The Issue of the Legalisation of Organ Trade: Singapore

This commentary refers to the article below:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/360088/1/.html

Organ trade remains an open question among many in Singapore, especially after the controversy over Tang Wee Sung, the first Singaporean charged with trying to buy a kidney. Many have argued using economic and social issues, stating how such an act may lead to a "slippery slope" or how the poor may be exploited. But I believe underlying the many factors and justifications that people have for or against organ trade is the crux of entire issue, the sanctity of human life.

Much can be argued regarding whether human life stands to gain or not should organ trade be legalised, however one of the most obvious reasons for organ trade would be that hundreds of lives could potentially be saved. According to the National Kidney Foundation's website, the number of patients waiting for a kidney transplant in 2003 was 673, 20% more than in 1998. Also, in 2005 there were 625 individuals who were on the waiting list for a cadaver renal transplant, and the average waiting time for such a transplant is 7 years. Since most of these patients do not have the financial means or physical strength to last 7 years of special medication or treatment, organ trade presents to them an immensely huge solution to their problems. If the government or charity organizations could aid and facilitate the transactions, a legal organ trade system may solve organ shortage problems in a small period of time. Besides, the monetary benefits involved in the trading of organs would undoubtedly lure more organ donors, increasing the supply of organs beyond the demand. Hence the legalising of organ trade should be highly ranked as a solution to the organ demands.

However much of the debate inevitably swings against organ trade, as it seems as though other people have to be "sacrificed" in order to save those lives. Even though the organ "donor" or "seller" would be paid by either the government or the receipient, it is hard not to consider the health detriments brought upon the donor. One may link organ trade to an act like prostitution, where though it may be a legal and legitimate way of earning money, it is not looked upon as a decent or moral thing to do. Making one's body a commodity seems to reject the view that the human body has value, and is sacred. Would it be morally right to deal irreversible harm to one's body in exchange for money? Perhaps, if the money definitely allows the person to survive a few more months. However surveys done in India by the British Medical Journal prove that organ trade does not remove people's poverty, and instead "people sell kidneys to pay off debts, but then average family incomes decline by more than a third, more live below the poverty line and 86 per cent report deterioration in their health." With serious consequences of organ trade already happening, surely we cannot allow for fellow humans to further degrade themselves and fall further into the pits of poverty and low moral standards.

In conclusion, I still hold the idealistic belief that humanity should be upheld above all else, especially since this debate revolves so much around it. In the past, we have said 'why not' to industrialisation, thinking it could solve many of our problems. However we had failed to realise we would go overboard, escalating climate change to a point where it is irreversible. I believe such an argument should be presented in the organ trade debate. The slippery slope arguments, where there would be a huge divide between the rich and the supposedly exploited poor, would then have to be looked upon as a reality, and not merely as assumptions or speculation, simply because it has already happened in many other aspects. What more harm must be done before people recognise the folly of their actions?

Democracy

“Democracy creates stability in a society”

I agree with this motion to the extent that democracy promotes debate and skepticism, but is ultimately flawed because it assumes that people are mature enough to make the right decisions.
The underlying flaw concerning all systems of government is that people cannot completely agree with one another, and conflicting ideas create problems. Democracy is able to deal with this problem because it requires people to be open, and exposes people to new ideas, no matter how radical it may be. Consensus is then reached where the majority decides which ideas should be implemented or which people should lead them. This openness in democracy prevents conflicting ideas from escalating to violence and chaos, and instead subjects them to scrutiny and debate, thus tackling the problem at its root.
The open nature of democracy also allows for voting, which is crucial in allowing people to have a say. Since not everyone agrees with one another, it is important that all voices are heard and all opinions are considered, be it a minority of people. Just by having their opinions taken into consideration removes the sense of oppression or unfairness, and creates a safer environment where people do not have to resort to violence or other unnecessary means just to make themselves heard.
However, all this is assuming that people are mature and know what is best for themselves. Democracy does not take into account the fact that humans tend to be self-centered and thus prone to choosing the things they fancy, which may not necessarily be beneficial for the minorities, or for the country as a whole. There would then be no overwhelming power or authority to prevent people from making bad choices, since they are free to decide what they want for themselves. This liberal aspect of democracy may appear to be a good thing in theory, but really is a weakness that people can exploit if they want to.
Perhaps then the hypothesis in the motion should be reconsidered. Democracy itself as a system of governance cannot possibly create total stability in a society, simply because everyone is a minority that wants his or her idea implemented, and people cannot agree on every single thing. It may create stability to the extent where implemented laws and policies are based on very universally acceptable and fundamental principles, such as freedom of thought, freedom of speech or freedom to worship, which everyone can agree on. But it still allows for conflict when specific issues cannot be agreed upon by everyone, and instead forges a forced tolerance instead of mutual agreement. The crux of creating stability in a society should perhaps be people’s willingness to accept and sacrifice, instead of the system of government involved. If people were willing to treat democracy as a privilege, respect it, and bear the costs involved, then democracy would definitely create stability, just as communism, dictatorship or aristocracy or any other form of government would. The problem lies ultimately in people, not the system of government.

Youth spoilt? Or just privileged

It has been the effort of generations past to build an easier life for the generation ahead, but it seems there has been rising concerns on whether our youth are becoming spoilt as their lives become better. This poses itself to be a worrying situation not just for the older generations, who had hardly tasted the privileges teens often do now, but also to Singaporeans who are concerned about the resilience and strength of our future leaders and workforce.

I refer to a report by The New Paper," Teacher, how to eat this?" (28 Feb). This thought provoking article describes some Singapore youth as a spoilt and over privileged
group of people. It describes how some students of several secondary schools fail to step up to the challenge during Total Defence Day commemorations, where comforts such as electricity were taken away, and only food rations of sweet potatoes were given. Quoting the article, "He (a teacher) said:"We actually had some students coming up to us, asking, 'How do I eat them?'" The author of this article, Teo Chin Ghee, gives a possible reason for this phenomena. He quotes a parent that The New Paper spoke to, who said,"From young, they (her own children) have led such pampered lives. They have 24-hour air-conditioning and a maid to meet their every need", and a teacher who said,"Students these days are definitely spoilt. When you take away certain privileges that they are used to having, then they appear handicapped and cannot cope." This is a stark contrast to the days of the Japanese Occupation when hardly any food, let alone electricity, was available and sweet potatoes were a luxury. Clearly our youth today lack the values of thrift and appreciation for what they have.

This particular report in The New Paper also prompted MP Dr Ong Seh Hong to ask the Parliament how resilient our teens are, as stated in a follow-up article "Can our youngsters weather storms?" (5 Mar) by The New Paper. The response from the education minister was that "Character building and moral development are important tasks in education." And as for how Singapore youths' character development stands as compared to those in other countries, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Education Masagos Zulkifli said "there has been no detailed study done in this area." However Mr Masagos also stated that through interactions with foreign education ministries, he has found out that character development is a high priority in many areas. But could this be a contradiction to what happened in the many schools that had Total Defence commemorations with negative student responses?

If character development was placed at such a high emphasis, shouldn't we be seeing youth responding positively to such efforts by the schools? I believe we should. But then again it is unfair to judge an entire population's youth with just the actions of a few. Moreover, the number of youths doing volunteery and charity work is rising steadily, reassuring us that youths today are not all that bad.