Should Singapore Legalise Organ Trading?

Article: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1833858,00.html

Today, I will be writing a commentary based on an article published in TIME entitled Legalising the Organ Trade? by Peter Ritter. This article has shown the argument of both sides on why some influential people believe that Singapore should legalise organ trading, while others do not. I will be using information from this article to build my own stand.

The British Medical Association (BMA) has reported that more than 1,000 patients in the United Kingdom died, whilst waiting for an organ transplant between 1995 to 1999. In the United States, an average of 15 patients dies a day, waiting for an appropriate organ. Legalising the sale of organs seems to be a perfect solution to tackle the shortage of human organs. For each patient who receives a kidney, the United States' Medicare will save roughly $220000 in dialysis costs. However, why are all the nations in the world apart from Iran, still forbidding the buying or selling of human parts? In this article, Singapore's health minister Khaw Boon Wan has proposed to the city-state about the idea of legalising organ trading. Nevertheless, due to the ethical issues involved as well as trying to preserve a good image, the government has yet to make a definitive move. Today I shall convince you on why Singapore should remove the long red tape required to save a life.

As mentioned in this article, the government has encouraged their citizens to donate their organs after death. However, I believe that this speed is not enough to cover the thousands who are gravely in need of an organ. By the time the appropriate organ arrives, the patient would have probably died already. Some may argue that the poor are always the ones who need the money and thus sell their organs to the rich, making the rich the only ones able to afford for the organ. And as such, this act can be considered as “exploitive” as stated by Noel in the article. Yes, this would be a possible scenario if Singapore were to legalise organ trading. However, such a situation where the rich are always buying organs from the poor is better than both the rich and poor dying due to the lack of donated organs. Even the most impoverished individual would not choose to donate their heart or lung because he sees no monetary benefits. Thus, the organs of the donor that would have saved the life of a person in critical condition would be wasted. This selfish act would have compromised both parties involved. Therefore, it can be seen that organ trading is a win-win situation for both the donor as well as the recipient. It is patronising to see both people’s lives being sacrificed just because of the ban to organ trading. Also, the money gained from the trade would be able to provide the relatives of the deceased with a better life, and make his life much more worthwhile.

Another point that the non-believers might state is that the sanctity of life is compromised in such a situation. A human ought to die with his organs intact and the transferring of organs to another human is simply unethical. However, if we were to consider the overall effects of both choices, banning organ trading would be even more unethical. This is because if you disallow such a trade, you would be denying the chance for the patient in need of a kidney for example, to survive. It is much more preferable that some individuals receive organs, and survive, than none at all. Furthermore, for every successful kidney transplant, the valuable hours saved on the limited dialysis machines, can save yet another life. I truly believe that all religions hope for the better of mankind. Therefore, if we were to weigh the moral consequences, legalising organ trading is still the more ethical choice.

As quoted from the article, Professor A. Vathsala, Head of Nephrology at SNUH said that organ trading “institutionalises the belief that that the wealthy have property rights to the body parts of the poor”. However, I beg to differ. I believe that organ trading is an agreement that bears common consensus. The donor is fully aware of what will be done to him and willingly sacrifices his organ for the money that his family will gain. Furthermore, not all organ trades will result in death, examples such as a kidney transplant has up to 50% survival rate of up to 10 years. I believe that both parties would be very delighted if the operation would go smoothly. A famous example would be local actor Pierre Png who stepped forward and gave part of his liver to save his girlfriend Andrea De Cruz. I believe that if Singapore were to legalise organ trading, more of such successful stories would appear. Money should not be seen as an oppressive power that gives the rich the rights to a poor’s organ. In fact, both parties are on equal terms, and neither side has authority over another.

Recently, a video name “Charlie the Unicorn” was posted on YouTube with over 30 million views, as a satire to the world’s current organ corruption situation. It shows a unicorn who has been tricked by his friends to enter a cave where his kidney was stolen. Cynical as it may sound, a Turkish man who had been lured to the United Kingdoms by a job offer, found his kidney stolen after a party. Also, a tourist who visited China became drunk, and found himself lying in a bathtub full of ice with his left kidney stolen when he woke up. All these organ thefts and corruption are because of the ban of organ trading. Kidneys in the black market can worth up to $300,000. When you are in need of an organ, you will try to get it by hook or by crook. Since the by hook method does not work if you don’t have a voluntary donor, then they will just use the cook method i.e. the black market. Prices in the black market will soar and more and more people will be willing to sacrifice their lives just to earn that amount of money. Corruption further expands to advertisements such as websites like(http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/12649/sell_your_body,_one_part_at_a_time/) which encourages us to sell our organs. In our own country, CK Tang’s chairman Tang Wee Sung paid a middleman $300,000, to get a kidney from living Indonesian donor Mr. Sulaiman Danik. He was then charged under the Human Organ Transplant Act, which bans the sale of human organs. As we can clearly see, the legalisation of organ trading would benefit us in many ways. Black markets would not be able to thrive as the prices of these organs will drop. Some of the poor would now be able to get organs too as they are now more accessible. Legalising organ trading is NOT “choosing between the lesser of 2 evils”. It is “clearly discerning between what is Right and what is Wrong!”

Democracy creates stability in a society

Ever since the Ancient Egyptian times, human civilizations have been governed by leaders, and this political system has been evolving across the centuries. What each of these leaders aims for is a state governed by the nation, which is to say that the country is ruled for the people, by the people. Due to this ideology, a new system called democracy was invented - where the political leaders are voted in by their people or their representatives. However, the nature of this system assumes the very fact that the people have the ability to choose the right leaders. But is this always true?

