Blog 3: On legalising organ trading

In this article, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan states that while the trading of human organs for money is “definitely wrong, morally and legally”, we should, for pragmatic reasons, still consider legalising it. This comes after the first ever case of illegal organ trading in Singapore, between CK Tang executive chairman Tang Wee Sung and two Indonesians. However, I find that this is an extremely dangerous position to hold; organ trading should not be legalised without given much consideration.

Most people who require organs turn to such illegal organ trading in the black market due to the reason that the demand far exceeds supply: one can expect to wait for years before one even has a chance of having a donation that matches. Supporters of organ trading suggest that if organ trading were made legal, both the donor and the receiver would get what they want. Sellers, especially the poorer ones, would get money to support their family with, whereas the recipients of the organs would be able to continue living the healthy life that they had always wanted. However, I find that this is rather flawed. Can we put a price on our organs, as though they were mere commodities like meat? I most certainly think not.

Also, even if this was intended to benefit both the rich and the poor, it makes the rich-poor divide even more apparent. Now, the poor and ill would have an even greater disparity in medical treatment than the rich, being unable to buy organs themselves. In addition, what most supporters of this envision is, despite their labels of “pragmatic”, still far too idealistic. The legalising of organ trading would certainly lead to many desperate poor people offering their kidneys or other body parts for sale, in hope of being able to solve their financial problems. However, a great increase in supply will lead to the price falling, leaving those who manage to sell their organs still fairly poor, and probably short of a kidney to boot. Such a thing is already happening in Iran, where organ trading is legalised: desperate sellers are often unhappy with the low prices their organs fetch, usually leaving them still unable to properly feed their family.

Perhaps the main reason why people give thought to the possibility of legalising organ trading is the fact that it trades an economical benefit at the cost of morality and ethics. Despite all the talk of “facing the reality”, I would rather not sell out my moral values for mere cash. Also, once there is economic benefit, the morally bankrupt will certainly find any way they can to exploit it. It is not too hard to envision people being swindled of their organs just to have them resold for a higher price to a needy buyer. In addition, with all the illegal child smuggling for purposes such as prostitution, do we really wish to add one more incentive for people to exploit children unable to defend themselves?

However, I do admit that it is hard to feed oneself on morals alone. If the government wishes to overlook its multiple flaws and legalise organ trading for the economic benefit, perhaps it may be able to sufficiently control it to mitigate its shortcomings. There might be a way to, as Mr Khaw says, “protect the interests of the donor and the patient”.

In conclusion, while organ trading has a few advantages and may benefit some people, it is a morally flawed system and has too many shortcomings to be a successful system. As the article states, Singapore can instead try to “learn from Norway and Spain, where organ supply almost matched demand” due to “specially trained doctors and an efficient donor detection programme”. I believe it is certainly possible to try to find a solution to the organ donor problem without resorting to organ trading as an easy way out.

~
Original article
Straits Times
Jul 14, 2008

Let's not rule out organ trading yet, says Khaw
SINGAPORE is not ruling out legalising organ trading.
The surprise comment from Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan yesterday is bound to re-ignite the fiery debate on the benefits and dangers of allowing the buying and selling of human kidneys, lungs and other organs.
The Government has stood firm so far on enforcing the present laws, which prohibit organ trade.
Recently, five people were taken to court in the country's first kidneys-for-sale deals.
But yesterday Mr Khaw said that organ shortages and a black market in the region made legalising trading an option.
'I think we should not write off or reject the idea of selling organs. But I think we need to study it carefully,' he said.
There are no immediate plans to change the law, as there are practical reasons why overturning the ban could backfire - like shrinking the current donor pool, he added.
'By legalising trading, you could actually lose the family members who currently donate. Instead, you could get organs from outside the family, through payment, and the result would not be as good,' he explained.
Siblings are the best bet for a perfect tissue match if a transplant is needed - with a one in four chance of success. This figure shrinks to one in 2,000 for non-relatives.
Last year, 86 Singaporeans received kidneys from living donors, including 53 who got the organ from a relative.
Hundreds of others were not so lucky, most of them languishing on waiting lists and dying within five years without a transplant.
The minister's remarks at a community event yesterday came in the wake of a highly publicised organ trading case here, in which two Indonesians were jailed earlier this month for selling their kidneys. It also involved CK Tang executive chairman Tang Wee Sung, who was charged with attempting to buy a kidney.
In an e-mail response to The Straits Times, Mr Khaw said his stance yesterday was not a turnaround from his earlier comments that the trade, motivated by financial transactions, is 'definitely wrong, morally and legally'.
He said yesterday: 'I remain of the view that organ trading is not the way to go, but we should not reject any idea given the reality.'
Meanwhile, the Singapore Medical Association (SMA) has come out steadfastly against legalising the organ trade, following an emergency meeting on Saturday.
Its spokesman, Dr Tan Sze Wee, said organ sellers face an array of short- and long-term medical risks. The sellers, almost always desperately poor, could also be abused and exploited.
'We see tremendous resources needed to enforce organ trade regulations in a transparent and equitable way.
'These make it inappropriate for SMA to support any move towards legalising the trade,' he said.
Mr Khaw said the best approach is still one of prevention, such as better control of diseases like diabetes.
Singapore should promote altruistic donations through the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota), and live transplants among relatives.
When Hota is extended to Muslims next month, the pool of organs would increase, he said.
Singapore could also learn from Norway and Spain, where organ supply almost matched demand - a figure higher even than Iran, the only country that has legalised organ trading.
In Spain, for example, specially trained doctors and an efficient donor detection programme have contributed to its success.
Mr Khaw added that he hoped to find a solution that protects the interests of the donor and the patient.
'How? I don't know. But if we do not force ourselves to think out of the box, then we will never be able to find a better solution,' he said.

