out by my consumers to have been providing false or misleading information, this would be disastrous and I might face prosecution charges which is not worth such a risk. Instead of facing ways to falsify information, it would be more beneficial for me to focus on inventing tobacco that provides less health risk through measures such as reducing the nicotine and tar content or inventing more efficient filters, not only will more people buy more product, I will win their trust as my information will have proven to be accurate and useful to them. 

Is Science a Menace to Civilisation?

While I agree whole-heartedly with Text A, it is more correct to say that man’s use of Science is a menace to civilisation. The atrocities of war and weapons of mass destruction were made possible with such developments in Science. Because of man’s misuse of Science, countless innocent lives are lost in bombing raids, were lost in the gassing chambers and atomic bombs in World War II, and will be lost in the future with new advanced chemical, nuclear and biological weapons that have the capacity to annihilate an entire country. Also, the invention of explosives and guns has been misused. Dynamite was invented to help build roads through mountains, but instead, we human beings transformed it into weapons to kill and maim other people or animals. Because of Science, Man built technology-intensive industries, power-consuming appliances and other ‘luxury’ goods such as cars and air-conditioners. Because of this, we humans have selfishly caused the global warming effect, which may soon reach a point of no return, unless we manage to find a way to capture carbon dioxide in the future.
Scientific research has without doubt lowered mortality rates, with life-saving discoveries such as antibiotics, surgeries, transplants or vaccines. Previously, man was nearly defenceless against such potent microorganisms, and could die over a mere cold. True, these inventions are greatly beneficial to mankind. However, with these developments in Science, human beings have turned these weapons which fight viruses and other micro-organisms against ourselves, and because of our negligent use of antibiotics, we have ironically created new strains of resistant super-bugs that have developed resistance against nearly all antibiotics. Furthermore, for each vaccine invented, countless innocent lab animals are sacrificed. Their live bodies are used as tests, and if the experiment fails, they are just cruelly killed without a second thought. How could these inventions be hailed as life-saving, if they take the lives of other creatures?
                 Another example is the Internet, which was considered to be a huge leap for mankind, with it being among the most significant inventions of the 20th century. Sadly, what was meant to convenience the lives of mankind instead has turned into a hazard to its users. Be it viruses, rampant proliferation of pornographic material in the net, paedophiles lurking in the chatroom, or addictive computer games, this great breakthrough in Science which was meant to connect people around the world has ironically achieved the contrary. There are countless cases of people, being addicted to online gaming, have estranged themselves from the people around them. They are more comfortable chatting with faceless acquaintances on the web, than with their own family. These technologies threaten to numb the brains of each new generation, killing social skills and the art of communication over time.
                 Of great concern to me, is also the menace that Science presents to moral ethics. Recently, even the United States has instead of opposing stem cells research has decided to fund it. Are we trying to realise the horrors presented to us in Huxley’s ‘Brave new world’. What is next then? Are we going to let parents programme what they want their child to be then? Furthermore, two of the world’s most destructive ideologies in the 20th century-Communism and Nazism were both inspired by Science. Science can thus be seen to in some cases, violate moral ethics and can be detrimental to society.
                     We must also rethink our perceptions of life with science and life without science. Is life without our luxuries bleak and dull? Will we die without our cars or computers? Can its benefits ever outweigh its heavy costs? Of course, while science is argued to be just like religion or philosophy, these two cannot ever be as destructive as science, because they are abstract. I personally, as a Christian, also find Science the major stumbling block in people accepting Christianity. Be it through Darwin’s theory of evolution, or the Big Bang theory which had a one in one with 81 zeroes behind chance of happening, some people choose to believe in Science to explain everything, as it is tangible and concrete, unlike religion. Worse still, Science, or man’s use of Science could be worse than just a menace to civilisation, if science is used to substitute religion in people’s lives.
                             In conclusion, there is little doubt that Science is indeed a menace to civilisation and Man himself.