The earlier article, “Clarify, not prevent, false claims”, has been removed as it has been brought to our attention that it has been published before. We apologise for the error.
Richard Woo
I am among the minority when it comes to euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide [PAS]. It is my opinion that euthanasia and/or PAS, if only to enable patients to die peacefully and with dignity, should be made legal, notwithstanding the divergent opinions expressed as evidenced in articles published in the local newspapers.
Needless to say, the issue of euthanasia and/or PAS needs to be thoroughly discussed, with input from as many people as possible. Then, if the government is of the view that further discussion at government level is merited, it should be introduced for debate in Parliament, and only become legal when there is a consensus that the community as a whole would benefit from euthanasia and/or PAS.
The most recent article, if I am right, was contributed by Jennifer Yeo and Madan Mohan [both from the law firm of Yeo-Leong & Peh]. Dr Andy Ho [senior reporter of The ST] had written several articles, all similar in tone to that expressed by Jennifer Yeo and Madan Mohan – that euthanasia, let alone PAS, should not be legalized, for various reasons: cultivating a culture of illusionary pride, cutting health-care costs, morally or spiritually hazardous, we are living our lives for others, not only for ourselves etc.
Euthanasia can be defined as “the deliberate, intentional termination of a person’s life for the benefit of that person” or as “the intentional ending or mercy killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit”. These definitions are quite similar, except for the use of the words “mercy” and “omission” in one definition. What is specifically stated in these definitions is that euthanasia is for a benefit, the ending of a person’s life for the benefit of that person. If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia.
Although euthanasia and/or PAS have also been hotly debated in other countries in recent years it is still not clear which other countries besides Belgium and Netherlands have legalized both euthanasia and assisted suicide/PAS. Switzerland prohibits euthanasia but has since 1941 allowed physician and non-physician assisted suicide. The US state of Oregon was, until recently, the only state in the US with a law, enacted in 1997, specifically allowing PAS; in Nov 2008, a similar law was passed in the state of Washington. Some form of euthanasia is also legal in the Autonomous Community of Andalusia (Spain) and Thailand. The Luxembourg parliament in Dec 2008 voted in favor of legalizing euthanasia.
Excerpts from the BBC website describing the fine distinctions when we talk about euthanasia:
Active euthanasia
In active euthanasia a person directly and deliberately causes the patient’s death. Active euthanasia is when death is brought about by an act – for example when a person is killed by being given an overdose of pain-killers.
Assisted suicide
This usually refers to cases where the person who is going to die needs help to kill themselves and asks for it. It may be something as simple as getting drugs for the person and putting those drugs within their reach.
Indirect euthanasia
This means providing treatment (usually to reduce pain) that has the foreseeable side effect of causing the patient to die sooner.
Voluntary euthanasia
This is where euthanasia is carried out at the request of the person who dies.
Involuntary euthanasia
Involuntary euthanasia occurs when the person who dies chooses life and is killed anyway. This is usually called murder, but it is possible to imagine cases where the killing would count as being for the benefit of the person who dies.
Non-voluntary euthanasia
Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when the person is unconscious or otherwise unable (for example, a very young baby or a person of extremely low intelligence) to make a meaningful choice between living and dying, and an appropriate person takes the decision on their behalf
Non-voluntary euthanasia also includes cases where the person is a child who is mentally and emotionally able to take the decision, but is not regarded in law as old enough to take such a decision, so someone else must take it on their behalf in the eyes of the law.
Passive euthanasia
Passive euthanasia is when death is brought about by an omission – i.e. when someone lets the person die. This can be by withdrawing or withholding treatment:
If the last act, the act that caused the patient’s death, was intentionally performed by a third party, it would be euthanasia. For example, giving a patient a lethal injection or withdrawing a life-sustaining intravenous feed would be considered euthanasia. Assisted suicide refers to an individual dying or having died as a consequence of using information, guidance, and means provided by another with the intention that they would be used by the former for the purpose of suicide. Thus swallowing a lethal substance or taking an overdose of drugs provided by a doctor for the purpose of causing death is clearly a case of PAS or assisted suicide.
Irrational to opt for euthanasia?
Life can be devastating when one is suffering from paralysis or from an incurable or agonizing disease for which there is no hope of recovery or amelioration. Some people may consider it pointless to continue living if they are in such conditions and are critically dependent on others for physical assistance on a day to day basis. In such a scenario the patient can see himself/herself as a liability to others and hence can feel demoralized. Being immobile or in a vegetative state is definitely one of the worst downsides of being alive, whether one is young or old.
Is there any point in being alive or is it worth to continue, if there are no prospects of recovery?
A person is considered to be in a vegetative state in the absence of behavioral signs of consciousness. Any person may appear to look awake, for instance, with eyes open, yet would still be considered to be in a vegetative state for having failed repeatedly to follow commands or instructions such as “look in my direction” or “touch me” and showing signs of being capable only of reflexive movements. Can one avoid becoming a “vegetable”? A healthy lifestyle cannot amount to a guarantee against such a despairing fate, which must be, short of committing suicide, beyond one’s personal control. A head or spinal injury or an attack of stroke can transform one into a vegetative state, whether one is ostensibly healthy or otherwise.
A persistent vegetative state (PVS) can be considered as a condition in which coma resulting from brain damage has progressed to a state where probability of recovery has diminished and there is no evidence of any detectable awareness. A continuation of coma after one month of the brain injury is usually deemed a PVS case. Besides the emotional and physical strain that may affect family members or relatives who are providing the care-giving, the financial cost can also be a strain on the care-givers, if they have to bear the financial cost. I am not discussing a situation where prospects of recovery are positive and where financial cost for nursing care and/or medication is not an issue. If an adult has been suffering from an incurable ailment with no hope of recovery or amelioration and continuing would just mean misery and a severe drain on precious but limited financial resources, would that person be considered irrational to opt for euthanasia, or PAS, as a way out? My answer would be a resounding NO.
Must life continue on its natural course?
We all live for a time only, but to be able to die peacefully, with dignity and without pain or fuss, can be considered a life achievement. Dr Andy Ho, a senior reporter for The Straits Times made this comment in one of his articles concerning euthanasia: “My self-autonomy does not imply an absolute authority to decide my own life.” This is of course subjective. Others may think differently. Others may hold that the right to life comes with a tacit understanding that one has to die sooner or later, and with the right to die in a manner and at a time of one’s choosing, and with assistance of medical technology, if necessary, to make the exit as peaceful and hassle-free as can be deemed possible.
Some people [and I am one of them] dread living to a stage where their mentality becomes impaired [dementia or Alzheimer’s, for instance]. When a person is at this stage they would not be aware of the problems they may be causing to others. Some of us now alive today may find ourselves going through a state of anxiety and anguish before making our final exit. If continuing to live means enduring or suffering pain, physically and/or mentally, must life continue on its natural course and, if so, on what grounds? Sometimes it can be hard to die, even if you want to.
And having the financial means may not help in ending the pain or anguish. People who talk of palliative care often forget or omit to mention the financial cost involved. If money is not an issue – for example, employing domestic maids or nurses to provide full-time nursing care – then it may be a non-issue. The situation can, however, be problematic if money and manpower resources are areas of contention. Opting for an early exit through euthanasia or PAS, just to end one’s suffering, may be the preferred choice, even where the government is footing the bill for the palliative or nursing care for the patient.
