Pro-euthanasia activist in S'pore to aid euthanasia agenda
-
Pro-euthanasia activist in S'pore to aid Govt's euthanasia agenda http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1831&Itemid=195 The Right to Die in Singapore Written by Ben Bland Monday, 20 April 2009 Singapore may have not a reputation for opening its doors to outspoken activists but in an intriguing move, next month it will host a seminar by one of the world’s most controversial speakers, Philip Nitschke, the Australian campaigner for voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide known, like Dr Jack Kevorkian in the United States, as "Dr Death". What makes the visit of the renowned pro-euthanasia campaigner even more surprising is the legal status of suicide in Singapore, where attempting to take your own life remains a criminal offence. Those who have slashed their wrists or taken an overdose but failed to kill themselves are routinely handcuffed to their beds when they are brought into hospital by the police. Assisting a suicide is considered an even more serious crime, with a mandatory jail term for anyone found guilty of such an offence. Nitschke has played a key role in driving the global debate about voluntary euthanasia and in 1996 he became the first ever doctor to administer a fully-legal, voluntary lethal injection under the right-to-die law in Australia’s Northern Territories. His campaign group, Exit International, regularly holds seminars around the world in which it discusses voluntary euthanasia and tells over 50s and the seriously ill how they can end their lives in a reliable, painless and cost-effective manner. However, his vigorous advocacy for euthanasia has earned him many critics, who oppose assisted suicide on moral, religious or social grounds. With an irony not lost on Nitschke himself, he will be welcomed in Singapore, a state that places strict limits on public discourse, just weeks after he was turned away by the Oxford Union, the famous university debating society that likes to think of itself as the "last bastion of free speech in the Western world". "We get repeated requests for information from Singapore so we think it would be reasonable to see what the interest really is," Nitschke told Asia Sentinel from his base in Darwin. "We’re unclear about the reaction but we’ll see how things go." The Singaporean government argues that it is necessary to place restrictions on freedom of speech when it comes to sensitive political and religious issues in order to prevent outbreaks of social disorder. The fact that the government is willing to allow in someone such as Nitschke, whose views have prompted furious opposition from religious groups in the past, is indicative of its desire to push forward the debate about end of life issues in a nation that has one of the world’s most rapidly-ageing populations. By 2030, one in five Singaporeans will be over 65, up from 1 in 12 today, according to the Ministry of Community, Development, Youth and Sports’ latest report on the ageing population. This graying of Singapore, which is being driven by a low birth rate and ever-increasing life expectancy, will put even greater pressure on the island’s already-stretched healthcare and social services. Singapore has also been flirting with ways to increase the number of organ donors for those with failing kidneys or other organs. As Asia Sentinel reported in January, the government has decided to legalize the payment of compensation to organ donors, who can be reimbursed for their medical expenses and loss of earnings. Although the figure has yet to be finalized, the sum could be at least S$50,000 (US$33,179.69 after Singapore’s most recent devaluation). In a widely reported speech last year, health minister Khaw Boon Wan called for an open public discussion about the end of life issues including palliative care and the right to a "good death". While not openly endorsing euthanasia, he said that he had been moved by accounts of terminally ill people who wanted the right to end their lives. "I do not know if Singaporeans are ready for euthanasia," he explained. "But I do know that aging will throw up many more human stories of agony and suffering. All societies will have to prepare for longer life spans and the many dilemmas that they will have to confront. We must seek a humane way out of such dilemmas." In light of these comments, it becomes easier to understand why Singapore is welcoming Nitschke with such open arms. His seminar, which will take place on May 13, is being hosted by the National Arts Council, in the ultra-modern National Library building. Nitschke says that while there is a chance that the event will fall apart because he still needs to obtain a public entertainment license, he is hopeful that there will be no hitches. He is mindful of the legal climate surrounding suicide in Singapore and concedes that he will be modifying his usual program as a result. "We'll be taking a great deal of notice of the legal situation and we won't be presenting the same sort of material as we do in the UK, for example," he says. "We’ll mostly be talking about the advantages and disadvantages of moving toward legislation for providing legal assistance to die." Nitschke says he will not be running his workshop on how to commit suicide painlessly, although he will happily direct Singaporeans to such information, which is widely available on the Exit International website and elsewhere on the internet, if