Organ Trading - To ban or not to ban?
http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_257418.html
Ask about legalizing organ trading a few years ago, and people will have no idea of what you are talking about. Ask about it a couple of months ago, comments will come as quick as the bullets of a machine again. Ask about it a few years later, what will you get? Will it be, like now, banned? Or will the ban be lifted in the years to come?
It all started when a man, Mr Sulaiman Damanik, wanted to sell one of his kidneys to the chairman of CK Tang, Tang Wee Sung. He was eventually fined $1000 and jailed for two weeks. Some might think, "But he is selling HIS OWN organ? What's wrong with that? Why should the government even care about what we do with our own body?" That is one side of the argument, while the other side is the moral values behind doing so. As always, there are both good and bad points about legalizing organ trading, or banning them.
There are some serious implications of legalizing organ trading. First, much more people would be saved from not being able to find a suitable donor. The chances of a suitable match are 1 in 2000 for non-relatives, and we also have to consider the people who are willing to donate. Secondly, people would not try to buy organs from the black market, which also means that banning organ trading would promote a black market for organ trading. Thirdly, legalizing organ trading would mean that only the rich will be able to get the organs. What about the poor then? Will they ever be able to get an organ? Will anyone ever want to sell to them if the rich pays more than what they are paying? And last of all, legalizing it will cause unhappiness amongst people who are against organ trading due to ethical reasons, and might cause rioting. After all, this is the very reason why organ trading is banned, hence there will surely be a large number of people who will not be happy if it is legalized.
On the other hand, keeping it banned will also have its own implications. Firstly, as mentioned above, banning organ trading will only promote a black market for people who are desperate to get an organ, and willing to pay any amount for it. Secondly, leading on to black markets, people buying or even selling on the black market might not get the right price for the organ. An example, quoted from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-stier/organtrading-is-not-so-w_b_59633.html, "National Geographic reports that a poor neighborhood in India is known as "Kidney Village," since residents illegally sell their kidneys for about $800, far less than the $100,000 that some recipients have been willing to pay." Thirdly, many people on the waiting list do not have that long to wait for donations to come to them. Banning organ trading would put them in a dilemma; buy an organ would mean breaking the law, while waiting would just mean certain death. And they do not have long to make a choice, for in a few years they would die from organ failure.
Personally, I am one who believes in person who believes in personal choice, and that would mean i am pro legalizing organ trading. After all, our organ belongs to us, and why should the government get involved in it, or to be put bluntly, be a busybody. I also do not see any ethical issues myself; hence I do not see any reason for it to be banned. However, I understand the concerns of this and do not disagree with all of it. For example, we need to think about the whole society when legalizing organ trading. Of course, the perfect scenario would be a healthy, poor commoner donating an organ to a sick but rich businessman. However, it is not always a bed of roses. What happens if we have a sick and poor person in need of an organ? With all the rich buying up all the organs for sale, what is left for this person who cannot do anything about his situation? After all, he will never be able to get a donation as no one will ever donate when they can sell it.
What I feel that the government should do is to legalize it, but also mention that it is morally wrong. Although this is contradictory, it is a win-win situation. People who wants to sell or buy organs will be happy with the change, while the people who think it is morally wrong to trade organs know at least that the government thinks that it is wrong as well, but is "forced" to legalize it due to the benefits that outweights the negative impacts. This way, the moral standards are still there, yet it is a pragmatic policy.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
"Democracy creates stability in a society"
In today's world, democracy is widely practiced by many countries. The reason for this is because the government feels that democracy will bring about stability for the country, but is this really so?
Before we move on, we have to first define "democracy" and "stability". Democracy is a political system whereby the citizens have the power to elect people to represent them. Hence, democracy is also known as power to the people. As for stability, it would mean free from change or variation, and in the context of a society, a stable society is one that is free from war and major conflicts within the society, one where peace is found throughout the country. There are also 3 types of stability in a society, economic social and politic. Economic stability would mean a country that has low unemployment rate and is well-developed. A socially stable society is one where there are no internal conflicts or riots and is peaceful. A government that is not corrupt would be a stable politically.