Can euthanasia or PAS be considered as a solution, then?
My answer is yes, despite all the pro-life arguments about preserving life. If I were in such a condition with nothing to look forward to but misery and death I would opt for an early death. It would be difficult to provide justification for prolonging pain and suffering, including of course mental anguish. Through euthanasia or PAS my misery can be removed and I would consider it as an efficient way to go. And if someone else has to make a decision on my behalf, I would be thankful for the decision, for giving me a quick and efficient escape route. A lethal injection seems to be a far cleaner, more efficient way to go than starving oneself to death, or jumping, say, from a building if the illness is one that does not affect the patient’s mobility but nevertheless is incurable and painful to him, physically and mentally.
When an animal is perceived to be in agony, resulting say from an injury or an ailment, it would be put to “sleep” through a lethal injection to end its misery if such action is considered to be the best, in the interest of the animal or its owner, or after consultation with a veterinary clinic. But when a person, depending on country location, is in misery because of a painful or incurable illness, with no hope of amelioration, and wants help in terminating his life to end the misery, he can expect zero help if euthanasia or assisted suicide is not legal.
A recent case reported in the newspapers [The Straits Times, Mar 21, 2008] is a case in point:
A French woman suffering from an incurable and disfiguring cancer has been found dead, two days after a court rejected her request for medical assistance to help end her life. No details were immediately available on the cause of Ms Chantal Sebire’s death on Wednesday. …Ms Sebire’s doctors had said she would fall into a coma and die if she stopped taking medication to deal with the rare tumour. But she insisted on going to court to try to secure the right to an assisted suicide, which would be less painful. After her request was rejected, she said she would not appeal the decision and would find life-terminating drugs through other means.
Was her death the outcome of her having stopped her medication, or due to some other cause[s]? We do not know at this juncture.
Terri Schiavo
We have heard some people saying: “Doctors can allow death but not cause it”. If one recalls the Terri Schiavo case in the US, one would remember the controversy that arose from this incident. There was an interesting article in The Straits Times [May 9 2005] from a woman expressing her views in response to an earlier article concerning Terri Schiavo.
“It is easy to talk from the sidelines about caring for a terminally ill patient until natural death overtakes him or of the ethos of the medical profession to cure and save lives but not take away any. A slow lingering death is the worst way to die, because those who suffer most may not be the one who is dying but his close relatives who have to take care of him until his death.”
In case you are not familiar, Terri Schiavo had been in a vegetative state for 15 years before her husband, with court sanction, pulled the plug by removing her feeding tube. The earlier article was in essence a critique of the husband’s action and argued, among other things, that doctors “can allow death but not cause it”. One cannot really tell why Terri’s husband acted as he did, unless one was in his shoes for the last 15 years.
Being alive is not a big deal if you happen to be old and living by yourself; and being old and alive can become a social problem for others. We have seen press reports [in Singapore] of old people dying alone without anybody knowing anything about it until the stench from the dead body caught someone’s attention. The most recent case of death going undetected occurred in Jan 2008 and concerned a father [82 yrs] and his daughter [50 yrs], both of whom were found dead in their home after the stench from their corpses caught the attention of neighbors. When police arrived at the home, a woman [80 yrs] told them that her husband and daughter were sleeping. This is an example, a very sad one, of a severe downside of growing old. And that may precisely be the kind of situation some people dread to be in; dying sooner rather than later seems a pro-choice in such a scenario.
Through its national registration records, a government may have no difficulty ascertaining the names of oldies [say over 80 years?] still alive today. What may be more difficult is to ascertain which oldies are living alone. Probably, some of these old people need help one way or another. A brief visitation once every two or three days by a member from the government social services unit and/or a member of any volunteer group to the home of an aged person who lives alone can go a long way to ensuring that death when or where it has occurred will not remain undetected for long. On a happy note, I am glad to report that under the Neighbors Connect Group project [a community initiative launched in Marsiling, Singapore] neighbors will call on elderly residents in two blocks in this housing estate to get in touch and collect some basic personal information. The effort “aims to connect residents so that, if anything were to happen to one of them, there would always be someone who would find out and act.” This is doubtless a laudable project and it is hoped that other housing estates will launch, similarly, their own initiative.
The right to self-determination
If people are denied the right to self-determination when they are mentally capable of doing so, with the proviso that it is not harmful to others, there may come a time when self-determination is no longer feasible, in terms of their mental state, and thus they may become wholly dependent on the judgment of others, which may or may not be beneficial and may lead to complications that they would not have dreamt of in the first place.
No doubt euthanasia or PAS is appalling to some people. But euthanasia or PAS may just be the solution to pain and suffering. Opponents of euthanasia/PAS may offer their views about the “sanctity of life” or “preservation of life” and so on in their defense but they would do well to pause and then reflect on the evil of pain and suffering a person may be forced to endure. It is easy to talk from the sidelines about caring and so forth, as the woman who wrote to the media stated. One really needs to evaluate who else suffer[s] along with patients who are, say, in a vegetative state, and the financial aspect that may add damage to their family members. When we talk about suffering we cannot exclude mental anguish. What if the patient is without the financial means to employ, say, a full-time nurse or domestic maid but has two young children and a spouse who is now the sole bread winner and the spouse’s income is at a level that any talk of engaging a full-time nurse or domestic maid is out of the question? Would the government arrange all the essential care for such a patient at its own cost? If the answer is no, should the patient be left to rot to death?
———
A mass of information about euthanasia and assisted suicide can be found in Internet websites; a comprehensive question and answer version can be found in http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/faq.htm
Comprehensive information can also be found in British Broadcasting Cooperation’ website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/euthanasia/
———-
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Is it legal for someone to have the right to choose death when one experiences advserse circumstances and is in the stage of pain, suffering, burden (esp. mentally) ?
Should commit sucide be legalized too ?
A dignity death is to allow natural death take in its own time, while doing everything possible to assure relief from distressing symptoms.
#50 Patriot,
I have not made myself clear enough and it often is the case. I did not assume but honestly think that so long as a person is conscious enough to decide as has been the condition to many medical decisions most of the time, then the request should be carried out. In other words, the patient himself must request and then be given counselling before he confirms his decision and euthanasia takes place at an appointed date.
Anyone can write in their wills to request for euthanasia to take place in the event of a long term coma if I am not wrong. with the conditions stated (period of time of coma for example) . People get their wills written way in advance nowadays so yes I believe it can be done if one remembers to get it done.
Ok but if I am wrong about the will, please do correct me.
#51 Gemami,
yuppers, very true indeed and yea I have no objections to the Church or MUIS condemning it in their sermons or openly if they do not seek to strongly influence the decision making process of legalisation.
Dear Rachel & others,
In Islam – Muslims CAN interefere with the decision made by another Muslim individual – if it runs contrary to Islamic teachings. A will made by a Muslim to permit euthanasia – can be deemed null and void in Islam – because it runs contrary to Islamic teachings.