they ask. "I would imagine that there'll be private discussions with people who want to know how to end their lives and I’d point them in the right direction without necessarily sitting down and saying this is what you do," he explains. The main aim of his trip is to generate support for the establishment of a branch of Exit International in Singapore. "We’d like to see a branch of our organization set up in Singapore and I’ll be interested in talking to people who want to help us do that," he says. Although the right-to-die law in the Northern Territories was overturned after just a few months, a number of other jurisdictions - including Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the US states of Oregon and Washington - have since enacted similar legislation. Nitschke is hopeful that he can persuade more governments to bring in right-to-die laws, which he believes are much needed. "There’s an awful lot of tragedy going on around us," he adds. "I see people every day caught up in medical nightmares who are desperate for help. But people are fearful to provide that help because of the legal climate we all find ourselves operating in." He thinks it is an "inevitability" that right-to-die laws will eventually become commonplace around the world and that it is a question of "when not if". Judging by the government’s unusually open-minded approach, perhaps Singapore will be next. With one of the most rapidly-ageing populations in the world and a severe shortage of transplantable organs, the Singapore government has been looking at ways to increase the number of organ donors and believes that legalizing the payment of compensation will help. The move is intended to allow altruistic donors to be reimbursed for their medical expenses and loss of earnings and is not meant to operate as an inducement. Although the upper limit for compensation is still to be finalized, a survey by the Ministry of Health found that three-quarters of Singaporeans believe an appropriate sum would be at least S$50,000. Critics point out that while this sort of figure may be viewed as just compensation by a Singaporean professional who has to take months off work, the same amount would be an inducement to many less well-off people both within Singapore and from neighboring countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia. And, crucially, the government has insisted that it will not be bringing in a ban on foreign donors receiving compensation, which would be paid by the receiver or charities such as the National Kidney Foundation, as to do so would be discriminatory. ----------------------------------- Latest updates at Singapore News Alternative: 1. The Right to Die in Singapore 2. Singapore embraces barter in recession 3. Singapore Doctor Still Considering Indian Twins' Operation 4. Singapore minister warns against twins' surgery 5. Singapore Regulator Aims For Junket Control 6. Singapore Police Force on Facebook 7. Moody's cuts ratings outlook on Singapore banks 8. Name of new mall in Northeast Singapore unveiled 9. adidas launches running club in Singapore 10. Singapore Botanic Gardens develops orchid seed bank 11. AXA opens Singapore university 12. Defence Ministry issues tender for media agency 13. Things that go bump in the night at Singapore varsity 14. Political Realignment In Southeast Asia 15. MAS MD Says ’Wrong’ to Expect Bigger Currency Drop Latest video added: 1. Interview with Geylang Serai stallholder .
-
what makes this voluntary euthanasia any different from suicide.
In case it is murder because while suicide is committed by yourself, Voluntary euthanasia is physician-assisted suicide.
-
Originally posted by Worldlybusinessman:
what makes this voluntary euthanasia any different from suicide.
In case it is murder because while suicide is committed by yourself, Voluntary euthanasia is physician-assisted suicide.
Less of a mess to clean up afterwards?
-
Singapore bans European MPs from debating ministers’ pay
The police told the Singapore Democratic Party it could not hold a public forum on Friday to discuss the increases, and the immigration authority rejected applications for professional visit passes for the seven foreigners the SDP invited to speak.
“Singapore’s politics are reserved for Singaporeans. As visitors to our country, foreigners should not abuse their privilege by interfering in our domestic politics,” the Ministry of Home Affairs said in a statement late on Thursday.
“Foreigners who abuse the privileges that Singapore accords to guests and visitors, and meddle in Singapore’s domestic politics, are not welcome here,” the ministry added.
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news/archives/
Why ang moh come here talk about killing off people PAP regime allow but ang moh come here talk about democracy, human rights they ban?
What sort of sick government that we have?
-
i suggest we put people like LKY and CSJ to death to put us out of our misery
-
The main aim of his trip is to generate support for the establishment of a branch of Exit International in Singapore. “We’d like to see a branch of our organization set up in Singapore and I’ll be interested in talking to people who want to help us do that,” he says.
“Singapore’s politics are reserved for Singaporeans. As visitors to our country, foreigners should not abuse their privilege by interfering in our domestic politics,”
Seems like it was all just a big bullshit charade after all by PAP regime.
All total rubbish.
