How far would you consider the measures taken by various countries to contain the spread of swine flu adequate and effective?
I guess that swine flu prevention is highly prevalent in countries all around the world after a huge lesson learnt during the SARS epdemic. This time swine flu will be more highly regarded although not as deadly as SARS, due to the so called phycological aftermath of teh SARS. Hence prevention measures was highly impleted without fail. One very good example will be Singapore. The measures taken were all hihly useful and efficient in telling the people wo contracted swine flu. The 7 days home quarantine was a very good example of the prevention measures. it allows people to at least ensure their health and ensure that the flu is not contracted. Another one would be the airport measures where they require all passengers from highly affected regions to go for a full body check up with quarantine. It is very effective as it could be viewed from a life case, which is the contraction of swine flu by a 22 year old man which returned from New York. Boarders of the same flight wefre required to go for check-up and quarantine immidiately after the finding of this swine flu. Hence, with such highly effectively implemented measures the spread of swine flhy became extremely slow and will also soon be conquered by medical technology.
However, effectiveness may be overboard and cause bad relationship between two nations. One example is America which is already segregated from other country, looking at them as horrible flu spreaders especially the mexicans. This created high resentment among the Americans as they thought that such treatment is totally unfair and demand much better and fairer treatment from the people. Hence causing such a big Hoohaa.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Integrated Resorts
Integrated Resorts- How far do you agree with PM Lee’s decision? Propose a solution to any 2 social repercussions encountered.
Integrated resorts have been a hotly debated topic not only among the parliament but also within the citizens all around Singapore. It is definitely ironic to make the decision of building an IR (especially the Casino) in Singapore, as when the national gambling comittee is down to their work, putting up posters and advertisments to one again remind the citizens not to gamble, however the government is "promoting" gambling activities by building one giagantic casino in the heart of the city. hence I totally disgaree with mr Lee's idea of building the IR. Although he stated in his argements that the detriments is outweighed by the benifits, it is totally crap as he have never considered the consequences of the social impact as economical impacts are the only visible impact as of now. he said that the problem will be solved by spending more effort on non-gambling advered and putting in an entry fee of $100. However, I would like to question, is a mere $100 or membership enough to stop those people from moving towards that "gambling den"?
Hence I would like to propose two solutions to counter this problem.
Firstly, if such an IR is insisted and assured that most of the players will be foreigners, I suggest that we ban entries of Singaporean Gamblers, putting up a gallery for Singaporeans to view and observe but not to play. Not only will it be able to stop Singaporeans vfrom gambling, it also serves as a deterence for the citizens by looking agt their devestated and tattered look when gambling, hence its a win-win solution.
Secondly, we can also totally demolish the idea of building an IR (casino). As the social impacts are so large, it will cause tremendous effect on the economy as with such a spot to gamble locally, people will be dead horrible gamblers, hence the idea should be just scraped and ignore everything.
Integrated resorts have been a hotly debated topic not only among the parliament but also within the citizens all around Singapore. It is definitely ironic to make the decision of building an IR (especially the Casino) in Singapore, as when the national gambling comittee is down to their work, putting up posters and advertisments to one again remind the citizens not to gamble, however the government is "promoting" gambling activities by building one giagantic casino in the heart of the city. hence I totally disgaree with mr Lee's idea of building the IR. Although he stated in his argements that the detriments is outweighed by the benifits, it is totally crap as he have never considered the consequences of the social impact as economical impacts are the only visible impact as of now. he said that the problem will be solved by spending more effort on non-gambling advered and putting in an entry fee of $100. However, I would like to question, is a mere $100 or membership enough to stop those people from moving towards that "gambling den"?
Hence I would like to propose two solutions to counter this problem.
Firstly, if such an IR is insisted and assured that most of the players will be foreigners, I suggest that we ban entries of Singaporean Gamblers, putting up a gallery for Singaporeans to view and observe but not to play. Not only will it be able to stop Singaporeans vfrom gambling, it also serves as a deterence for the citizens by looking agt their devestated and tattered look when gambling, hence its a win-win solution.
Secondly, we can also totally demolish the idea of building an IR (casino). As the social impacts are so large, it will cause tremendous effect on the economy as with such a spot to gamble locally, people will be dead horrible gamblers, hence the idea should be just scraped and ignore everything.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Advance Medical Directive Act
How is this different from euthanasia? What concerns or considerations should be further refined so that this is not abused?