Indeed – I am sure that you have seen the cases that arise in Malaysia – where the Islamic authorities can over-ride the individual decision.
Secondly – Capital Punishment exists in Islam. But it is allowed only in specific cases where there is a clear reason and proof.
The State can legalize euthanasia for Non-Muslims. But certainly MUIS CANNOT pass a fatwa allowing Muslims to opt for euthanasia. MUIS will have to declare euthanasia to be Haram (forbidden). And it will have to declare null and void any Muslim’s will that requests for euthanasia.
Indeed MUIS already has declared euthanasia to be Haram (forbidden). You must understand that Islamic Syariah rulings are based on the concensus of the traditional Muslim scholars – obtained via the Quran and Hadith. MUIS cannot anyhow pass a fatwa legalizing euthanasia – if the rest of the Muslim world is dead set against it.
You must have read about the Yoga controversy. The traditional Muslim scholars have declared various aspects of Yoga to be unsuitable for Muslims. They will not legalize the mantras, the chantings and the meditations etc.
Now if something like Yoga is already under the microscope – I do not see how MUIS is ever going to accept euthanasia.
You must remember – if MUIS were to pass a fatwa that tolerates euthanasia – she will be ridiculed by the rest of the Muslim world. MUIS will lose all credibility and the extremists will have a reason to denounce legitimate Muslim bodies like MUIS.
It is NOT in Singapore’s interest to let MUIS lose credibility……………
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Kidney transplant tourism to hit Singapore? http://www.gadling.com/2009/01/29/kidney-transplant-tourism-to-hit-singapore/
I hope I have not given the impression that I am for an opt-out scheme. On the contrary, I strongly believe it is sensible to not euthanize someone unless the person wishes it, either on the spot or apriori. If a person does not wish to give up, then comfort, easing the pain while trying to overcome the odds is all we can do.
Apologies to all those who made eloquent arguments in this thread about the validity of Euthanasia, but I – as a theist – still believe that there are some fundamental errors in the judgement of Richard and his supporters:-
1. It would be out of point to argue a long case for the logical incoherence of atheism, but in summary, Isn’t Atheism’s moral standards arbitrary? (For all Atheists who claim to have their own moral standards, go do some research – and you will find that ALL your moral standards come from particular religions.)
2. The Financial Cost Argument – There is a very good reason why the Government should finance keeping people alive whenever it is given the choice. That would be a much more productive use of money than splurging it on defence and job credits that have no direct impact on workers. It is the Moral Obligation of a Government to provide for its citizens whenever they cannot provide for themselves. A Government that doesn’t do this is shirking its responsibility.
3. The Despairing Pain Argument – I guess that Atheists must be very pessimistic people, to assume immediately that there will be a moment in life when one will feel that there is no option but death. Do atheists live for those moments?
Perhaps some people like moteshumy and Dr Syed Alwi might want to live in fear and despondency for the rest of their lives, but I do think that patients deserve some hope.
Terri Schiavo’s case was problematic, because the court case revealed that the husband might have some other economic motive to pulling the plug, not a purely altruistic motive, as Richard seems to suggest. And in Schiavo’s case, the parents opposed pulling the plug; surely they would have felt as torn, if not more torn, than the husband, unless you are to argue that the Schiavos don’t love their own daughter?
As for the French woman quoted in the Straits Times article, I wish to enquire where the idea of “incurable” is obtained from; perhaps it is the reporter’s own opinion. (Sorry, Straits Times reporters are not always so professional.) The fact that the doctors were giving her a pill should show that the cancer was in fact curable or at the least could be controlled. Although it was possibly a bit unwarranted for them to tell her that if she stopped taking the pill, she “would fall into a coma and die”. Such information should have been handled with more tact by medical staff.
Her response is thus understandable. Cancer medicine is not the most benign of medicines, that is true. But in my opinion, that only argues for the need to channel more funds into researching better Cancer medicines rather than into making Singapore a “Suicide Tourism” Hub.
I think what that French woman needs – or needed, if she has already jumped the track – is someone to properly care for her and bring her through her last days.
Contrary to what some atheists think, Theists are not cold-hearted people who love watching patients undergoing torture. And contrary also to what Mr Woo thinks, several Theists speak from their positions on the frontline; they have gone through the suffering with terminal patients, and are not armchair-critics.
But in contrast to Atheists, what Theists argue for is that palliative care provisions should be strengthened. There should be more people and resources made available to guide and support the terminally-ill patients towards the last stage of their lives.
Think of it: we admire the heroes of the SARS epidemic because many of them fought right to the end. Would they be our national heroes if they opted for euthanasia at the beginning of their ordeals?
That is why theists talk about Respect for Life. The point is, euthanasia is giving an easy way out not just to the patients, but to everyone of us around them as well.
Essentially, an Active Euthanasia policy would mean saying, “Right? you are going to die in 3 years’ time if we put you on treatment. So why don’t just save us all the money and time and your family loads of agony and just die off right now?” What is the problem with this statement? It totally lacks any form of empathy with the patient! Seriously, as humans, would we want our medical practitioners adopting this as a de-facto attitude? (And not to forget, the whole “vision” of a Suicide Tourism Hub!)
So pleas Atheists, re-think through your positions.
4. Values & Politics – It seems patently unfair that Atheists are permitted to let their views affect policy and legislation while Theists are told to shut up. Aren’t Theists just as much citizens of this country as Atheists?
And a further question: If you face any problems anywhere, should your first impulse be to commit suicide?
Dear Arix,
I am a Muslim and I am definitely NOT an atheist. Please scroll up and read my postings very carefully. Nowhere did I support euthanasia. In fact – all I did was to elaborate Islam’s position on euthanasia – which is an emphatic rejection.
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Dr Syed Alwi,
Sorry for the mistake. You sounded like you were *against* the religious lobby. I can’t tell if your “pro-” statements are genuine or satirical.
As with reports published in the newspapers and elsewhere, euthanasia is a divisive issue – not unlike the question of God/religion or abortion – but this is only natural as people, even in a homogeneous society, let alone a multi-religious multi-cultural one, have different wavelengths or different ways of thinking. What follows can be viewed as an attempt by me to add to or to clarify or critique what has been said so far.
To start with, euthanasia comes in many shades but the model that some of us here have in mind – when we talk about legalizing euthanasia – is voluntary euthanasia. Please refer to my article if necessary. I am against involuntary euthanasia, aka murder. Since it is about voluntary euthanasia that is under consideration, let’s concentrate on this area.
Arguably, everything in life has a cost; there is a cost to being alive, just as there is a cost to being dead [funeral expenses, effects the death has on others, etc]. But I don’t think we need to go into minutiae. However, needless to say, we can only evaluate on such matters when we are alive, not when we are dead or in a coma or being in an advanced stage of Alzheimer’s disease or suffering from another form of dementia. Hopefully, voluntary euthanasia can be a choice that settles as to which side of the equation one wants to be. There are many things that distinguish us from other animals and one of them is the ‘what if’ thought process that, arguably, humans are only capable of – from a human perspective, no less. Where would I be today if I had not joined this company 15 years ago? What if I had taken up law instead of physics? If voluntary euthanasia is not legally available, what are the consequences? I have given a sketch of the scenario including some specific examples.