Currently, many countries in the world adopt democracy as their political system. By using Darwin’s theory of “survivor of the fittest”, we can deduce that democracy is perhaps the most suitable method to rule a country. This is apparent because when the people get to vote for their parties, they would vote for the party with the most capable people, who would benefit them most. When the party attains political sovereignty, the majority would be happy, and stability in the country would follow. When we take a look at Singapore, the reason why the People’s Action Party is able to form the majority of the government’s body, is perhaps because they are doing a decent job and the people believe that they are able to continue to rule the country. I would also say that Singapore is a relatively stable country with blossoming economy, minimal riots, and low crime rates. If we were to widen our scope, we can see that big countries such as America also adopt a similar style. Every time the potential presidents campaign, they are always trying to convince their people why they are suitable for the position, and how they are able to cater to their needs.

Stability of a country depends largely on the conflicts between the different bodies of people. During the elections, each of these groups would also vote for the party of their best interests. However, when the feuds between these groups are too great, the best political party would be the one that would resolve these conflicts. This is when the ability of the people to vote for the right government is challenged. If the people were to vote for their favourite government without thinking about others, the government body will constantly change. This means that the laws would change and everything has to be reset every time a new government gets into power. This would impede the growth of the country and would be detrimental to the stability. The people will still not see eye-to-eye, and fights would start, which would further cause more chaos. Recently I read an article about Africa’s political cultures and it’s problems of government written by Elliot P. Skinner. Africa is a country that contains a rich diversity of cultural groups with many different needs and different practices. Therefore, unless the political leaders agree to govern each ethnic group equally, the African countries will continue to be racked by conflicts. This is because it is hard for 1 political party to see to all the needs of so many different people. This is also why till date, the ethnic riots still claim the lives of so many thousands each year.

There is also another problem to democracy, which is the stability of the country after the fall of a leader, which has ruled the country for many years. When a party rules the country for many years, the people are too reliant on the party, and are not prepared for a change. For example, Indonesia is a country that has practiced democracy for a long period. The 2nd president of Indonesia, Suharto was a great leader, and was in office for a total of 31 years. However when he retired, Indonesia’s political system became a chaos, with many changing political leaders. Only when a leader is able to fulfill the needs of all his people, will he then be able to regain the stability of the country. Another example would be Taiwan. The KMT has been ruling over Taiwan’s politics ever since its liberators stepped onto its lands. After more than 40 years, the people decided to start a revolution by voting for the DPP, however some of them regretted their decision some time after due to several conflicts. The country was dumped into a chaos until the KMT was back in power this year.

As we can see, democracy does create stability in societies, as it appeals to the majority of the people. However, when the people are not rational or they are unable to vote, the country would fall into doom. In a country that is sub-divided into groups of people with many different ideologies, perhaps authoritarianism might even be a better choice. Therefore, democracy only works in most of the countries, and not all.

Technology Issues: Cyber Bullying

As the years pass by, the advancement of technology has indeed been impressive, as more and more people start to depend on it. It has become an essential part of our lives, making things works faster, and saving us a lot of time. However, such an advantage has also made technology an efficient platform of irritation. Not only in Singapore, other countries have also been affected by similar problems. Two articles written by ChannelNewsAsia have identified cyber bullying as a common problem among teens. The articles discuss the reasons for cyber-bullying, it’s effect on the victim’s lives, and methods to prevent it.

Many of us are indulged in the “cyber” world, and I have to admit, that I am no exception. In euphemism, it is a place to relax yourself from the stressful lives that we have. However, some teenagers are deprived of such privileges; in fact these victims hate technology so much they wish to have a life without it. Honestly speaking, I believe that Facebook’s pokes are cute, and are sometimes amusing. Nevertheless, when these anonymous “stuff” gets obnoxious, I will start to feel pretty disturbed. That is what cyber bullies are trying to achieve. In Singapore, 69% of the students have internet access and 79% carry cellular phones. The lack of adult supervision on electronic platforms also gives cyber bullies added confidence. As they remain anonymous, cyber bullies tend to say more hurtful things, compared to face-to-face situations.

Constantly receiving these hate mails, insulting text messages ad blog vandalism will definitely cause tremendous emotional trauma. Some kids might be able to shrug it off, but some kids might be more fragile. The main fear of the victims is that the bully is anonymous and he just might be a friend of yours. I personally symphathise with these people as I myself have been a victim before. Many cases of suicides as well as fights have occurred just because of a prank. They were so shocked about the truth, they were unable to handle it, and decided that they are not able to take it anymore. You never know who is lurking out there.

Electronic bullying is most likely to take place at homes or places where teachers cannot be alerted. Electronic aggression and youth violence have resulted because of this. In schoolyards, you can defend yourself by speaking back. However, cyber bullying makes you feel small, and afraid of being tricked. After reviewing those sad cases, I thought of some ways that people might be able to adopt, in order to avoid future catastrophes. First of all, I believe that parents should be aware of their children’s electronic usage. Yes, some of the teenagers might view it as an invasion of privacy; some of them do not even dare to tell their parents what they are watching on YouTube. However, this safety measure must be taken such that the parents are able to solve the problem in time. Many of these victims keep the problem to themselves, and when they cannot take it anymore, “things happen”. Also, one must be bold and show that you don’t tolerate such nuisance from the bully.

Social networking is a safe haven where shy children try to make friends. It is definitely not a place where cyber bullies pick their preys. Technology can be beneficial. Make more friends. Trust each other. Talk rather than block.

Articles can be viewed at:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/technologynews/view/315179/1/.html
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/214481/1/.html