With the recent breakout of the H1N1 influenza, people all over the world have been flung into chaos. In this blog post, I will be sharing my opinion on how various countries have reacted to the H1N1 influenza. This influenza was originally named the “swine flu”, having been suspected to infect pigs alone. However, it was later found out that it could be transmitted through the air.
The first country that was hit with the influenza was Mexico. Though it had seemed that the cases in Mexico were going out of hand, but Mexico was in fact the first country to get the influenza under control. However, critiques still continue to arrow Mexico, blaming them for the outbreak. Some countries have even gone to the extent of disallowing Mexicans from entering their countries. I personally feel that such measures are very unreasonable. Though the outbreak of the influenza may have been due to the lack of vigilance on the Mexicans’ side, ostracising them would simply be immoral.
On the other hand, America, the supposedly “more developed country”, has been greatly hit by the influenza. What saddens me is how irresponsible the Americans seemed, with the greatest number of cases and death toll. With such advanced medical facilities, it would be expected that the influenza at least be contained. Furthermore, the American government did close to nothing to prevent the influenza from spreading to other countries. Statistics have shown that almost all the first cases in Asia came from America.
Another ironic case study would be China, given its massive population; doctors all over the world have speculated that China would have the greatest number of cases. Despite such speculations, China seemed to have gotten the influenza under control, startling many professionals. However, many believe that it is due to its huge population that it is hard to keep track of confirmed influenza cases. Hence, people have accused China of reporting false figures, but I believe that they deserve a certain amount of credit as well.
Bringing the question back to Singapore, I believe that Singapore has fared rather poorly, though the preventive measures taken by the Singaporean government is commendable, being one of the latest countries to be hit by the influenza. However, once the influenza hit us, it spread like wild fire, having over 100 cases each day, and yet Singaporeans are still behaving as though nothing is happening, treating the influenza as a joke. The government isn’t at any fault; in fact they have been doing almost everything that they can. The problem lies solely in the Singapore public, they should change their attitude towards the influenza and start treating it as a real threat before it is too late.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Advance Medical Directive Act
The advance medical directive act refers to the act of ending one's life, given that he or she is in critical state. To put it simply, patients are allowed to bring forward their death day to cease their suffering.
Many people compare this to the act of euthanasia, more commonly know as the “legal suicide”. The only difference between the two is just that the former requires a valid reason for the application to be approved, while the latter simply needs an application. Though there's only one difference between the two, but why is it that Singapore chose the former?
First of all, euthanasia seems to be an easily abused act, people are able to end their lives on their own accord, without consulting any relatives or specialists, it has the same social impact as committing suicide. However, socially responsible people would obviously consult their relatives and friends before going for euthanasia. The advance medical directive act, on the other hand, needs a long and elaborate process of approval.
However, despite the advance medical directive act having so many measure in place, it is bound to be abused. One issue would be the qualifications of this act. It seems like any one of the parties mentioned in the act possesses veto powers against ending a single soul. Furthermore, there is a part for “medical specialists” to decide if the patient is really in pain. No doubt, there would be differences in each and every doctor's perception, if Doctor A doesn't grant the approval, the patient can go to Doctor B to seek approval, so on and so forth, until they grant approval.
Also, there is the issue of insurance. If the person under this act has death insurance, does it mean that their relatives are still paid for it, after all, it is a loss of kin. Would their insurance then be terminated? The patient may even have to go through this pressure if their family is in immediate need of money.
It is hard to see someone die before your eyes, but it is harder to see someone suffer before your eyes, knowing that they'd have to go through the same pain over and over again each day. Wouldn't it be better to just let them go? The advance medical directive act has its pros and cons but either way, we should never abuse it.
Many people compare this to the act of euthanasia, more commonly know as the “legal suicide”. The only difference between the two is just that the former requires a valid reason for the application to be approved, while the latter simply needs an application. Though there's only one difference between the two, but why is it that Singapore chose the former?
First of all, euthanasia seems to be an easily abused act, people are able to end their lives on their own accord, without consulting any relatives or specialists, it has the same social impact as committing suicide. However, socially responsible people would obviously consult their relatives and friends before going for euthanasia. The advance medical directive act, on the other hand, needs a long and elaborate process of approval.