“There is nothing immoral about alleviating the suffering caused by caring for a terminally ill loved one who is in a vegetative state. My mother-in-law was like that for about a decade before her death. I did not know about euthanasia then. Otherwise I would have ended her misery quickly.” – from a letter published in The ST [Forum] on 6 Nov 2008.
“My father had stomach cancer and had reached the terminal stage, but he was not allowed to die. He had to endure long bouts of severe pain and suffering, before death mercifully relieved him of his misery. He pleaded repeatedly with his doctor to let him die comfortably and peacefully, but the doctor refused, saying he did not believe in euthanasia. My father had to endure many months of needless suffering…….I am not against the beliefs of any religious body. But religious leaders should confine religion to their followers, and not try to influence lawmakers.” – from a letter published in The ST [Forum] on 15 Nov 2008.
Was palliative care given in those two cases mentioned above, and if so, was it effective? Would the writers have written as they did if palliative care had played a role and was effective? In the first case, I may be wrong in thinking that those relatives who provided nursing care for the patient were suffering themselves through expending energy and maybe financial resources in the provision of care for the patient for long hours [ten years!].
“Let death come like a thief at night”, argued Dr Andy Ho of The Straits Times, in an article he wrote [ST 25 Sep 2008.
I wish Dr Ho all the best. I hope he has not missed the two letters mentioned above.
“Euthanasia not unthinkable – some day” – is the caption of an article from the editorial page [ST 23 Oct 2008].
The article ended with this sentence “Euthanasia is looking like a candidate whose time is nearer than most people would imagine.”
And I am sure Mrs Janet Sng [a Christian] and her husband would be happy when this “candidate” has been officially installed. Vide ST 15 Nov 2008 [Page A25], Mrs Sng had apparently written [a 14-page hand-written letter] to The ST voicing her concerns regarding growing old and euthanasia. Among other things she allegedly said: “There comes a time when life to the elderly is meaningless … and he or she does not want it anymore.” I append a para from the ST report:
“Mrs Janet Sng fears sickness more than death. Dumping old folk in hospitals is a “worse sin” than euthanasia, she says. She is Christian, but says the “law of the land” should not be based on “religious doctrine”.
In #4 Dr Syed Alwi inter alia said: “So until you can make the various religions accept euthanasia – it will remain taboo in most of Asia and the Middle East.”
In #19 he said, inter alia: “Comment as much as you like. The powerful religious lobby will ensure that euthanasia is not allowed. And thats the reality you live with.
In #58 in response to Arix he said: “I am a Muslim and I am definitely NOT an atheist. Please scroll up and read my postings very carefully. Nowhere did I support euthanasia. In fact – all I did was to elaborate Islam’s position on euthanasia – which is an emphatic rejection.”.
Until #58, it had not been clear as to whether Dr Syed Alwi supported or opposed euthanasia; I was thinking of posing this question to him: Are you personally for or against euthanasia?
Mrs Janet Sng was reported to be a Christian [I do not know if she is Catholic but she was personally for euthanasia].
The fact that some religions prohibit euthanasia is no reason to think that euthanasia is wrong or immoral. I am well aware, from having read BBC’s website and other sources, of the position taken by some religions concerning euthanasia. Maybe the Middle East and parts of Asia/Southeast Asia are the exceptions. We can say that for Singapore and perhaps for some other countries, with secularism being the norm for policy-making, the laws have not been founded on religious considerations but on other grounds including ethics of course. Religious organizations are, however, not precluded from offering their views and if such views are deemed meritorious of consideration, because they have socio-economic values, or are of ethical worth, they may receive due consideration, on the basis of their value, not because of their religious attachment by being, for example part of religious dogma.
Social mores can of course change over time: abortion has been made legal in some countries despite the fact that the religious organizations in these countries were strictly against it; homosexuality, once viewed by authorities as a pathological or mental illness, is now considered to be largely the result of biological or genetic underpinnings; the use of condoms was strictly prohibited by the Catholic Church but now it seems that married couples are allowed to use them; in Africa, however, the use of condoms has the approval of the Anglican Church; the Catholic Church has now accepted evolution [which it used to reject in preference to creation] as an explanation for the live forms we see today, but with a caveat: evolution was engineered by God.
Once religious considerations are introduced as reasons for or against the formulation of public policies, affecting a multi-cultural multi-religious community, such as say Singapore, the community is headed for trouble. Remember, there may be lots of people who are non-theistic or atheistic, and there are religious beliefs of various sorts, with some at odds with each other. Religious leaders should be mindful of the diversity that exists and would do well to eschew imposing their religious doctrine on others. Some people can be fanatical with regard to their religious beliefs; in an incident that allegedly occurred some years ago in a neighboring country, religious people after emerging from a mosque suddenly started attacking shops selling liquor, smashing the bottles and setting fire to the premises. These people were supposedly affiliated to a “peaceful religion.” Their co-religionists can argue that they were not the “true followers of the religion.” Well, some of us are too familiar with the “No true Scotsman….” argument.
Some people have beliefs [usually the religious kind] that are simply irrational or mind-boggling. And certain religious beliefs are brimming with inconsistencies and/or contradictions. But this forum is IMHO not a proper place for me to discuss such beliefs in detail. However, being an atheist [hardcore, if you like], I would not demur in getting engaged in discussions/debates when the subject is God or beliefs in God/god.
Now to some of the other specific points/concerns voiced in response to my article:
#3 [gemami]: “It is pointed out by Richard that death (PAS or whatever name), be decided if there is ‘benefit’. This itself opens up a whole litany of debatable arguments and there can be no conclusive outcome to what is deemed ‘beneficial’……
So you see, there is no conclusive outcome that can be derived from such considerations. What then should be the deciding factor for one to decide to die? Who makes the decision?”
In fact debates have already started and will no doubt continue. If or when a final decision is reached at government level, that, plausibly, would be the conclusive outcome. No matter where we look, moral disagreement is a pervasive fact of life, but it does not mean there is no question of what is right or wrong. What is enshrined in law needs to be followed, as simple as that; any commitment of a breach has its own consequence[s]. For voluntary euthanasia, there would be no deal without a specific request from the patient; ultimately, the decision rests with the patient.
For those who are insistent that religious doctrines are the yardstick for morality, I have this message to offer [from Dr Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute]:
“The idea that morality is impossible without faith in God must be challenged. It implies that man has no reason or purpose to be moral; it implies that no rational standard of morality is possible; it implies that in questions of morality man must suspend reason and blindly submit to faith or blindly obey some authority’s ‘revelations’ or ‘mystical insights.’ To imply that we have no earthly reason to be moral is profoundly immoral. The purpose of morality is to discover and teach the principles that lead to life, achievement, happiness, success, joy. There is only one means to discover and understand these principles: reason. A proper morality, one for living on earth, requires rationality and independence of soul, not faith and obedience to self-appointed interpreters of an alleged omnipotent being. A proper morality looks not to the supernatural but at man’s nature and the reason why he needs values–and then defines the values he must reach and the virtues he must practice to reach them. Properly understood, not only does morality not require faith in God – morality is incompatible with faith in God. The moral is the rationally accepted and chosen, not the mindlessly believed and followed.”
