Saturday, July 7, 2007
Blogging task
Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.Democracy is a state of society charactersied by formal equality of rights and previlages. Most countries in the world now adopt the democratic system as many history events have proven communism a failure. To practice democracy, the most fundamental concept is to allow citizens to have the freedom of speech. However, this can be such a contradiction. For example, David Irving was in denial of the Holocaust, and was imprisoned for expressing his thoughts and opinions. To practice freedom of speech is to allow people to express themselves without any censorship, and this is the policy that democratic countries adopt. But yet, Austria, which is a democratic country, convicted David Irving for denying the Holocaust. This is indeed ironic. As the world has begin to place great emphasis on human rights, it is tough for us to decide whether to place more focus on social responsibility or that we should be allowed to exercise our freedom of speech fully. However, in the context of Singapore’s multi racial society, I feel that Szilagyi’s belief of placing the focus on social responsibility should be adopted.
Freedom of speech can be vital to the government in hearing the voices of the citizens and know what exactly does the people wants. As quoted from the article “Free Speech, Muhammad, and the Holocaust”, “Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.” If citizens were not allowed to voice out their grievances or to comment on a certain issues, they will not have a sense of belonging to the country as all matters are to be decided by the government. Also, the government will not be able to make improvements to the life of the people as they are unable to hear the call of the citizens. Moreover, there are always two sides to a story. If everyone was to have the freedom to express their views, they will then be exposed to many view points made by others, allowing them to have analysed the issue better.
On the contrary, freedom of speech may be the cause of political instability and unrest in a country. In a cosmopolitan society, it is crucial to ensure that people of different races and religions are able to live in harmony as media messages or any forms of art can easily trigger a racial riot. Even though Singapore is a democratic country, but I strongly believe that freedom of speech should not be executed in the issue on races/religions. Singapore is a small country and she would be vulnerable to attacks if citizens do not stand together as one. Singapore’s government has taken a great deal of effort in ensuring that there is peace and order in Singapore. 21st July is the day to commemorate racial harmony and integration in Singapore, this is the day whereby schools and Residents’ committees will organize events to give Singaporeans a chance to get to mingle with other races and get know one another’s culture better. It is only with understanding and interaction; we will then be able to have mutual respect for all. Races and religion is still an extremely sensitive issue to touch on as without prior knowledge of the other cultures, misunderstanding may arise and this will most likely to cause a riot to take place.
Szilagyi has mentioned that in our networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Media plays a very crucial role in educating the public as we access most of the global information or knowledge from here. Hence, media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group, they should have the social responsibility “in leading an informed, high-quality discussion, with due respect for minority rights.” It was also mentioned in Szilagyi’s article that “once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations.” For example, the publication of cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad has proved rage in the Muslim world. People may send out messages without having any intention to criticize any races, but some may interpret the message and see it as sarcasm towards their race/religion.
It is indeed very difficult to strike a balance between freedom of speech and social responsibility. If Singapore was to take the view of Singer, racial riot is bound to happen. However, if Singapore was to take the view of Szilagyi, it will obstruct Singapore’s development. Thus, I believe that freedom of speech should be allowed but with close supervising from the government. Government should take up the responsibility in playing the parental role and carry out censorship to materials that may sow discord between two races/religions. As individuals, we have the rights to speak our mind but we should always be ready to bear any consequence that may arise from our words.
p.s. mdm loh,sorry for the late work.xp
the world will turn WILD.
6:38 AM
|
PRO-CHOICE
Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro-choice movement.
Pro-choice activists believe that women should have access to safe and legal abortion and, equally, that women should be protected from forced abortions. Some see abortion as a last resort, and focus on a number of situations where they feel abortion is a necessary option. Among these situations are those where the woman was raped, her health or life (or that of the fetus) is at risk, contraception was used but failed, or she feels unable to raise a child. Some pro-choice moderates, who would otherwise be willing to accept certain restrictions on abortion, feel that political pragmatism compels them to oppose any such restrictions, as they could be used to form a slippery slope against all abortions.
Pro-choice activists frequently oppose legislative measures that would require abortion providers to make certain statements (some of which are factually disputed) to patients, because they argue that these measures are intended to make obtaining abortions more difficult. These measures fall under the rubric of abortion-specific "informed consent" or "right to know" laws.
