Blog 3: Organ trading - an evil dictated by precedent?

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2224554.stm

There have been plenty of arguments over the entire concept of exchanging organs for commercial purposes. Although there has recently been a controversy over this issue in Singapore, other countries like Great Britain, Australia, certain states in USA as well as Japan have faced problems with regards to the banning of organ trading. However, it is sometimes important to take a step back and view the situation in an objective light. Organ trading does have a fundamental flaw, but it is one that is inherent in nearly all societal norms and stereotypes in today's world context.

One point in favour of organ trading is the entire principle of making one's own decision. Granted, even the most impoverished individual will not choose to donate their heart or lung and thus die. Neither would a surgeon be prepared to conduct such an operation. Yet, both a kidney and a piece of liver can be removed without significant detriment. It is, to some extent, even patronising to consider that the individual cannot make a reasoned decision to donate or sell his or her own organs. He or she should be granted his right to make his own choices. The family of a relative recently deceased should also to be able to choose to save the life of another and simultaneously receive some remuneration in terms of payment.

Another point in support of organ trading is the current existence of commercialization of similar products. A legitimate market in human organs would not be inconsistent with either public or private healthcare services. The transplant surgeon, the nursing staff and even the pharmaceutical companies producing the anti-reaction drugs receive payment for each operation performed. Why should the donor of the organs, arguably the most important actor in any transplant, not also receive remuneration? The United States already tolerates markets for blood, semen, human eggs, and surrogate wombs. Is there a moral difference between a heart or a lung and an ovum? It is remarkable that a lifesaving treatment should apparently have no financial value.

However, one point that most governments have been reiterating for the better part of the last 20-odd years (the USA was the first to pass the National Organ Transplantation Act in 1984, which prohibits the sale of human organs from either dead or living donors) is the fact that organ trading would result in a widening of the rich-poor gap. Organs involved in commercialization will only flow in one direction - from the Third World to the First. Healthy, but poor individuals in Asia and Africa are victim to scavenging organ merchants with deep pockets in developed nations. The financial rewards make the decision for a poor individual to sell an organ one of compulsion rather than consent. Perhaps British Prime Minister Tony Blair described the evil of the sale of human organs best: "Where colonialists raped the land, the neo-colonialist surgeon steals from bodies."

Granted, by commercializing organ trading, there would be repercussions for societal growth and progress in general. Once again, the poor would be exploited for the betterment of the rich. However, in all brutal honesty, most of our modern society's mechanisms are tainted with this evil. The entire concept of globalization is really based on the concept of the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer. The poor in Africa are trapped in a visual cycle, having to produce raw materials and crops and sell them to richer countries at extremely low prices in order to make whatever profit that can be made. Meanwhile, these rich countries reap the profits in terms of saving of expenditure.

What does this seek to illustrate? Simply put, there are plenty of precedents of exploitation of the poor that is, at worst, grudgingly accepted by society. The legalization of organ trading simply expresses this societal norm of exploitation. This is not an affirmation that this existing explotation of the poor in the framework of our society is correct; on the contrary, it is grossly wrong. However, from the point of this view of this comment, organ trading is compatible in today's society. In other words, it is an evil dictated by precedent, specifically that of the possible (as opposed to definite) exploitation of the poor.

In conclusion, organ trading does have its downside of resulting in a widening of the rich-poor gap, but this evil is one that already exists in our societal structure. This allows the possible benefits, as well as the principles of organ trading (such as freedom of choice) to outweigh the limitations of organ trading.

Blog 2: Essay on Democracy

Today, many nation states institutionalize democracy as their political systems. Even though democracy is not perfect (no practical political system is), there is still a significant majority of democratic nations. It is mostly because democracy creates stability, to some extent, in a society. Stability, in this context, means that the country is in a state of equilibrium, with no major problems or upheavals. In my essay, I will concentrate on how democracy creates economic stability.

When a government is elected by free votes, it is usually made up of individuals and candidates that are morally just and upright. These individuals would serve the country’s interests with the best of their efforts. As such, they would do their best to make sure that the country is free from economic examples. For example, there would be no corruption. Revenue collected would be spent fairly and appropriately, resulting in proper development of the country. Inflation, largely caused by the inadequate planning of government expenses, will also be far less rampant if the elected government is morally upright.