#29 [patriot]: “May I also forward another opinion that anyone who is mobile but terminally ill (afflicted with incurable disease) and wishes to die would have found his/her own way to die without being assisted. For such patient, euthanasia should be ruled out no matter how strong and persistent the patient ask for it, there is absolutely no ground and reason to apply or grant euthanasia.”
It goes without saying that there are many ways of dying, for example, jumping from a building, going against an oncoming train or vehicle, taking poison, starving oneself to death etc. Isn’t euthanasia, if legally available, a more peaceful way to go when this involves the administration of a, say, lethal injection? On a hypothetical basis, which would you prefer if given the choice?
#56 – I shall revert separately on the points raised by Arix.
To sum up, I wish to thank all those who have commented. And I am glad that at least four people here, if not more, besides myself, are in favor of euthanasia or voluntary euthanasia.
Dear Arix,
I think what was posted is clear for all to see. Its not satirical. Its factual.
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
#56 Arix, I have quoted some of what you have said and added my personal opinions below. I am a very straightforward person so please, don’t get too offended hahaa.
“1. It would be out of point to argue a long case for the logical incoherence of atheism, but in summary, Isn’t Atheism’s moral standards arbitrary? (For all Atheists who claim to have their own moral standards, go do some research – and you will find that ALL your moral standards come from particular religions.)”
Likewise, it would be out of point to argue a long case for the incoherence of theism. My moral standard has nothing to do with religion(s) and were in fact in existence even before I was exposed to the concept and texts of religion(s).
“2. The Financial Cost Argument – There is a very good reason why the Government should finance keeping people alive whenever it is given the choice. That would be a much more productive use of money than splurging it on defence and job credits that have no direct impact on workers. It is the Moral Obligation of a Government to provide for its citizens whenever they cannot provide for themselves. A Government that doesn’t do this is shirking its responsibility.”
If people want to end the pain, it is pointless giving them money to give up the notion of ending their pain and wanting to die in dignity. Not saying this is a bad suggestion though. Indeed it is expensive to live with a terminal illness and indeed it will really help alot in terms of medical bills… but get this: the most effective medicines have been stored and reserved for members of the clan up in the Ivory Towers. Maybe they should also think of letting that be available to the public too? :p
“3. The Despairing Pain Argument – I guess that Atheists must be very pessimistic people, to assume immediately that there will be a moment in life when one will feel that there is no option but death. Do atheists live for those moments?”
Maybe you have read it wrongly. I think those who are pro-euthanasia has been talking about voluntary euthanasia. With that, euthanasia should be an opt in thing, hence it is decided by the patient and not anyone else. Death is not a bad thing. Without life there is no death. If choosing to die equates pessimism, then why give birth at all? (By thinking along the lines of what you have mentioned) Isn’t it quite sadistic to find joy in bringing a life that will die one day onto earth? In my personal opinion, we should celebrate both life and death. It is a journey completed. You mean theists find death a sad and terrible thing? This is quite a surprise to me.
“Perhaps some people like moteshumy and Dr Syed Alwi might want to live in fear and despondency for the rest of their lives, but I do think that patients deserve some hope.”
Sure, patients deserve some hope. Define hope. It is very narrow minded to see ‘hope’ as the hope of recovery. Hope can come in many forms apart from that. It can also mean the hope of dying in dignity, not in ultimate weakness and pain. Who lives in fear anyway? I don’t fear an Almighty… ;) maybe you do. (Blasphemy alert lol)
“Contrary to what some atheists think, Theists are not cold-hearted people who love watching patients undergoing torture.”
Actually no, we don’t judge whether people are cold hearted or otherwise by looking at their religion(s) or the non existence of it. In both camps, there exists cold hearted people.
“But in contrast to Atheists, what Theists argue for is that palliative care provisions should be strengthened. There should be more people and resources made available to guide and support the terminally-ill patients towards the last stage of their lives.”
There is no contrast, this is what all human beings hope for, given the ideal circumstances. HOWEVER, at times it is the patients themselves who prefer to stop the pain. So do you force the patient to live in pain or give him/ her the last wish?
“That is why theists talk about Respect for Life. The point is, euthanasia is giving an easy way out not just to the patients, but to everyone of us around them as well.”
I value and respect my life as an atheist too… that is why I personally would not like to see myself living in pain, weakened to the point whereby I have to be kept alive by machines.
“Essentially, an Active Euthanasia policy would mean saying, “Right? you are going to die in 3 years’ time if we put you on treatment. So why don’t just save us all the money and time and your family loads of agony and just die off right now?” What is the problem with this statement? It totally lacks any form of empathy with the patient! Seriously, as humans, would we want our medical practitioners adopting this as a de-facto attitude? (And not to forget, the whole “vision” of a Suicide Tourism Hub!)”
NO ONE is saying that we must say a horrible thing like that! Who is the pessimist here hahaa… the most important thing is that there must be a system set up so that people (patients, their family members, doctors…) will not abuse the legalisation of euthanasia. Like I mentioned earlier, the patients have to initiate it, then go for counselling, medical reviews etc etc… there must be a process before the final decision in order to make sure that no abuse of the option has been taking place.
“So pleas Atheists, re-think through your positions.”
So please theists and atheists, please respect the decision of those who wish to opt for euthanasia. (FYI, not all atheists are agreeable to euthanasia being legalised)
“4. Values & Politics – It seems patently unfair that Atheists are permitted to let their views affect policy and legislation while Theists are told to shut up. Aren’t Theists just as much citizens of this country as Atheists?”
And as an atheist, and under my personal capacity, I would like to ask you the same question.
No one is asking theists to shut up, no one is saying here that they are lesser citizens of this country. It is ridiculous to think so. We live in a society whereby religious harmony exists. If theists can voice up their opinions, so can atheists. When have atheists been permitted more than theists to let their views affect policies and legislations? I guess those who are pro – euthanasia happens to be mostly atheists… but the thing is, with MUIS and the Church voicing out their disagreement already, theists do have a strong representation. However, who represents the atheists and those who are pro – euthanasia?
Look at all the factors first before you shout unfair and accuse us of being pessimistic, this and that.
We all came into this world because we were the fastest sperm! We did not know what we were getting oureselves into!
We did not have a brain to think all we knew was to get there to the egg the fastest way we could. It was the way to go then.
As we evolved our brain developed and we develop the power of thought what is right and wrong and some of us if given the choice yet again probably as a sperm we will kinda of slow down and allow the other sperm to be the first in.
We all going to die. Its a known fact. Even in the Starwars movie ,Yoda says” death is an evetuality we have no control of. We are all going to have to die some of us earlier than others but we all must die”. Unlike a credit card there is no renewal.
Our body is our own. What we do with it si our own buisness, period. I dont tell you how to live your life, likewise you should tell me what do with my life. If I am suferring do you want to trade place swith me. If I am dying of an incurable illness will you swop places with me?
So what iam trying to get at is simply this; each of us has the right to determine whether we want to live or die. It’s our decision so please accept it. I own my body not you. I decide my life and my destiny not you. Prof. Lee {Minister mentor’s daughter wrote an interesting article not too long agao. I think she said it all.
