Human Organ Transplant Act- How far is it viable to forego consent in harvesting organs?

The Human Organ Transport Act (HOTA) saves many lives a year. Organs are high in demand, as many people suffer organ failures. Before the HOTA was passed, only 5 lives could be saved a year, and after HOTA was passed, a life could be saved a week. As such, the HOTA facilitates as a legal means to harvest organs for those who need it, and at the same time, it allows families to opt out if they want to. However, there is much debate whether the HOTA is ethical or not.

Indeed, it is true that the HOTA has saved many lives, and is a considerably important act for those who require organ transplant. Because organs come from deceased, it is definitely a must for the hospital to request consent from the deceased’s family before harvesting the organ. An important issue would be that it is not right for a person to use another person’s organ, albeit live-saving. Some people feel that it is alright, because there is a life involved, and that it is worth it to take organs from someone who has lost his life to replace someone who is on the verge of losing his. As long as permission is granted, there should not be any ethical issues regarding the matter of transferring organs. However, some others feel that it is not right as a human to take anyone else’s organs, even if he/she is deceased, reason being that one should preserve what is left of the deceased till she returns to dust.

Another issue would be that some people complain it is unfair to take their deceased’s organs and sell it off. The ones making a profit would not be the deceased’s family; instead, it is the hospital that makes the profit. However, it is also morally wrong for the family to request reimbursement for transplanting. It would be like selling of your deceased relatives organs, objectifying him/her. Also, issues have been raised on whether consent is needed for the harvesting of organs from deceased patients. I find this very ridiculous, as even though one is dead, it is almost as if you are stealing organs from someone. After all, it all points back down to integrity versus urgency. Should we compromise integrity to meet the needs of those who need organs, or should we seek consent and increase the risk of death for those who need organs? I feel that integrity is more important than urgency, simply because integrity is a value we must adhere to even in times of crises. We cannot put down integrity because we are on the brink of death; if we were fated to die earlier than others, there really is not much to do about it.

I want to raise an issue about the HOTA – the part of the act which states that one must opt out of the HOTA before he passes on. I believe that this is unreasonable, as one might pass away without one knowing, and the speed and how sudden one passes away should be taken into consideration. By disallowing family members to opt their relative out of the HOTA, it is like making them see their relative get “ripped” apart without being able to do anything. Whatever happened to freedom of choice? Clearly, this is not an entire freedom of choice, because firstly, not many people know about the HOTA before they pass on, and secondly, its purpose is selfish.

Indeed, the HOTA is very useful in times of need, but current rules like if one wants to opt out, he must opt out of the act before he passes on, or else after his death, his relatives cannot opt out for him. I feel that the permission of opting out should be agreed upon by him or his kin, rather than him alone. The HOTA has proved very life-saving, but if such selfish rules are put up, it does not reflect well on how the government rules.

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

National Service is a part of every boy’s life. Many people view it as good opportunity to buff up, and when they are out of there, they can impress girls with their heightened physique. There are those who view NS as a necessary before heading on the study in University. And then there are those who find NS as a complete waste of time, and it is these who dodge doing National Service. This problem is becoming more and more common in Singapore, and I hope that the problem can be solved before it further aggravates.

I feel that the reason why people dodge doing National Service is because they do not see and know the need to. To them, time is of essence, and they rather complete their studies than to spend time confined in a cage. Furthermore, many are influenced and threatened by their peers' complaints about NS life, how tiring and torturous the regime can be, instilling fear in them. Moreover, the bigger problem is the parents who, by any means, try to allow their sons to escape doing NS, even if it is only for a couple of days. Youths in NS start to feign illnesses, and with the heightened security and paranoia after several incidents that left families devastated and sad for the loss of their son, the camp-in-charge cannot possibly say ‘no’ to the ‘sick’. This exploitation, as well as unwillingness to serve and defend the nation, must be reversed before matters get out of hand. What these youths do not realise is that NS can serve as a remedy for unemployment. Many people, after serving just a year in NS, decide to sign in full time.

Firstly, a way to reduce the problem would be to implement a stricter law against these NS dodgers. Youths would, as a result, not risk dodging NS and exposing themselves to an unbearable consequence such as imprisonment and hefty fines. However, this method of solving the problem is not very good, in a way because the government is actually threatening all youths to adhere to the rules. Rather than deciding on the consequences, we should tackle the root of the problem, which is why youths are dodging NS. I believe that the reason why youths dodge NS is because they do not see the need to, henceforth the government can educate youths on the importance of defending one’s nation, especially with growing threats, like North Korea, around the world. Also, parents have to be educated on NS life, and how it is not as torturous as it may seem, and how it is more important that it may seem.