-
didn't you ever read Brave New World?
pass the soma man...
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
Singapore bans European MPs from debating ministers’ pay
The police told the Singapore Democratic Party it could not hold a public forum on Friday to discuss the increases, and the immigration authority rejected applications for professional visit passes for the seven foreigners the SDP invited to speak.
“Singapore’s politics are reserved for Singaporeans. As visitors to our country, foreigners should not abuse their privilege by interfering in our domestic politics,” the Ministry of Home Affairs said in a statement late on Thursday.
“Foreigners who abuse the privileges that Singapore accords to guests and visitors, and meddle in Singapore’s domestic politics, are not welcome here,” the ministry added.
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news/archives/
Why ang moh come here talk about killing off people PAP regime allow but ang moh come here talk about democracy, human rights they ban?
What sort of sick government that we have?
what have ministers' pay and euthanasia in common?? stick to the topic lah Ah Chia. Nowadays, euthanasia is a hot topic in Singapore. Wrote a paper on it for one of my modules.
-
i still think we should euthanise people like ah chia and andyboy along with LKY and CSJ to put us out of our misery
anyway, in all seriousness, if you're not for it, just say no...
simple as that...
if other people who KPKB want to go and die, let them go and die... as long as it's not active "euthanasia" which is just outright murder..
-
What about Lee Kuan Yew's wife? Should we euthanise her?
Nowadays, euthanasia is a hot topic in Singapore.
Why suddenly hot topic? PAP starting their propaganda campaign already?
-
Beyond the debate about human dignity, there are several issues that need to be clarified should euthanasia be legalised:
If euthanasia attempts fail at the first try, who would be made culpable? Will the relatives have legal recourse?
What's there to stop us from going down a slippery slope, when Terri Schiavo-esque cases appear, and eventually pave the way that allows some higher authority to decide on a patient's life?
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
What about Lee Kuan Yew's wife? Should we euthanise her?
Nowadays, euthanasia is a hot topic in Singapore.
Why suddenly hot topic? PAP starting their propaganda campaign already?
sure... you first
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
Beyond the debate about human dignity, there are several issues that need to be clarified should euthanasia be legalised:
If euthanasia attempts fail at the first try, who would be made culpable? Will the relatives have legal recourse?
What's there to stop us from going down a slippery slope, when Terri Schiavo-esque cases appear, and eventually pave the way that allows some higher authority to decide on a patient's life?
you can fail in euthanasia? I doubt that will be a concern.
The Terri case brought the topic to the world... but some people may not have noticed that...
Me think brain dead means dead, for Terri-like cases...
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
What about Lee Kuan Yew's wife? Should we euthanise her?
Nowadays, euthanasia is a hot topic in Singapore.
Why suddenly hot topic? PAP starting their propaganda campaign already?
Are you insane?
Euthanasia is a hot topic globally and it has nothing to do with the PAP lah. Um, much less ministers' pay (Overpaid as they are, that issue has been done to death; wrong thread in any case)Anyway, this is a case that rocked France and Europe: Chantal Sebire. Denied euthanasia, she took a lethal dose of chemicals used to put down animals in distress.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-03-19-cancer-euthanasia_N.htm
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
you can fail in euthanasia? I doubt that will be a concern.
The Terri case brought the topic to the world... but some people may not have noticed that...
Me think brain dead means dead, for Terri-like cases...
Yah I was pretty surprised myself to find out that euthanasia can fail.
Many opponents of euthanasia argue that brain-dead people *can* be revived. They quote one super over-used case...I forgot who liao.
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
Beyond the debate about human dignity, there are several issues that need to be clarified should euthanasia be legalised:
If euthanasia attempts fail at the first try, who would be made culpable? Will the relatives have legal recourse?
What's there to stop us from going down a slippery slope, when Terri Schiavo-esque cases appear, and eventually pave the way that allows some higher authority to decide on a patient's life?
Frankly, i think if we do the maths the number of people suffering from the pain of illness too unbearable without painkillers or dehabilating diseases is probably going to far outnumber the horror cases.I'm not trying to be flippant or ignore the fact that there are abuses out there, but it's just going to be a mathematical certainty as you grow older you're going to get hit by a chronic disease, suffering from pain and discomforts where everyday is just struggling to take the next breath, not living in any sense of the word.