My life is mine own. Stay out of it. Not trying to tell us wether we should live or die. Then you will be thinking you are GOD! I rest my case.
#56 [Arix]
Rachel has leapfrogged me on this. I am not going to analyze Rachel’s rebuttal point by point so my response, to your post may overlap what she has already said. But I have questions for you, which I hope you will answer to set the position clear.
You are a theist, presumably? If so which religious affiliation are you attached to? If atheism to you is incoherent [and this seems to be nothing more than a display of prejudice or ignorance], theism is far more incoherent, as it has no empirical proof for the core of its belief. Nothing except for a thing called ‘faith’, beyond any semblance of reason or logic.
“The Financial Cost Argument …It is the Moral Obligation of a Government to provide for its citizens whenever they cannot provide for themselves. A Government that doesn’t do this is shirking its responsibility.”
Please tell this to our government. They may award you a prize for this grand idea. You have my support, though.
The Despairing Pain Argument – Are you aware that there are about ten [plausibly more] countries in the world that have made euthanasia legal? Many of these countries are from the western world. You appear to be simplistic by assuming that only people who are atheists would opt for euthanasia. Mrs Janet Sng is just one example; we cannot discount there may be other people who are Christian and still are in favor of euthanasia. The US is a predominantly Christian country and two of its states [Oregon and Washington] have legalized euthanasia; do you think that the people who passed the euthanasia law are/were atheists? And, no doubt, you believe euthanasia is only for atheists.
As voluntary euthanasia is something for the patient to exercise, you as a patient do not have to opt for it if you don’t want to. Your religion may forbid you, but others who are not religious or who do not share your religious concerns are free to exercise their choices, right? Aesop’s fable of the fox and the sour grapes?
“Terri Schiavo’s case was problematic.” Certainly it was, and that’s why her husband sought court sanction. Fifteen years in coma; how long more should it have been allowed to continue? Theists like you seem to live in a world of idealism. Please remember things are different in reality.
“As for the French woman quoted in the Straits Times article – I wish to enquire where the idea of “incurable” is obtained from; perhaps it is the reporter’s own opinion. (Sorry, Straits Times reporters are not always so professional.)”
You appear to be someone with a proclivity to “assume” and then assert without obtaining clarification or verification. My article mentioned: “A recent case reported in the newspapers [The Straits Times, Mar 21, 2008] is a case in point.” Clearly, nothing was stated about the case being the output of a ST reporter. Evidently, you have not been circumspect – that the article could just have been a reprint from another newspaper.
“Her response is thus understandable.” Good for you – it shows that you have understanding in some area but not in others.
“Contrary to what some atheists think, Theists are not cold-hearted people who love watching patients undergoing torture.”
Has any atheist here talked about theists being cold-hearted people who love patients undergoing torture? How did this thought spring into your mind?
“Essentially, an Active Euthanasia policy would mean saying, “Right? you are going to die in 3 years’ time if we put you on treatment. So why don’t just save us all the money and time and your family loads of agony and just die off right now?” What is the problem with this statement? It totally lacks any form of empathy with the patient! Seriously, as humans, would we want our medical practitioners adopting this as a de-facto attitude? (And not to forget, the whole “vision” of a Suicide Tourism Hub!)”
I suggest you re-read my article. Your thinking on this is clearly convoluted. I think Rachel has been more specific about this, if you have read her comments.
“So pleas Atheists, re-think through your positions.
4. Values & Politics – It seems patently unfair that Atheists are permitted to let their views affect policy and legislation while Theists are told to shut up. Aren’t Theists just as much citizens of this country as Atheists?”
Rachel has succinctly stated her points. All I want to add here is that you appear to have an unbounded capacity for imagination. But that’s typical of some theists of which, presumably you are one.
Hi everyone,
I am in 100% agreement with Richard Woo on the central point of his article above (voluntary euthanasia).
I can only speak for myself. I intend to make it clear in writing, whilst I am in complete possession of my faculties, that should I ever reach a vegetative state with no hope of recovery or where my quality of life is completely gone, the plug should be pulled. I understand from the discussion above this is now possible in Singapore by means of a living Will or something called an Advanced Medical Directive. If this was not possible (hypothetical, since it is), I would instruct my care giver to remove me to a place where it would be possible to pull the plug.
There seems to be quite a lot of misunderstanding as to the expression ‘love’. To me, it would be an act of love on my part not to have to burden my near and dear ones with the responsibility of caring for me when all hope of me leading a life with the quality I would like is gone.
To Dr Syed Alwi, who makes some very rational points, I would say: be positive. Society is made up of people and people make choices. If enough people think in a certain way then society changes. Richard makes some very pertinent points about how the Church has modified its views over time. In 18th and early 19th century India, the practice of ‘Sati’ (immolation of the bride on the husband’s funeral pyre) was common along with child marriages and other practices. Force of opinion changed societies views on these.
To Gemami, #37 para 4, I would ask: is abortion not legal in Singapore? [See http://www.singapore-window.org/sw00/000814ha.htm. I will not labour the inconsistency.
Discussions of a religious nature are Pandora's boxes and are best left alone save, as I say, if enough people think in a certain way, society can and does change.
To Arix, #56 point 1 (For all Atheists who claim to have their own moral standards, go do some research - and you will find that ALL your moral standards come from particular religions.) I would say you've got it back-to-front. Man came first, then religion. As Descarte said cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore I am. Richard quotes Dr Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute to say the same thing. Man is a rational being and our rationality must always prevail.
So good luck, Richard, I hope you've managed to get a small snowball going.
[PS Is anyone willing to do an article on organ trading? For the record, I am all in favour of legalised organ trading on a willing-seller-willing-buyer basis:) ].
Dear Peter Sellers,
I cannot speak of the other religions. But I can speak of Islam. Islam’s central theme is the permanency of the Quran and its unchanging nature. In fact Islam prides itself in its unchanging nature. Therefore – the idea of changing Quranic commandments is completely out of the question in Islam.
And there are verses regarding suicide etc in the Quran. Forbidden under all circumstances.
I cannot tell the future. But if Islam is to Reform – then it will be a long time away. Maybe 100 years…..
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
#65
Tks, Peter for your comments. Insightful. Top-rate.
[#66 Dr Syed Alwi]
Whether Islamic dogma continues unchanged for the next 1,000 years is not a matter of relevance over the question of whether voluntary euthanasia should be legalized. Members of Islamic clergy are of course free to dictate to their followers any Islamic ruling or tenet affecting their lives. But no religion, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc should ever be allowed to impose its religious dogma as a basis for formulating public policy-making in a multi-cultural multi-religious society. Hence no minister in Singapore – whether the PM or otherwise, for the sake of the society as a whole – should ever, even for a moment, entertain thoughts of framing any public policy using a religious doctrine as a basis. To do so may result in adverse repercussions.
Would you agree with this, Dr Syed Alwi?
Our laws and policies should continue to be strictly secular, with socio-economic factors as the underpinnings. If an adult person, Muslim or otherwise, were to step into a brothel or casino to have fun, would any brothel/casino management staff bother to stop them? If the clerical shepherds are unable to control members or certain members of their flock, then, obviously, they cannot expect others to do the job for them.