Also, I feel that another way to curb the problem would be to allow more benefits for the youths in NS. Instead of increasing their pay, more scholarships can be awarded to NS-men who are keen on going overseas to study and are capable of doing so. This way, it serves as an incentive for the youths, rather than threatening them to avoid dodging NS. Also, awards and merits should be awarded to further enhance the youths’ resumes, allowing them to get jobs more easily.

In conclusion, I feel that it is better to tackle the root of the problem rather than threatening youths to stop dodging NS. This way, youths will not view the government as an authoritative, paternalistic, sovereign power.

Free Will's a Gamble / Integrated Resorts- How far do you agree with PM Lee’s decision?

Should Singapore open a casino? This would be the first, and by the looks of things, it would not be the last too. Building a casino on homeland does have its repercussions, and such social and economic impacts have to be carefully analysed and overlooked. Will building a casino really help Singapore’s economy? This essay explores the different views of opening a casino.

By opening a casino, there is no doubt that the sole purpose in mind is to make money. Indeed, the casino might draw gamblers from overseas and even from Singapore herself, but will it really be an investment worthwhile? Gamblers actively seek for newer places to gamble, the more unique the place is, the better the sensation, regardless of winning or losing money. I feel that only in the near future, once the casino has completed its construction, will the casino make money to offset the costs of the project of building the casino itself. However, as time goes by, gamblers want newer experiences and would “migrate” to other casinos elsewhere. Of course, social impacts are not negligible. By constructing a casino on homeland, as if one in Genting is not enough, it greatly increases the risk of Singaporeans getting addicted to gambling. Singapore is already close to facing an aging population, and our working class is already lacking manpower. If the casino is constructed and people from our working class get addicted, only our economy will suffer. Although the government has set up preventive measures to mitigate these problems, the long term social impact can only worsen if the casino is still here.

Of course, the government has set up measures to prevent our dear residents from being addicted to gambling. I disagree as more people will definitely gamble if the IR is built, leading to more people getting into trouble and more families will only suffer. There are also issues of Singaporeans complaining that there is no reason to exclude locals to gamble in the first place. This only goes to show that our own citizens have a desire to gamble, and by imposing an entrance fee of $100, the government is blatantly “banning” all middle and lower class citizens from entering the casino. Of course, hardcore gamblers would not mind such a small pinch from their pocket if it meant convenience, rather than travelling elsewhere to gamble. Having a high entrance fee of $100 or implementing the system of exclusions will only help remedy the problem for a short period of time, and only to a certain extent. Next, the government claims that some good social outcomes will come out of constructing the IR? By claiming that the money is used for charitable and worthy causes, I cannot help but remember all the past charity shows on television, where hundreds of thousands of people call in to show their support for the needy; however, how many percentage of the money actually goes the needy? Also, the money helps the needy, but it does not help those who lost money because of gambling. Because of these, I feel that the government is sacrificing those who fall prey to their desire to gamble for economic gains, and maybe some meagre social gains, that can barely outweigh the social repercussions building a casino brings about.

With such imposing restrictions like an entrance fee of $100, I believe that over time, many hot debates would be carried out deciding whether the “ban” should be lifted. I feel that in the near future, the entrance fee would definitely be lifted, and by then, Singaporeans would all gather around gambling tables betting their money away while the government laugh their way to the bank. However, this is merely an assumption, albeit possible.

I feel that a better counter to Singaporeans being addicted to gambling would be to utilise the media to educate the public on the social repurcussions of gambling. A good example of an advertisement would be of a little girl clutching on to her piggy bank for her dear life, while daddy promises that after "robbing" her of her savings, he would quit gambling. Certainly touching and impressive!

In conclusion, I feel that a casino should not be erected as simply, the social repercussions outweigh the economic gains that Singapore stand to gain. I feel that such a high-risk gamble on the government’s part should not be carried out; risking the lives of Singaporeans for economic benefits is unquestionably stupid.

Advertisements: Do they actually benefit us?

Advertisements are like traps, and traps come in different shapes and sizes. An example would be the more glamorous it is, the more attractive it becomes. Another example would be the more secretive it is, the harder it is to avoid it. Over the years, advertisements have evolved, from simple but subliminal slogans, to printed pictorials, and then to online and television animated clips with catchy jingles that make a lasting impact. I feel that advertisements are nothing more than a little mind game that entices innocent viewers into buying the products. Many companies cross the line by conning the viewers, either by overstating the products’ advantages, or by understating its disadvantages. Indeed, such compromising of integrity is deemed essential for one to make a mark in the ever competing industry.