I certainly would like the option open for myself of course. Euthanasia should really be only allowed with permission by the person suffering. There's already a procedure for coma patients, i think the Euthanasia the government is trying to push for is a different thing.
-
in singapore it's against the law to end your own life. You think it will be allowed?
-
Originally posted by hisoka:
in singapore it's against the law to end your own life. You think it will be allowed?
Hard to say, certainly when your only options are jumping onto the MRT tracks or splat at the HDB void deck there should be a law to prevent it, to avoid giving bystanders emotional distress.But considering they're already mention this several times before seems to indicate they want to put some exceptions in.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Hard to say, certainly when your only options are jumping onto the MRT tracks or splat at the HDB void deck there should be a law to prevent it, to avoid giving bystanders emotional distress.But considering they're already mention this several times before seems to indicate they want to put some exceptions in.
actually it's also illegal even if you kill yourself by some other way where bystanders don't get emotional distress.
-
Originally posted by hisoka:
actually it's also illegal even if you kill yourself by some other way where bystanders don't get emotional distress.
That is if you failed right? -
Originally posted by hisoka:
actually it's also illegal even if you kill yourself by some other way where bystanders don't get emotional distress.
Illegal is a moot point. If some guy is going to kill themself, how would it being illegal deter them? Even for failed attempts, the police don't really charge them. Most is let off with a warning after making sure that they are stable.
For the ethunasia part, the guys coming here is going to talk about it. than if it goes well, there will be law changes to accomodate and define the use of ethunasia. If it doesn't go well, than no change.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Frankly, i think if we do the maths the number of people suffering from the pain of illness too unbearable without painkillers or dehabilating diseases is probably going to far outnumber the horror cases.I'm not trying to be flippant or ignore the fact that there are abuses out there, but it's just going to be a mathematical certainty as you grow older you're going to get hit by a chronic disease, suffering from pain and discomforts where everyday is just struggling to take the next breath, not living in any sense of the word.
I certainly would like the option open for myself of course. Euthanasia should really be only allowed with permission by the person suffering. There's already a procedure for coma patients, i think the Euthanasia the government is trying to push for is a different thing.
Stevenson, you and I can be friends for i admire your efforts to question sensibly issues and give your perspectives in as logical manner as you believe possible. Again, I must disagree with your perspectives, and perspectives alone only, nothing to do with you as a person or seeking for antagonism. I humbly apologise forthwith if you feel offended.
The govt's effort to promote euthanasia is a watered down version known as Advance Medical Directive, whereby you authorise doctors to terminate your life while still lucid of mind in the event one is involved in a calamity beyond medical hope.
Such directives, although watered down versions of euthanasia, are a moral dilemma to any doctor who swore to the Hippocratic oaths and held in honour since Greek civilisation, the first people to question our existance as a race, began.
Even then, Hippocrates' medical knowledge was far minimal than what we modern men know today. Yet he never hesitated to save lives or gave up, as many as he and his disciples could.
Today, with our advances in medical knowledge, for a doctor to accept euthanasia or even promote it is a horror and a repudiation of the oath sworn in honour, regressing civilisation back to the jungles and caves, not even fit to lick the toes of Hippocrates.
But I signed volunteerily for AMD as well as giving away my organs freely. Not because I had lost the will to fight in order to live, but only because of the COSTS involved. I have no wish to burden my loved ones or society.
Thus death was a choice because of MONETARY PRAGMATISM, which was why many are actually opting for euthanesia, not that they were cowards and had not the courage to live life.
The issue therefore is why should medical costs be allowed to range far beyond the costs of a common person? Why are doctors as well as the medical industrial complex stuffed with money, more money than they can ever spend in several lifetimes be allowed, at the expense of a comman man's life?
Why should a pill that cost only 0.03cts to produce is sold at $1? Why should aircon be used in a hospital when a fan would suffice? Why should a bed be hydralically activated when pillows would be good enough to prop a patient up?
Why should a researcher be paid thousands of dollars, when such money comes from the sick or the dead? Isn't such profiting unconscienable? During WWII, we hang black marketeers - people who profit from the suffering of civilians and POWs, but why are we now condoning such practices?
Somehow, somewhere, mankind and the health industry had lost its noble meaning as well as humanity. Doctors were meant to save lives, but now resorting to murdering lives. Is this Utilitarianism?