I agree that democracy creates stability. In a democratic society, people have more freedom and there is more power given to the people rather than the state. Hence, the people are able to vote for the party that will represent them and pass laws that are beneficial to them. The party with the most votes forms the government and majority of the people would benefit from the laws they pass. Hence, the majority would be happy and there would be peace, which is a form of stability, socially.
Democratic society also ensures that the minority is not neglected. In a democratic society, everyone has a chance to vote, and to voice their opinions through the votes they cast. Even though the party which the minority votes for did not form the government, the percentage difference between parties is a good gauge of what the citizens think, and if the difference is small, it is an indicator for the government to do something. The minority would also be heard and not forgotten; hence they would not be dissatisfied with the government and do things that threaten the stability of the nation.
However, democracy can also lead to chaos. This happens when the leaders that are elected are not efficient. While it is true that the people have the power to vote for the party which would represent them, they cannot be sure that the party will always think for the good of the people. There is a possibility that the some people in the government are corrupted and do things just for their personal benefits, neglecting the peoples’ need. Hence, the people will not be satisfied with the government and this would result in a riot, causing instability in the society.
Despite the above point, I still think that democracy will create stability. After all, corruption will happen in all sorts of society, not only in a democratic one. Hence, it is not democracy that really brings about the instability, but rather the efficiency of the government to keep its members in check. Also, if democracy does not bring about stability, why else would so many country choose to have a democratic society? Hence, I believe that a democracy would create stability in a society.
Before we move on, we have to first define "democracy" and "stability". Democracy is a political system whereby the citizens have the power to elect people to represent them. Hence, democracy is also known as power to the people. As for stability, it would mean free from change or variation, and in the context of a society, a stable society is one that is free from war and major conflicts within the society, one where peace is found throughout the country. There are also 3 types of stability in a society, economic social and politic. Economic stability would mean a country that has low unemployment rate and is well-developed. A socially stable society is one where there are no internal conflicts or riots and is peaceful. A government that is not corrupt would be a stable politically.
I agree that democracy creates stability. In a democratic society, people have more freedom and there is more power given to the people rather than the state. Hence, the people are able to vote for the party that will represent them and pass laws that are beneficial to them. The party with the most votes forms the government and majority of the people would benefit from the laws they pass. Hence, the majority would be happy and there would be peace, which is a form of stability, socially.
Democratic society also ensures that the minority is not neglected. In a democratic society, everyone has a chance to vote, and to voice their opinions through the votes they cast. Even though the party which the minority votes for did not form the government, the percentage difference between parties is a good gauge of what the citizens think, and if the difference is small, it is an indicator for the government to do something. The minority would also be heard and not forgotten; hence they would not be dissatisfied with the government and do things that threaten the stability of the nation.
However, democracy can also lead to chaos. This happens when the leaders that are elected are not efficient. While it is true that the people have the power to vote for the party which would represent them, they cannot be sure that the party will always think for the good of the people. There is a possibility that the some people in the government are corrupted and do things just for their personal benefits, neglecting the peoples’ need. Hence, the people will not be satisfied with the government and this would result in a riot, causing instability in the society.
Despite the above point, I still think that democracy will create stability. After all, corruption will happen in all sorts of society, not only in a democratic one. Hence, it is not democracy that really brings about the instability, but rather the efficiency of the government to keep its members in check. Also, if democracy does not bring about stability, why else would so many country choose to have a democratic society? Hence, I believe that a democracy would create stability in a society.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Blog1
Article:
- Title: Debate rages on…Is the foreign talent scheme working?
- Author: Leonard Lim
- Publisher: The Sunday Times
- Date: 9/03/08
Synopsis
The Foreign Sports Talent (FST) Scheme , created in 1993, was meant to help Singapore in sporting. Singapore only had 5 million people, and very few citizens “willing to commit to a life of pursuing sporting excellence”, hence there was a need to bring in promising talents from overseas. This would not only help Singapore gain recognition, it could also influence local talents and inspire them. However, it caused local talents to not get recognized and being left out.