Let me take the example of Singapore. Although Singapore is not a purist form of democracy, it is nonetheless still a democracy. Our government, being freely elected by the people, is morally virtuous and is able to make correct choices to concentrate development on – resulting in economic stability. As such, no sector in Singapore is neglected. This stability ensures that foreign traders and investors are willing to do business and make investments in our country, resulting in a more stable economy and thus more stable country.

However, it may be argued that democracy does not create economic stability because of the fact that governments may not be voted in wisely. After all, even though voting is free, citizens might have a vested interest in voting for a particular party. Or, these citizens might just be plain ignorant about the voting process. The main point is, there are possible flaws in the voting system, resulting in the possible election of unsuitable candidates.

However, there is a very significant point to counter this rebuttal. Most democracies have checks-and-balances to counter this possible disability in the system. For example, there is a minimum age for voting in most democracies. This prevents young people with immature ideas about state and society from affecting the voting process. Literary rates are usually high in nation states with democracies. To quote a few examples, the Czech Republic, Germany, Belgium, the United States, United Kingdom, France, Denmark and New Zealand all have literacy rates of 99%. Even Singapore has a literacy rate of 92.5%. As such, a vast majority of people have the ability to think and seek to achieve the best for themselves, and thus vote the people they think are morally just and upright into office.

In conclusion, although there are factors that suggest that democracy might be flawed and thus affect economic stability in a country, there are checks and balances in place to ensure that the democratic process is fair, and thus, economic stability in a society can be created by democracy.

(512 words)

Blog 1: Glue-sniffing scourge among teens returns

Link: http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=07&year=2007&date=23&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_NP_2007_6696305


This article describes the rise of glue-sniffing in Singapore again. Despite having died down since its first appearance over two decade ago, glue-sniffing is becoming popular among teenagers again. It is a horrific addiction that has effects such as memory loss, uncontrollable bleeding and bruising, permanent damage to brain, liver and kidneys as well as a loss of control over bodily functions. Yet, many teens still do it. Why?

One of the most common factors in commiting any vice - drugs, smoking or alcohol - is due to peer pressure. In a group of teenagers, there are always those who are there purely to seek company and friendship. As such, they would follow whatever their peer suggests, without stopping to reason why. When one rotten apple comes into contact with others, they all become polluted by the disease.

Another reason is the ease of sniffing glue. Glue, unlike drugs or alcohol, is a "poor man's addiction", readily available at any hardware store for a very small amount of money. It is suitable for teens who come from low-income families. This also leads to another point - teens whose parents are less well-off are often back home late due to extra work. As such, such teenagers often have insufficient supervision, and are free to indulge in these bad habits without anyone to stop them.

The satisfaction factor in teenagers is also a factor. There are two forms of satisfaction. The first is the more obvious "high" after inhaling the odour of glue. Teens are able to disengage from their real-life problems and worries and enjoy moments of bliss. The second is more subtle - teenagers who are experiencing certain stages of puberty are more prone to disregarding parents' instructions just for a certain thrill. Defying orders and rules give these teenagers a certain satisfaction too.

Like alcohol and drug addiction, there are centres for glue-sniffing counselling and rehabilitation. These all provide help for glue-sniffing addicts. However, prevention is better than cure, and a better method is to prevent these teenagers from straying onto the wrong path.

Most importantly, parents must play an active role in their children's
development. For example, simply showing care and concern is a good first step. Parents should first seek to gain the confidence of their children. In this way, they can act as their kids' confidante, rather than wayward peers who will seek to lead these misguided teenagers away from the right path. This will not only minimize peer pressure, but will also allow the parents to monitor their kids more stringently.

When parents have gained their children's confidence, they then have to take a greater hand in their children's moral guidance. There is no point of working late to earn extra money but ending up with misguided kids who are misfits in society. With proper social and moral education, teenagers will be less susceptible to such vices.

Steps must be taken to stop this societal trend. No matter how many talks or courses our teenagers go through, they will not change their ways unless their loved ones have more commitment towards them. Only the parents can stop the glue-sniffing scourge among teenagers as well as other vices and bad habits.

Word Count: 510 words