On the issue of abortion, pro-choice campaigners are opposed by pro-life campaigners who argue that the central issue is a completely different set of rights. The pro-life view considers human fetuses and embryos to have the full legal rights of a human being; thus, the right to life of a developing fetus or embryo trumps the woman's right to bodily autonomy.
Pro-life
Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued from fertilisation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, associated with Christian morality(especially in the United States), and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism.From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a human being. Any purposeful destruction is considered ethically and morally wrong. Such an act is not considered to be mitigated by any benefits to others through scientific advancement or, in the case of abortion, by ending the hardship of a woman with an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy, as such benefits come at the expense of the life of what they consider a person. In some cases, this belief extends to opposing abortion of fetuses that would almost certainly be unviable, such as anecephalitic fetuses. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are also opposed by some pro-life people based on a belief that life is sacred and must be protected even against the wishes of people who want to end their own lives.
Pro-lifers are frequently (but not always) in opposition to certain forms of birth control particularly hormonal contraception such as ECP's, which may cause the death of an embryo before implantation. Because pro-life advocates largely believe that life begins at conception, they often regard these forms of birth control as abortifacients. The Catholic Church recognizes this view, but the possibility that hormonal conception has post-fertilization effects is currently disputed within the scientific community.
On the issue of abortion, pro-life campaigners are opposed by pro-choice campaigners who argue that the central issue is a completely different set of rights. The pro-choice view does not consider a fetus to have the full legal rights of a human being, so the issue is instead considered to be the human rights of the pregnant woman to control the fertility of her own body by choosing whether to become pregnant or to carry a pregnancy to term.
The movement in the United States largely began after Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision that held abortion to be a constituional right.
Attachment to a pro-life position is very often but not exclusively connected to religious beliefs about the sanctity of life. Exclusively secular-humanist positions against abortion tend to be a minority viewpoint among pro-life advocates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Choice#Pro-choice_vs_Pro-life
the world will turn WILD.
12:39 AM
|
EUTHANAISA RESEARCH-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia
Euthanasia by means
There is passive, non-aggressive, and aggressive. Passive euthanasia is withholding common treatments (such as antibiotics, drugs, or surgery) or giving a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death (principle of double effect). Passive euthanasia is currently the most accepted form as it is currently common practice in most hospitals. Non-aggressive Euthanasia is the practice of withdrawing life support and is more controversial. Aggressive Euthanasia is using lethal substances or force to kill and is the most controversial means.
Euthanasia by consent
There is involuntary, non-voluntary, and voluntary. Involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia against someone’s will and equates to murder. This kind of euthanasia is almost always considered wrong by both sides and is rarely debated. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when the person is not competent to or unable to make a decision and it is thus left to a proxy like in the Terri Schiavo case. This is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient. Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia with the person’s direct consent, but is still controversial as can be seen by the arguments section below.
Other designations
There are also the designations of mercy killing, animal euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide which is a term for aggressive voluntary euthanasia.
Reasons given for Voluntary Euthanasia:
Choice: Proponents of VE emphasize that choice is a fundamental principle for liberal democracies and free market systems.
Quality of Life: The pain and suffering a person feels during a disease can be incomprehensible, even with pain relievers, to a person who has not gone through it. Even without considering the physical pain, it is often difficult for patients to overcome the emotional pain of losing their independence.
Economic costs and human resources: Today in many countries there is a shortage of hospital space. The energy of doctors and hospital beds could be used for people whose lives could be saved instead of continuing the life of those who want to die which increases the general quality of care and shortens hospital waiting lists.
Moral: Some people consider euthanasia to be just another choice a person makes, and for moral reasons against it to be undue influence by others.
Pressure: All the arguments against voluntary euthanasia can be used by society to form a terrible and continuing psychological pressure on people to continue living for years against their better judgement. One example of this pressure is the risky and painful methods that those who genuinely wish to die would otherwise need to use, such as hanging.
Sociobiology: Currently many if not most euthanasia proponents and laws tend to favor the dying or very unhealthy for access to euthanasia. However some highly controversial proponents claim that access should be even more widely available. For example, from a sociobiological viewpoint, genetic relatives may seek to keep an individual alive (Kin Selection), even against the individual's will. This would be especially so for individuals who are not actually dying anyway. More liberal voluntary euthanasia policies would empower the individual to counteract any such biased interest on the part of relatives.