Get rid of the old and weak, an easier option than to find ways to save them, as many thousands of doctors had done with their persistance, making scientific discoveries saving lives thru the ages?
Utilitarianism will only lead to one man alone living in our planet with no future. Egalitarianism is the only way we can progress together as a human race into the future. No one must be left behind in our journey into our common future.
Euthanasia, in whatever form, is only Utilitarianism cloaked.
Many of our sick and aged had fought with courage over their illness, and by their bravery, had been a source of pride and role model for us to face realities and challenges.
With euthanesia, anyone who have a slight pain will only use it as an excuse to seek death, and death is always a loss to humanity.
Each human, from a roadsweeper to a PM, has his/her gift for contribution to mankind and is precious in his/her lifetime for the impact he/she would make to others.
If euthanesia is what society wants, than there is no hope for humanity and is doomed. It seems we as a race are hell bent on self destruction.
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
i still think we should euthanise people like ah chia and andyboy along with LKY and CSJ to put us out of our misery
anyway, in all seriousness, if you're not for it, just say no...
simple as that...
if other people who KPKB want to go and die, let them go and die... as long as it's not active "euthanasia" which is just outright murder..
Dunnoe why but the Bear always voice my concerns accurately. -
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Stevenson, you and I can be friends for i admire your efforts to question sensibly issues and give your perspectives in as logical manner as you believe possible. Again, I must disagree with your perspectives, and perspectives alone only, nothing to do with you as a person or seeking for antagonism. I humbly apologise forthwith if you feel offended.
The govt's effort to promote euthanasia is a watered down version known as Advance Medical Directive, whereby you authorise doctors to terminate your life while still lucid of mind in the event one is involved in a calamity beyond medical hope.
Such directives, although watered down versions of euthanasia, are a moral dilemma to any doctor who swore to the Hippocratic oaths and held in honour since Greek civilisation, the first people to question our existance as a race, began.
Even then, Hippocrates' medical knowledge was far minimal than what we modern men know today. Yet he never hesitated to save lives or gave up, as many as he and his disciples could.
Today, with our advances in medical knowledge, for a doctor to accept euthanasia or even promote it is a horror and a repudiation of the oath sworn in honour, regressing civilisation back to the jungles and caves, not even fit to lick the toes of Hippocrates.
But I signed volunteerily for AMD as well as giving away my organs freely. Not because I had lost the will to fight in order to live, but only because of the COSTS involved. I have no wish to burden my loved ones or society.
Thus death was a choice because of MONETARY PRAGMATISM, which was why many are actually opting for euthanesia, not that they were cowards and had not the courage to live life.
The issue therefore is why should medical costs be allowed to range far beyond the costs of a common person? Why are doctors as well as the medical industrial complex stuffed with money, more money than they can ever spend in several lifetimes be allowed, at the expense of a comman man's life?
Why should a pill that cost only 0.03cts to produce is sold at $1? Why should aircon be used in a hospital when a fan would suffice? Why should a bed be hydralically activated when pillows would be good enough to prop a patient up?
Why should a researcher be paid thousands of dollars, when such money comes from the sick or the dead? Isn't such profiting unconscienable? During WWII, we hang black marketeers - people who profit from the suffering of civilians and POWs, but why are we now condoning such practices?
Somehow, somewhere, mankind and the health industry had lost its noble meaning as well as humanity. Doctors were meant to save lives, but now resorting to murdering lives. Is this Utilitarianism?
Get rid of the old and weak, an easier option than to find ways to save them, as many thousands of doctors had done with their persistance, making scientific discoveries saving lives thru the ages?
Utilitarianism will only lead to one man alone living in our planet with no future. Egalitarianism is the only way we can progress together as a human race into the future. No one must be left behind in our journey into our common future.
Euthanasia, in whatever form, is only Utilitarianism cloaked.
Many of our sick and aged had fought with courage over their illness, and by their bravery, had been a source of pride and role model for us to face realities and challenges.
With euthanesia, anyone who have a slight pain will only use it as an excuse to seek death, and death is always a loss to humanity.
Each human, from a roadsweeper to a PM, has his/her gift for contribution to mankind and is precious in his/her lifetime for the impact he/she would make to others.
If euthanesia is what society wants, than there is no hope for humanity and is doomed. It seems we as a race are hell bent on self destruction.
The govt promote ethuasia?
-