Agree/Disagree?
Dear Richard Woo,
No – I totally disagree with you. Singapore has a Minister In Charge of Muslim Affairs. Singapore is NOT entirely secular. Neither can she aspire to be totally secular – since her immediate neighbours are all non-secular, Muslim countries.
No matter what your ideals are – Singapore is run on a very pragmatic basis. Yes – we do not have Syariah Laws beyond marriage laws here. But the social pressure and stigma plus family pressure – is enormous in the Muslim community.
So perhaps – while you might aspire to be some kind of secular, Western liberal democracy – the reality on the ground however – is still very much coloured by religion. Until such time when religion plays a more reduced role in Singaporean society……you will still have to contend with it…………..
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
#69 [Dr Syed Alwi]
“Singapore has a Minister In Charge of Muslim Affairs” – is undoubtedly true.
But our laws are all state-laws and insofar as I am aware there is no law that is applicable only to people within a particular religious group. This is what I meant when I said that secularism is the norm for legislation in Singapore.
“Singapore is NOT entirely secular”.
Singapore, as I have stated more than once, is multi-cultural and multi-religious. You have merely echoed what I said.
“Neither can she aspire to be totally secular – since her immediate neighbours are all non-secular, Muslim countries.”
The fact that there people here are free to practice the religion of their choice and that there exist so many different faiths renders your statement irrelevant. The use of “she” as the subject – which seems to imply the entire population or the Singapore government – is just out of sync with reality.
“No matter what your ideals are – Singapore is run on a very pragmatic basis. Yes – we do not have Syariah Laws beyond marriage laws here. But the social pressure and stigma plus family pressure – is enormous in the Muslim community.”
Nowhere where have I stated or hinted that Singapore is not run on a pragmatic basis. So it appears your statement is a non-sequitur and, moreover, I cannot understand the relevance the third sentence has on the argument that voluntary euthanasia should be legalized as to be available only for those who want to make use of this facility, and in circumstances that are deemed fitting.
“So perhaps – while you might aspire to be some kind of secular, Western liberal democracy – the reality on the ground however – is still very much coloured by religion. Until such time when religion plays a more reduced role in Singaporean society……you will still have to contend with it…………..
Singapore is already a democracy but whether it can be considered to be “liberal” or not is not an open-and-shut case. The government is cognizant of the multi-cultural, multi-religious nature of the community that is Singapore’s population, hence has instituted measures to promote religious harmony. You will have to live with the fact that religion may continue to play a vital role in the lives of some people.
Dear Richard Woo,
I do not know what your point is. But what I do know is that – here in South East Asia – religion is an important part of society. It does have a role to play in policy making. Simply because it carries such a strong following and therefore cannot be ignored.
All I am saying is that – religion cannot be ignored in policy making here in Singapore – because it has a large and strong following. Not only that – Singapore’s immediate neighbours are all non-secular Muslim countries. You cannot formulate a policy which is against religion. It would not work because of the significant role of religion in Singapore’s society.
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
#71{Dr Syed Alwi]
“I do not know what your point is.”
I am sorry you have not grasped the argument points in our discussions.
My point is, and I have said this several times, no religious dogma must be allowed to intrude into the realm of politics, in a multi-cultural, multi-religious society. IFa Muslim or a Christian thinks drinking vodka or whisky is a sin against God, that is their business; but they cannot expect the government to pass a law banning the selling of vodka or whisky. To others, drinking vodka or whisky may be an enjoyable activity.
Likewise with the casino question not so long ago. IF gambling to Islam is a wrong, to non-Muslims it may be a matter of personal choice. Hence the decision of our government that is soon to culminate in the opening of one [the first of two] casino.
“All I am saying is that – religion cannot be ignored in policy making here in Singapore – because it has a large and strong following. Not only that – Singapore’s immediate neighbours are all non-secular Muslim countries. You cannot formulate a policy which is against religion. It would not work because of the significant role of religion in Singapore’s society.”
I have said that religious organizations are not precluded from expressing their views, but if such views are taken into account, it has to be on the basis of their values, socio-economic for instance, not because they are religious dogma. See the difference?
It does not matter whether Singapore’s neighbors are all Muslims or Christians or Buddhists, or whatever. We are a sovereign nation. We have a right to do what’s in our interest or necessary for our survival, within the confine of international laws and within what is regarded to be the Golden Rule of reciprocity.
Dear Richard Woo,
No I am totally against your view. I know for a fact that the current PAP Government DOES take religious views into account. While it is true that many Syariah Laws are NOT implemented here – it is also true that our Malay MP’s DO reflect various aspects of Islamic teachings in their views. Dogma or otherwise – certain aspects of Islamic teachings cannot be left out by the Muslim MP’s. Thats the reality we all live in. I myself – if you have noticed – am against the implementation of Syariah Laws in Singapore. I have argued as such in another thread.
What you want is an ideal situation where religious dogma should not be taken into account at all. I am sorry to tell you that such a situation is NOT possible in contemporary Singapore. Religion plays an important role in the lives of many here in South East Asia. And yes – dogma does affect political calculations.
Another issue I disagree with you on is – to ignore Singapore’s situation among her Muslim neighbours. We cannot decouple ourselves from the socio-political developments of our neighbours. The rise of Islamic parties there – does affect us. MUIS and Muslim MP’s here in Singapore will have to operate in a more conservative environment. Besides – the views of our neighbours does affect our political calculations. They cannot be ignored.
You are asking for an ideal situation. It seems to me that you want a Western, secular, Liberal Democracy for Singapore. One where religion plays only a small role. But I am sorry to tell you that we are NOT America nor Europe. The politics of South East Asia is communal in nature. And it will remain so for a long time to come.
Finally – you will notice that I myself am against the implementation of Syariah Laws here in Singapore. But at the same time – I admit that religious dogma does affect political decisions here. The reality is that religion plays too important a role in contemporary South East Asian society – for us to ignore it.
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
#73 [Dr Syed Alwi]
Thank you for the feedback.
Let’s say we agree to disagree.
Dear Dr Syed Alwi,
With respect, your points are noted and they have relevance. However, in a democracy, it is the majority view that prevails and unless the majority is made up of any one particular religious group, it is unlikely that their views will prevail.
In fact, in Singapore, as you will see from the discussion above, it is already possible to sign something called an Advanced Medical Directive to authorize medical care givers not to prolong life under certain circumstances (see http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_543_2004-12-18.html). I don’t think this amounts to full voluntary euthanasia but it is a step in the direction that Richard and I and several others have been arguing for.
To Richard: as I said above, religion is a Pandora’s box and is best left alone. All we can hope to do is mobilize opinion amongst like minded people.
Dear Peter Sellers,
Your view regarding the majority – is NOT acceptable to the minorities. In this sense – I completely agree with LKY’s idea of having the GRC. You are talking about the tyranny of the majority. You mean to tell me that the Malay-Muslims have no voice at all – just because the majority are all Non-Muslims ?
Well in that case – you have brought up the classic racial issue that was emphasised by Malaysia’s Dr Mahathir. You are giving Mahathir exactly the reasons to reject meritocracy !