Reasons given against Voluntary Euthanasia:
Professional role: Critics argue that VE could unduly compromise the professional roles of health care employees, especially doctors. They point out that every doctor must swear upon some variation of the Hippocratic Oath, which they interpret as explicitly excluding euthanasia.
Moral: Some people consider euthanasia of some or all types to be morally unacceptable. This view usually treats euthanasia to be a type of murder and voluntary euthanasia as a type of suicide, the morality of which is the subject of active debate.
Theological: Voluntary euthanasia often has been rejected as a violation of the sanctity of human life. Specifically, some Christians and Jews argue that human life ultimately belongs to God, so that humans ought not make the choice to end life. Accordingly, some theologians and other religious thinkers consider VE (and suicide generally) as sinful acts, i.e. unjustified killings.
Feasibility of implementation: Euthanasia can only be considered "voluntary" if a patient is mentally competent to make the decision, i.e., has a rational understanding of options and consequences. Competence can be difficult to determine or even define.
Necessity: If there is some reason to believe the cause of a patient's illness or suffering is or will soon be curable, the correct action is sometimes considered to be attempting to bring about a cure or engage in palliative care.
Wishes of Family: Family members often desire to spend as much time with their loved ones as possible before they die.
Consent under pressure: Given the economic grounds for voluntary euthanasia (VE), critics of VE are concerned that patients may experience psychological pressure to consent to voluntary euthanasia rather than be a financial burden on their families. Even where health costs are mostly covered by public monies, as in various European counties, VE critics are concerned that hospital personnel would have an economic incentive to advise or pressure people toward euthanasia consent.While VE proponents concede that personal and even socialized economic costs may add to the motivations for consent, they point out that health systems offer sufficient exceptions so as to relieve the pressure on hospital personnel.
Case Study 1-Karen Ann Quinlan
Karen Ann Quinlan (March 29, 1954 – June 11, 1985) was an important figure in the history of the right to die debate in United States. When she was 21, Quinlan fell unconscious after coming home from a party, and lapsed into a persistent vegetative state. After she was kept alive on a ventilator for several months without improvement, her parents requested the hospital to discontinue active care and allow her to die. The hospital refused, and the subsequent legal battles hit headlines and set significant precedents. Not only was the case groundbreaking legally, it was remarkable for its rare appeal to religious principles. Because she and her family were Catholics, several principles of Catholic moral theology were critical in deciding the case and thus influencing a development in American law, an influence replicated around the world. The case is credited also with the development of the modern field of bioethics. Although Quinlan was removed from active life support in 1976, she lived on in a coma for almost a decade until her death from pneumonia in 1985.
Quinlan's case continues to raise important questions in moral theology, bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship and civil rights; her case has affected the practice of medicine and law around the world. Three significant outcomes of her case were the development of formal ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices, and the development of advance health directives.
Case Study 2:Terri Schiavo
Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005), from St. Petersburg, Florida, United States was a woman who suffered brain damage and became dependent on a feeding tube. She collapsed in her home on February 25, 1990, and experienced respiratory and cardiac arrest, leading to 15 years of institutionalization and a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state (PVS). In 1998, Michael Schiavo, her husband and guardian, petitioned the Pinellas County Circuit Court to remove her feeding tube. Robert and Mary Schindler, her parents, opposed this, arguing she was conscious. The court determined that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The battle stretched on for seven years and included involvement by politicians and advocacy groups. Before the court's decision was carried out, on March 18, 2005, the Florida Legislature and United States Congress had passed laws, signed by the Governor of Florida and President of the United States, respectively, that were designed to prevent removal of Schiavo's feeding tube. These laws were overturned by the supreme courts of Florida and the United States. These events resulted in extensive national and international media coverage.
By March 2005, the legal history around the Schiavo case included fourteen appeals and numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in Federal District Court; Florida legislation struck down by the Supreme Court of Florida; a subpoena by a congressional committee to qualify Schiavo for witness protection; federal legislation (Palm Sunday Compromise); and four denials of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
She died at a Pinellas Park hospice on March 31, 2005, at the age of 41.
the world will turn WILD.
12:32 AM
|