However, despite the advance medical directive act having so many measure in place, it is bound to be abused. One issue would be the qualifications of this act. It seems like any one of the parties mentioned in the act possesses veto powers against ending a single soul. Furthermore, there is a part for “medical specialists” to decide if the patient is really in pain. No doubt, there would be differences in each and every doctor's perception, if Doctor A doesn't grant the approval, the patient can go to Doctor B to seek approval, so on and so forth, until they grant approval.
Also, there is the issue of insurance. If the person under this act has death insurance, does it mean that their relatives are still paid for it, after all, it is a loss of kin. Would their insurance then be terminated? The patient may even have to go through this pressure if their family is in immediate need of money.
It is hard to see someone die before your eyes, but it is harder to see someone suffer before your eyes, knowing that they'd have to go through the same pain over and over again each day. Wouldn't it be better to just let them go? The advance medical directive act has its pros and cons but either way, we should never abuse it.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Organ Transplant Act
Having not been in a critical medical state, I would not be able to understand the desperation that patients experience as their life depends on that one organ. Similarly, I wouldn’t understand how some people are so desperate for that sum of money.
The first issue that I would like to address today would be the foregoing of consent in harvesting organs. I personally believe that this isn’t a viable option at all. In fact, in my opinion, not only should we gain consent from the donor, we should also acquire the consent of the donor’s parents. After all, we were blessed with our body thanks to our parents. Imagine giving someone a gift with all your sincerity and that person simply sells it away without giving a thought about your feeling.
Another issue that I would like to address is the addition of incentives to the donors. In the present, it is already known that some people go to blood donation drives to donate their blood, not to help people, but to get a free meal provided to all donors. If incentives were to be put in place to organ donors, we would expect people to donate their organs just to get their hands on that sum of money. This would then become an act of “selling one’s body” literally.
First of all, I suggest that an agreement form to be handed out to the receiver, donor and donor’s relative. The operation can only take place after all three parties have signed the agreement form. I also suggest that the incentives to be converted into a more indirect form, take for example, hospital memberships, redeemable hospital bills, reimbursement of his medical fees. Hence there would be a bonus present, just that it isn’t immediately accessible. Also, the removal of incentives altogether should also be considered. Some may argue that this would act as a push factor to donors and would thus cause them to refuse donating altogether.
However, if the removal of incentives would deter people from donating their organs, then that would just reflect how greedy and desperate people are. Donating of organs should be in hope that you can save someone instead of thinking about yourself. Donating to save a life should be a selfless act; those who should think otherwise ought to reflect on their thoughts.
The first issue that I would like to address today would be the foregoing of consent in harvesting organs. I personally believe that this isn’t a viable option at all. In fact, in my opinion, not only should we gain consent from the donor, we should also acquire the consent of the donor’s parents. After all, we were blessed with our body thanks to our parents. Imagine giving someone a gift with all your sincerity and that person simply sells it away without giving a thought about your feeling.
Another issue that I would like to address is the addition of incentives to the donors. In the present, it is already known that some people go to blood donation drives to donate their blood, not to help people, but to get a free meal provided to all donors. If incentives were to be put in place to organ donors, we would expect people to donate their organs just to get their hands on that sum of money. This would then become an act of “selling one’s body” literally.
First of all, I suggest that an agreement form to be handed out to the receiver, donor and donor’s relative. The operation can only take place after all three parties have signed the agreement form. I also suggest that the incentives to be converted into a more indirect form, take for example, hospital memberships, redeemable hospital bills, reimbursement of his medical fees. Hence there would be a bonus present, just that it isn’t immediately accessible. Also, the removal of incentives altogether should also be considered. Some may argue that this would act as a push factor to donors and would thus cause them to refuse donating altogether.
However, if the removal of incentives would deter people from donating their organs, then that would just reflect how greedy and desperate people are. Donating of organs should be in hope that you can save someone instead of thinking about yourself. Donating to save a life should be a selfless act; those who should think otherwise ought to reflect on their thoughts.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
National Service
“Two roads diverged, and I took the one less taken.”