Advertisements may not always work for our benefit. Companies with only themselves in mind choose profits over integrity and morals. These companies manipulate true information and bend it in such a way that consumers will believe what they say. An example would be tobacco companies; some of them claim that their products are healthier and even contain less harmful ingredients than others in the market. However, this may be contradicting to the real ingredients they use. Indeed, ingredients might have changed and one could smoke twice as many sticks to die, but the fact that it is harmful cannot be changed, and declaring it as a “healthier” choice shows a lack of integrity. Hardcore smokers who trust what their pack of cigarette say would believe that their daily fix of cigarettes contain less nicotine, for example, even when the nicotine level is in fact, unchanged, and equals that of other brands. This irresponsible play on words not only leaves consumers in the dark, but can also lead to the deteriorating health of the smokers. In this case, consumers are on the losing end, while the companies enjoy the benefits of having naïve consumers.’

Although this type of advertisements lacks integrity, but I believe that it cannot be actively restricted. The purpose of advertising is to draw in more consumers, and by restricting such advertisements which cons its viewers, not only will the company suffer, so will the economy. In the first place, consumers should think about what advertisements say before buying the product. By simply accepting facts that advertisements push across, consumers are the irresponsible ones. The government, however, can send warnings to companies who do not adhere to guidelines on advertising. I believe that the government should not ban products just because advertisements do not put across the products in a morally right way. People should get the freedom of choice when it comes to a free market, and hence, the only things the government can do is to educate the public on choosing products wisely, as well as warning companies that utilises advertisements which lack integrity.

If I were a creative director in an advertising company, I would see the situation before deciding on whether to compromise on honestly and integrity. I believe that, in times of crises or need for funding, compromising integrity is one of the only solutions to push a product across for higher profits. Indeed this lack integrity is selfish, but only this way, can my company actually make a mark in the industry. By doing this, my company will gain, and so will the economy. Of course, if my company is doing well already and require no further financial support of any kind, I do not see the need to be dishonest when it comes to advertising. I firmly believe that creating products is all about creativity, and that if one’s product is creative enough to stand out, one would naturally do well.

Science: A Menace To Civilisation?

More than a century ago, men thought of flying as merely a fantasy, and a joke. Back then, whenever people had minor infections, they suffered amputations of their appendages. However today, anaesthesia and advancements in medical sciences has allowed curing illnesses, diseases and infections to be made safe and possible. Commercial airliners, jet planes and space shuttles roam the borderless space above the ground, and satellites thousands of kilometres up in space connect everyone around the world into one seamless world – the Internet. Science is progressing at an alarmingly fast rate; just ten years ago, people were staring into bricks they called the “computer”. Back then, it was a man-made marvel, as it could perform hundreds of calculations per second. In modern times, many large commercial technology-based companies compete for the top spot in the industry. Microsoft, Apple, IBM… the list goes on; these companies develop revolutionary technology that turns heads. Computers can now perform millions of calculations per second easily, and with integrated technology like the USB and graphic cards, computers are no longer “super(large)-calculators”, they are men’s best friend – entertainment, information, service, all packed into one nifty little box. As science advances, Artificial Intelligence is also developed. As technology progresses, powerful nuclear weapon are developed and utilised in warfare. Such developments lead to one question: Is science a menace to civilisation?

Centuries ago when gunpowder was first invented, many nations utilised it to gain sovereign power over the lands. Killing people had never been so easy – bullets travelled at such high speed it could kill with one single shot. Compared to modern times, nuclear warheads could easily annihilate a whole nation. Bombs and missiles had the capability of levelling millions of square miles of land easily, equating to millions of lost civilian life. Even so, scientist still set on a mission to discover even more dangerous alternatives to this. Why do they do so? Because it is in men’s nature to fight; it is in men’s nature to be the strongest; it is in men’s nature to want everything. The current total amount of nuclear weaponry in existence is more than enough to wipe out the whole entire Earth; in fact, it is enough to wipe out another 50 easily. Yet, the mystery of nations creating more nuclear weaponry is inconclusive, but I believe that this whole problem lies with numbers. It is analogous to little kids comparing who had more candy. One boasts to the other his hand, directly taunting his friend. His friend responds by buying more candy and boasting back. The game of tug-and-war is blatantly obvious in our modern world. America builds hundreds of nuclear warheads, and Russia responds back by constructing more than what America possesses. The sole purpose of this game is to make peace; however, I do not feel that this leads to peace. Why can’t these nations put away their nuclear warheads and make peace, instead of holding guns at each other’s temples and calling quits. Also, present “freedom fighters”, also known as terrorists, can easily buy weapons and ammunition from external sellers. Advancement in technology and science effectively meant that supply of such weaponry has increased, and is more available to the “bad guys” as it is available to the “good guys”. Because of this, I feel that science and technology poses a threat to civilisation.