Insights
The FST has its own pros and cons. The main reason why it was implemented was so that Singapore would be a major opponent in the sporting arena, able to pit itself against other strong countries. Singapore has only 5 million people, compared to 1.3 billion people in China. If Singapore has 100 people willing to devote themselves to a life of sports, China would have 26000 people. With more people, the range of talents can be greater and the potential to do better is also bigger. This is just an example of how much more talents countries like China would have than Singapore. Hence, there is a need to import people from these countries in order for Singapore to be a bigger name in sports. Without the foreign talents, Singapore would most likely never have gotten any medals in any competition.
However there is another motive to the FST and it is to influence the local talents in Singapore. By bringing in foreign talents who excel in their specific area of sports, local talents can be inspired by the amount of determination and hard work that these foreign talents put in. When they want to achieve something, they will do their best to get it. Also, playing with people of high standards will also raise the bars for local talents and this will in a way affect the standards of the Singapore players.
However with the FST, it also brings about some bad points. Local talents are being pushed out of the scene, with majority of the national team players being foreign talents. When too many foreign talents are in the national team, Singapore will be seen as a country that has no talents and needs to rely on other countries in order to do well. Local talents will also not be recognized and if any medals are won, the credit would go mostly to the foreign talents. The lack of space for local talents will also mean that they have less chance in proving themselves and fewer opportunities to play for Singapore.
Also, Singapore is focusing too much on the foreign talents, neglecting the development of local talents. As a result of too many foreigners on the team, most of the attention and priority will be given to them during trainings. Those not in team would naturally be 2nd priority and not as important as the first team. Hence, the development of local talents would be retarded and they would not advance as much.
There are also other issues at hand. Foreign talents are not given enough opportunities to showcase their talents in Singapore. As a result, many of them are returning back to their countries just so that they have more chances to compete in top-quality tournaments and competition from more talented foreign talents.
- Title: Debate rages on…Is the foreign talent scheme working?
- Author: Leonard Lim
- Publisher: The Sunday Times
- Date: 9/03/08
Synopsis
The Foreign Sports Talent (FST) Scheme , created in 1993, was meant to help Singapore in sporting. Singapore only had 5 million people, and very few citizens “willing to commit to a life of pursuing sporting excellence”, hence there was a need to bring in promising talents from overseas. This would not only help Singapore gain recognition, it could also influence local talents and inspire them. However, it caused local talents to not get recognized and being left out.
Insights
The FST has its own pros and cons. The main reason why it was implemented was so that Singapore would be a major opponent in the sporting arena, able to pit itself against other strong countries. Singapore has only 5 million people, compared to 1.3 billion people in China. If Singapore has 100 people willing to devote themselves to a life of sports, China would have 26000 people. With more people, the range of talents can be greater and the potential to do better is also bigger. This is just an example of how much more talents countries like China would have than Singapore. Hence, there is a need to import people from these countries in order for Singapore to be a bigger name in sports. Without the foreign talents, Singapore would most likely never have gotten any medals in any competition.
However there is another motive to the FST and it is to influence the local talents in Singapore. By bringing in foreign talents who excel in their specific area of sports, local talents can be inspired by the amount of determination and hard work that these foreign talents put in. When they want to achieve something, they will do their best to get it. Also, playing with people of high standards will also raise the bars for local talents and this will in a way affect the standards of the Singapore players.
However with the FST, it also brings about some bad points. Local talents are being pushed out of the scene, with majority of the national team players being foreign talents. When too many foreign talents are in the national team, Singapore will be seen as a country that has no talents and needs to rely on other countries in order to do well. Local talents will also not be recognized and if any medals are won, the credit would go mostly to the foreign talents. The lack of space for local talents will also mean that they have less chance in proving themselves and fewer opportunities to play for Singapore.
Also, Singapore is focusing too much on the foreign talents, neglecting the development of local talents. As a result of too many foreigners on the team, most of the attention and priority will be given to them during trainings. Those not in team would naturally be 2nd priority and not as important as the first team. Hence, the development of local talents would be retarded and they would not advance as much.
There are also other issues at hand. Foreign talents are not given enough opportunities to showcase their talents in Singapore. As a result, many of them are returning back to their countries just so that they have more chances to compete in top-quality tournaments and competition from more talented foreign talents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)