The advance medical directive is a volunteery process (which is a crime if others force your decision) of ending one's life if there are any terminal illness, not agreeing to use any medical technology to prolong their life and euthanusia is a process where people can have the decision to end their life. The decision can be made based on what the incapacitated individual would have wanted, or it could be made on substituted judgment of what the decision maker would want were he or she in the incapacitated person's place, or finally, the decision could be made by assessing objectively whether euthanasia is the most beneficial course of treatment.
Both are the same as both are just ending one's life in a painless and earlier way. However, both are different in way that enthanusia is on a basis where the person does it to end their life painlessly while the advance medical directive act is just to end one's life naturally without/rejecting the aid of any mordern technology.
Currently, enthanusia is accused of opposing the Hippocratic Oath as it is said to kill a patien instead of helping them survive. And now, the medical directive act is also accused of the same thing, as mordern medical technology is supposed to help the patients, instead it just leave patients to die, hence accused of the same thing.
However, this way of endi ng life by many people may be due to reasons like financial problems,superstition , hence causing many people to refuse and reject the use of medication or machines to prolong their life. So, one way to refine woulde be to add in the statement that the patient refuses to use medical technology and hence, want to die a natural death. This would allow the medical directive act to sound better instead of making look muderous.
The advance medical directive is a volunteery process (which is a crime if others force your decision) of ending one's life if there are any terminal illness, not agreeing to use any medical technology to prolong their life and euthanusia is a process where people can have the decision to end their life. The decision can be made based on what the incapacitated individual would have wanted, or it could be made on substituted judgment of what the decision maker would want were he or she in the incapacitated person's place, or finally, the decision could be made by assessing objectively whether euthanasia is the most beneficial course of treatment.
Both are the same as both are just ending one's life in a painless and earlier way. However, both are different in way that enthanusia is on a basis where the person does it to end their life painlessly while the advance medical directive act is just to end one's life naturally without/rejecting the aid of any mordern technology.
Currently, enthanusia is accused of opposing the Hippocratic Oath as it is said to kill a patien instead of helping them survive. And now, the medical directive act is also accused of the same thing, as mordern medical technology is supposed to help the patients, instead it just leave patients to die, hence accused of the same thing.
However, this way of endi ng life by many people may be due to reasons like financial problems,superstition , hence causing many people to refuse and reject the use of medication or machines to prolong their life. So, one way to refine woulde be to add in the statement that the patient refuses to use medical technology and hence, want to die a natural death. This would allow the medical directive act to sound better instead of making look muderous.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
National Service
How can this be amended or improved further to alleviate the problem of dodging?
National Service had been identified as a hassle to most of the male Singaporeans. Especially when citizens of the age of 18 have to serve NS.Since 18 is the age of where students finish their JC education, preparing to embark on their University journey. Thus, this distraction of NS affects many people, especially in area like losing interest in studies, meeting and mixing with wrong friends, hence NS could be seen a infectious disease, affecting and changing the lives of many Singaporeans. National Service may be seen as a method to promote the so called "Singaporean Identity", which is in fact just propaganda. This facade is to just let Singaporeans have a wider social circle, hence leaving a sense of nostalgia if they leave the countries for further studies, and this sense of nostalgia will prompt them to come back.
This problem of dodging NS is highly prevalent in Singapore Society. This society possess the characteristics of selfishness, thus many would not actually absorb and understand the use for NS. Hence, many would want to avoid and dodge NS.
This measure must be taken to alleviate thee problem from the current situation seen. It can be solved if NS was just flexible. If NS was flexible and allow people to take it after JC or they would also have a choice to take it after their tetiary studies, hence, the problem of dodging will be lesser as they do not have a need or a purpose to leave the country.
However, there would definitely be a group of people who just find serving NS a chore, a manual task. Hence to solve this problem of the group of people we can actually just make NS a framework where people could choose several option, opting for the post and the places they would like to work in. Not only will this promote more bonding between the group, the sense of closeness between buddies would also evoke the essence of nostalgia.
In conclusion, to solve the problem of people dodging NS, we just jave to com,promise and follow their needs and wants.