However, advancement in science and technology has led to revolutionary changes in how doctors and scientists look at viruses, diseases and mutations. Gone are the days of painful amputation due to an inflamed limb. Nowadays, cures can easily be found, and many diseases can be countered. Not only has this increased chances of survival for civilisation, it has also increases lifestyle of many people around the world. This goes to show that science and technology can be put to good use as well. Also, technological advancement has led to the globalisation of the world. Every part of the world is accessible by land transport, air transport and sea transport. Goods can be transported in the whim to maintain freshness and to appeal to the customers. Decades ago, people had to travel by boat for months to reach a destination hundreds of miles away. Nowadays, this can be done in hours. The Internet serves as a platform for millions of people around the world to communicate, disseminate and share information. Books can be replaced by the “e-book”, while games can be played with others around the world. Such convenience brought about by science and technology also goes to show that science and technology is beneficial to civilisation.

Advancements in science and technology have also widened the range of entertainment that is available. Online games that can be played with others around the world have become very popular amongst our society. Cinemas and movie theatres are also erected for people to screen movies. Such advancements has allowed our society to keep in touch, updated and entertained.

In conclusion, I feel that science and technology serve for a greater good. Indeed, science and technology has posed as a danger to civilisation as nuclear weapons are exploited. However, science and technology has led to many breakthroughs as well brought about many advantages. Advancement of science and technology has greatly affected our lives by making our way of life better, hence I am more inclined in thinking that science and technology is more good than it is bad.

Pornography

Pornography is defined as any material, be it visual or textual, which invokes sexual arousal. There are debates on whether pornography is good or evil, whether it should be allowed or abolished. This raises certain questions and issues – pornography does pollute the mind, causing one to be absorbed and hooked, also, addicted and hardcore pornography viewers can bring their fantasy into their real life, resulting in assault and rape cases; however, pornography is a billion dollar industry, providing jobs, albeit promiscuous, and helps the economy.

Many people feel that pornography should not be viewed as it pollutes your mind. A stereotypical way of looking at pornography is that it is harmful for one’s mind and is strongly advised not to be viewed. Such views are indoctrinated into the younger generation of our modern times. If one views any pornographic material of any sort, one is deemed “unclean”, “ill-bred” and “perverted”. Henceforth, such mindset is present in many people of our society particularly that of the older generation – those unexposed to the powers of the Internet when young. Also, many people find pornography as a way to satisfy one’s desire, a lust so strong and out-of-the-world it cannot be fulfilled in the real world. The addiction to pornography is comparable to that of drugs. Once you put your feet onto the boat, you cannot want out. Christianity, as well as many religious groups, dislikes pornography as it shows how lustful one is, in contrast to the required abstinence of any sexual thoughts.

Objectification of women is also present in pornography, because women are depicted as tools for men to utilise. Such depiction is not only morally degrading for women, but is also a rather perverted concept. All men and women are equals, and to place them on unequal fronts through perverted means is unreasonable.

However, contrary to prior belief that pornography bears no benefits, pornography is a large industry, where many porn stars are groomed, and total revenue is high. Pornography, over the years, has become an official career option, however obscene it may be. The pornography industry is every growing, and the benefits the economy stand to gain is high. Also, pornography may not be totally harmful; Pornography can be a beautiful art form, where one expresses his/her feelings through nude art. The reason why pornography is deemed morally wrong is because the society itself has made pornography a taboo, where practising or viewing it is considered vile. This suppression of feelings that is resulted is undesirable, as it is human for us to have sexual urges.

Also, pornography can be an outlet of one’s sexual urges. This can also help to reduce stress, by making the body release certain substances that make one experience “high” like that of taking drugs. Henceforth, pornography should not be just regarded as something wrong, but rather, men should learn to explore the good sides of pornography.

I believe that there is no particular way to curb or banish pornography from the face of the Earth. Reason being, that pornography is widely sought after, and available, online. The Internet is a portal so liberal and discreet at the same time, it is hard to track down every source of pornography. Even if action is taken and pornography is removed, people would just continue to post more up. There is no effective way of countering pornography; instead, censorship is employed in many countries. There are two forms of censorship, one being self-disciplined viewer’s discretion, and the other being politically-controlled censoring of obscene materials.

In conclusion, I feel that there should be a certain level of censorship to pornography, however, I feel that people should not just believe what they are told – pornography is purely bad. Pornography has its good and bad points, and I hope that everyone would come to realise that.