Does democracy create stability in a society?

Democracy has been considered by many to be one of the better forms of government in the world. Indeed, it is not difficult to see why this viewpoint is justified, as it generally ensures that the majority of the population are satisfied with the decisions made. However, does democracy really create stability in a society? I personally feel that while it can bring stability into a society, it depends on many factors within the society itself and is not a “silver bullet” that will automatically convert a war-torn, unstable country into a completely peaceful and stable one.

There are many different forms of democracy. Two of the main categories I will consider are direct democracy, where people directly vote for the policies to be put into effect (such as Switzerland), and representative democracy, where people vote for representatives who will debate and decide on the policies (such as the USA). Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Also, when referring to democracy, we will discard illiberal democracies, where people do not have true freedom to make decisions.

The general idea of democracy is that it is the majority view that is counted. Since it is impossible to please everyone, democracy ensures that the least amount of people will be unhappy, thus hopefully achieving stability. However, this brings up an inherent flaw in democracy. The minority can easily undermine the stability of a country by themselves. For example, in Sri Lanka, disagreements between the majority Sinhalese and the minority Tamils led to much conflict and violence, resulting in an unstable society. This problem, though, can be mitigated in a number of ways. A well-written Constitution may be able to ensure that the views of the minority are respected. Also, the leaders of a country in representative democracy may be able to make good decisions that will not alienate the minority groups in a society. However, as I have said above, these are all factors that can bring about the success or failure of a democracy in bringing stability into a society.

Despite this shortcoming, in my opinion, democracy has many advantages over other forms of government, especially representative democracy. Consider a monarchy with a corrupt king. It is extremely difficult for the people to remove the king from power without causing instability within a country. However, in a democracy, it is trivial for the people to not vote in the leader for the next term of power, minimizing the harm that he can do to the country. This inherent feature of representative democracy means that decision makers within a country are pressured to achieve success for their country, thus making them accountable to the people. Also, another benefit of representative democracy is that it can mitigate the problems that a less educated population can bring to a direct democracy. In a direct democracy, if the people do not put much thought into the policies that they vote in, this can mean that policies that only appear good, but bring harm to the country can be voted in. However, when considering a representative democracy, when the MPs are voted in to make decisions for the country, they will generally put much more thought into what will benefit the country, partially because they are made accountable to the people and partially because it is a full-time job for them to do so.

Thus, I feel that democracy is fairly good at bringing stability to a society. However, it is not a perfect solution to everything. In my opinion, amongst the other factors, the most important of all for a democracy to succeed is the ability of the leaders to make the country feel united as one, thus eliminating the conflicts between the people that threaten to pull the society apart. Representative democracy is somewhat more suited than other political systems to achieve this, as the leaders chosen are likely to be liked by a majority of the population already. However, as long as this is achieved, any political system can bring stability to a country.

About Illegal File Sharing and Downloading on the Internet

Article: http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,137645,00.html

As some may remember from last year, a company called Odex started mailing letters to numerous anime downloaders in Singapore threatening legal action. Many of those who received letters chose to settle out of court for a few thousand dollars each. While this incident may not be that recent, illegal file sharing is an issue that is still undergoing debate today, as a fair proportion of Internet users are engaged in the activity.

Illegal file sharing on the Internet has many arguments on both sides. Many of us are aware that sharing of copyrighted material is piracy, and piracy is supposedly no better than stealing. However, hardly any punishment is meted out to those who share copyrighted material illegally. Also, it is difficult to measure what is lost by the copyright owners when a file is shared over the Internet. For example, many reason that they would not have bought the object even if they did not download it illegally. Also, the actions carried out by the companies who have attempted to prosecute illegal file sharers have drawn much criticism.

Taking the Odex case as an example, one can find much information from Singaporean forums criticising Odex for its actions. Many likened the “fine” to blackmail, since a fair number of those involved were children and teenagers without the ability to defend themselves in court, thus only able to pay a settlement out of court. Also, questions about how much an ISP should protect the privacy of its customers were raised, as Odex had obtained the list of names from the ISPs. Perhaps what led to the most uproar was a few posts made by one of the directors of Odex on a forum, boasting about his actions against the anime downloaders, suggesting that what they did was just for their own profit and not for helping the anime industry. Also, it was alleged that the anime that Odex itself sold used subtitles from the illegally downloaded anime itself.

Personally I feel that a simple warning letter asking the offender to stop may be more effective than some realize. For those teenagers who are torrenting because they have no money to buy the goods legally, a letter to their parents will usually put a stop to any activity. In addition, perhaps demonstrating to illegal file sharers that it is not so difficult to get caught after all may cause many to think twice about performing such an act. In fact, a survey conducted in UK suggests that up to 70% of those who share files illegally would stop if mailed a warning letter by their ISP (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/03/2036254&from=rss). Thus, perhaps the companies involved in such matters should be more understanding of what the Internet population who shares files reacts to and act accordingly. Perhaps if less harsh methods do not work, then full legal penalties should be applied.

(492 words)

First Post!

Like the rest of my class and level, I've been assigned to create a blog for English homework. Apparently, I'm supposed to find an article about "teenage and social issues" and write 350-500 words in a commentary on it to convince someone to my point of view. Seems like your standard essay, but instead of having your teacher fail you, you get to have the world flame you at the same time! Joy.

Anyways, since I've been completely ignoring it for the past 2 weeks or so, it's due in... 4 and a half hours. Time to find an article...

Until I put my commentary up, anyone who wishes to waste their time reading commentaries about teenage issues should go to any of my classmates' blogs. As you may have guessed, we've been assigned completely unimaginative blog URLs: http://ri3gXX.blogspot.com. They probably are more enthu about having to show their homework to the world anyways.