National Service had been identified as a hassle to most of the male Singaporeans. Especially when citizens of the age of 18 have to serve NS.Since 18 is the age of where students finish their JC education, preparing to embark on their University journey. Thus, this distraction of NS affects many people, especially in area like losing interest in studies, meeting and mixing with wrong friends, hence NS could be seen a infectious disease, affecting and changing the lives of many Singaporeans. National Service may be seen as a method to promote the so called "Singaporean Identity", which is in fact just propaganda. This facade is to just let Singaporeans have a wider social circle, hence leaving a sense of nostalgia if they leave the countries for further studies, and this sense of nostalgia will prompt them to come back.
This problem of dodging NS is highly prevalent in Singapore Society. This society possess the characteristics of selfishness, thus many would not actually absorb and understand the use for NS. Hence, many would want to avoid and dodge NS.
This measure must be taken to alleviate thee problem from the current situation seen. It can be solved if NS was just flexible. If NS was flexible and allow people to take it after JC or they would also have a choice to take it after their tetiary studies, hence, the problem of dodging will be lesser as they do not have a need or a purpose to leave the country.
However, there would definitely be a group of people who just find serving NS a chore, a manual task. Hence to solve this problem of the group of people we can actually just make NS a framework where people could choose several option, opting for the post and the places they would like to work in. Not only will this promote more bonding between the group, the sense of closeness between buddies would also evoke the essence of nostalgia.
In conclusion, to solve the problem of people dodging NS, we just jave to com,promise and follow their needs and wants.
Human Organ Transplant Act
How far is it viable to forego consent in harvesting organs? What recommendations and guidelines would you implement to solve this problem?
From my opinion it is definitely not viable to forego consent in harvesting.
Firstly, every person , dead or alive, should possess the freedom to rule themselves, or rather human rights, and thus the deceased decision, unless stated in a will, should be passed to the next of kin, the person who has the most rights to rules and to make decisions for the decease, thus all harvesting of organs should be agreed by the family before any action is taken. Thus, it is noit viable at all the forego the consent.
Secondly, it could also be seen as stealing. In other parts of the world, organ trading is prominent, and thus every healthy working organ would worth a fortune and thus , harvesting without the permission or the "purchase" would be so-called stealing which is something that the government should not encourage or do.
Hence, it is definitely not viable to forego the consent before harvesting.
I suggest that the government change the Human Organ Transplant Act, to a form that every action have to be agreed by the next of kin before action taken and hence this will create a clearer and less complex situation, reducing all possibilities of complication.
I think that the government should also allow organ trading. Although it might seem morally wrong, we must still agree that the benefit outweigh the cost. Thus, with implementation of organ trading, we are going to boost economy with more aspects of trade. Not only will it increase the amount of trade, it will also increase the amount of "tourist" which comes to Singapore as it also encourages people with diseases to come over for transplant, thus the business of the hospitals and transplant "agencies" will prosper.
In conclusion, we should look into these matters seriously, as consent from the next of kin is very important, and the government setting a rule that doctors are allowed to harvest organs without consent is just no justifiable as some people would like to preserve the bodies of the deceased.
From my opinion it is definitely not viable to forego consent in harvesting.
Firstly, every person , dead or alive, should possess the freedom to rule themselves, or rather human rights, and thus the deceased decision, unless stated in a will, should be passed to the next of kin, the person who has the most rights to rules and to make decisions for the decease, thus all harvesting of organs should be agreed by the family before any action is taken. Thus, it is noit viable at all the forego the consent.
Secondly, it could also be seen as stealing. In other parts of the world, organ trading is prominent, and thus every healthy working organ would worth a fortune and thus , harvesting without the permission or the "purchase" would be so-called stealing which is something that the government should not encourage or do.
Hence, it is definitely not viable to forego the consent before harvesting.
I suggest that the government change the Human Organ Transplant Act, to a form that every action have to be agreed by the next of kin before action taken and hence this will create a clearer and less complex situation, reducing all possibilities of complication.
I think that the government should also allow organ trading. Although it might seem morally wrong, we must still agree that the benefit outweigh the cost. Thus, with implementation of organ trading, we are going to boost economy with more aspects of trade. Not only will it increase the amount of trade, it will also increase the amount of "tourist" which comes to Singapore as it also encourages people with diseases to come over for transplant, thus the business of the hospitals and transplant "agencies" will prosper.
In conclusion, we should look into these matters seriously, as consent from the next of kin is very important, and the government setting a rule that doctors are allowed to harvest organs without consent is just no justifiable as some people would like to preserve the bodies of the deceased.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