Sorry – but I dare say that the malay-Muslim community does NOT wish to be treated as voiceless. You do that at the risk of sparking a racial conflict and also at the risk of encouraging extremists like the JI. The extremists will use your words against you.
The reality of communa politics in South East Asia has to be accepted by all. There must be give and take. You cannot just take without giving.
That is why I support the PAP’s GRC program.
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
77) gemami on Your comment is awaiting moderation. February 12th, 2009 12.05 pm
#60) Richard Woo says:
In fact debates have already started and will no doubt continue. If or when a final decision is reached at government level, that, plausibly, would be the conclusive outcome. No matter where we look, moral disagreement is a pervasive fact of life, but it does not mean there is no question of what is right or wrong. What is enshrined in law needs to be followed, as simple as that; any commitment of a breach has its own consequence[s]. For voluntary euthanasia, there would be no deal without a specific request from the patient; ultimately, the decision rests with the patient.
There is no denying that whatever the final outcome may be, in the discourse of legalizing euthanasia that, ultimately goes into the adoption of a decision by the government, every citizen of whatever religious or non-religious inclinations will have to abide by such a decision. There is nothing to argue about over this.
What we are attempting to do here is to contribute to the discourse before such a decision is undertaken. Theist and Atheist will both have their reasons for the beliefs they subscribe to and it is a fact that both divides have their fair share of strong and valid points to either support or oppose euthanasia.
I think both camps are in agreement that the final decision to either end or sustain a life undergoing its final stage of being, belongs solely to the dying individual. It is how the dying patient derives at the decision that opinions differ.
For the atheist (generally speaking because they represent the group with no religious inclinations); is the dying individual in a proper state of mind to make the right decision for himself? Under what reasons is he making the decision to end his life? Is it the pain? Is it the cost of staying alive? Is it the consideration of the pain his family and close friends are continually having to go through for an indefinite time? Is it plainly the feeling of hopelessness?
For the theist (generally the faithful of the faith they belong to), under what conditions does he decide that death is the option?
For one who is stronger in his faith and belief, I would prefer to think that they would rather embrace the sufferings and see it as a transition from the temporal into the eternal. Suffering is temporal, joy is everlasting.
So you see, for the non-believers, there is no qualm in deciding for death to escape the suffering condition. For the believers, it is the embracing of pain for the eternal, which is life.
Euthanasia, the debate between supporters and oppositions will rage on because the former speaks of the choice to die while the latter speaks of the choice to live.
So Richard, you are correct when you say that if or when a final decision is reached at government level, that, plausibly, would be the conclusive outcome; but then the government must accept that almost all religious institutions will continue to oppose it even if they accept it when legislation is introduced.
The contradiction here will always be, in your own words; that the decision to choose to die, ultimately, rests with the patient.
My personal stand is that AMD is as far as the government should go. Euthanasia must not be an option when a patient is in a state or condition where other factors determine his decision to choose to die.
Dear People,
Why should we even consider financial reasons for the AMD when our Government is prepared to LOSE much more than $ 58 billion in bad investments (see Temasek Holdings and GIC) – and yet, is NOT willing to spend a few billion supporting health care initiatives for the aged and so on ?
What kind of values is this ?
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Dear Dr Syed Alwi,
Your #76 I am not singling out any one particular group and here we are going away from the subject at hand.
All minorities, all over the world, in every society feel at a disadvantage. For societies to function a consensus has to be hammered out based on the views of most numbers in the group and this has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity. This is true, even in ordinary social clubs where minorities get routinely voted down at general meetings.
I would urge you not to develop feelings of persecution or blow what is at the moment purely an intellectual discussion out of proportion.
With regard to your #66 I disagree that societies do not change. Muslims in Singapore are permitted to go for abortions, are they not? And Singapore Muslims are participating in and benefiting from HOTA. You yourself have stated that you are not in favour of Syariah laws being implemented in Singapore (#73). This is change. The pace of change might be slow, glacially slow even, but change it is.
What is important is that each of us examine every issue critically and then reach a decision with which we can live. We must be true to our own consciences.
At this point I would like to echo Richard and consider my input on this subject as ended.
[PS For the record, both ethnically and in terms of religion I belong to a minority group. I do not consider either factor important with regard to my views on this matter]
Dear Peter Sellers,
No – there has been NO change to standard Islamic teachings. Singapore law might permit abortion – but NOT standard Muslim Law. It is HARAM. Neither MUIS nor any Muslim scholar nor the Muslim MP’s – can declare abortion to be Halal. Because that would invite the wrath of the Muslim world. Muslims all over the world will condemn such people if they say that abortion is halal !! It is NOT Halal and will remain so despite the fact that the Singapore authorities allows it. Muslims are NOT advised to go for abortions. None of the Muslim self-help groups give such advice. None.
As for being minority – well – Singaporean Chinese are a minority in this big green sea of Muslim dominated countries. Shouldn’t they then work hard to fit into a Muslim dominated region and society ?
No – I reject your ideas regarding minorities. We have Article 152 of the Consitution to protect Malay-Muslim interests. The minorities must be protected from the tyranny of the majority.
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Death is a gift. I’ve read the pros & cons of euthanasia. Being an only child sandwiched between my often-sick old mom and my young daughter, I don’t want to become a burden to my own child, who is also an only child. Not by choice but because of my present circumstances that’s why she is also my only daughter. No, I don’t live in China. I actually don’t agree to the one-child policy as it puts a very heavy burden on the child who will support parents, in-laws, grandparents, etc. That is too much! But that is another topic. Euthanasia is something at this early I would certainly opt for while I still am in the right frame of mind. I’ve first-hand, actual experience of having to care for my mom who is approaching 80, and I dread the thought that she might live longer, perhaps even for another 10 yrs. I’ve been caregiving for her for 18 years already and I will tell you I am not civil in my attitude towards her. All these years, it has taken away much of the politeness, civility and anger-management that I have known. With just one more medical emergency, she will surely bring me down to my knees into a lifetime of bankruptcy! Therefore, when it is my turn to be like her, and when it seems I become too much a burden for others, even though I might not be in a vegetative state, I will surely opt for this method. Death is a gift. And it releases not just me, but my daughter too and maybe her future family as well. Many minds will be opting for this method as the world continues to grow old & gray. After all, I know many old people wanting to be released from their sad, sorry situation and aged, frail and sickly bodies. If only this method was made available for them irregardless of their faith, location, financial capacity, etc.
Hi Mhmarfil,
You did not tell us how and what method to use to terminate your life.Is it
by lethal injection by government approved doctors or you want to end your life by
refusing life-supporting medical help or by jumping from a 10th flr building.That
Right to Die meaning is very vague.
hi prestoon loon… no none of those methods as my government doesn’t approve such idea. I think I would opt to do it myself once I reach a stage that maybe life is almost “meaningless or useless.” By that I mean I become too old to have any relevance or importance to anyone, I become a burden already. I go to Exit International website for such information. I’ve viewed their website and some elderly ladies testimonies who opts to call it quits once they reach 80. No they’re not sick or anything… they just want to have it that way at that age when they want to “rest”.