-Robert frost
Choices come and go in our lives and often times we have to make life changing decisions. However, this is not the case when it comes to national service in Singapore. It is commonly viewed as a curse Singaporeans are born with, the fate you have the minute you arrive in this world: 18 years down the road you would have to shave your head, pick up a rifle and join the army never, to return for another two years. Obviously, this view has been over exaggerated through the years.
Nonetheless, the damage has already been done. With such views circulating among the people, “dodgers” are bound to exist. People have come up with large arrays of methods just to avoid getting conscripted: dropping citizenships, attaining scholarships and even to extremes such as cutting of a finger.
In response of such radicalism, the government has in fact decided to step up the laws pertaining to national service dodging, but the problem lies in whether this increment in law strictness will actually solve this problem. Leslie Koh’s article addresses this issue.
In this article, Leslie Koh brings forth a message that by doing so, the result may likely be the opposite of its aim. “Strictifying” the rules would just induce Singaporeans to dodge even quicker.
Furthermore, I do believe that the two years spend in NS does cause the brain to work slower, having to work purely on brawns over brains will no doubt cause disaster to one’s education. Some NS men have even reflected that most of what they learnt through the 12 years of education has been forgotten after going through the rigorous national service.
However, there is the patriotic side to this issue. Many dodgers have been labelled to be national pests, being unfaithful towards their own country, betraying their country. This acts as a push factor against dodgers. Furthermore, most dodgers are barred from re-entering Singapore after leaving the country, if they do so, they would be arrested and forced to do NS regardless of their age.
Hence, I suggest that instead of increasing the penalties of dodging, why not include some pull factors as well. One example would be to give out degrees for completing NS, letting them train both brains and brawns at the same time. Hence, the damage down to their education would not be as fatal as the current situation.
Also, the government can increase the benefits that going through NS, convincing them that NS is a good thing instead of commanding them to be in NS. I believe that this way, less and less dodgers will appear and eventually conscription won’t seem like such a bad thing anymore.
-Robert frost
Choices come and go in our lives and often times we have to make life changing decisions. However, this is not the case when it comes to national service in Singapore. It is commonly viewed as a curse Singaporeans are born with, the fate you have the minute you arrive in this world: 18 years down the road you would have to shave your head, pick up a rifle and join the army never, to return for another two years. Obviously, this view has been over exaggerated through the years.
Nonetheless, the damage has already been done. With such views circulating among the people, “dodgers” are bound to exist. People have come up with large arrays of methods just to avoid getting conscripted: dropping citizenships, attaining scholarships and even to extremes such as cutting of a finger.
In response of such radicalism, the government has in fact decided to step up the laws pertaining to national service dodging, but the problem lies in whether this increment in law strictness will actually solve this problem. Leslie Koh’s article addresses this issue.
In this article, Leslie Koh brings forth a message that by doing so, the result may likely be the opposite of its aim. “Strictifying” the rules would just induce Singaporeans to dodge even quicker.
Furthermore, I do believe that the two years spend in NS does cause the brain to work slower, having to work purely on brawns over brains will no doubt cause disaster to one’s education. Some NS men have even reflected that most of what they learnt through the 12 years of education has been forgotten after going through the rigorous national service.
However, there is the patriotic side to this issue. Many dodgers have been labelled to be national pests, being unfaithful towards their own country, betraying their country. This acts as a push factor against dodgers. Furthermore, most dodgers are barred from re-entering Singapore after leaving the country, if they do so, they would be arrested and forced to do NS regardless of their age.
Hence, I suggest that instead of increasing the penalties of dodging, why not include some pull factors as well. One example would be to give out degrees for completing NS, letting them train both brains and brawns at the same time. Hence, the damage down to their education would not be as fatal as the current situation.
Also, the government can increase the benefits that going through NS, convincing them that NS is a good thing instead of commanding them to be in NS. I believe that this way, less and less dodgers will appear and eventually conscription won’t seem like such a bad thing anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)