Do you think the doctor is guilty too ?
-
Fatum,
Also.
Who are you blaming for this oversight (if the doctor was ever guilty)?
The transplant ethics committee or the government?
Seems like you have a penchant for passing the guilty verdict based on conjectures on anything and everything. Hang all of them, let god sort them out.
No evidence, yet you claim that the doctor is guilty.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Babe,I asked you so many a times already. I am getting tired repeating myself over and over again.
Do you have evidence to proof that the doctor has knowledge that it was illegal?
Or you suggesting that we hang all criminals based on circumstantial evidence and guesses.
as I have repeated so many times .... if there is evidence ... the doctors would be driving cabs by now .....
you still don't get it do you ? ... or you prefer not to read the more troubling parts for you .... perhaps your skull's rather thick .. so route learning's the way to go for you ...
here you go ... chew on it, slowly ...
the basis of law is the moral and ethical values of a society ... it is designed to preserve and protect these values in a society ... in this case, organ trading is banned to prevent exploitation of the poor, and the underprivileged for their organs (perhaps it's something you, a self-professed wealthy boy, would have trouble understanding ? ) ....
like the scenario I listed out to you ... what if the "donor" was forced to donate under duress ? ... what if he was blackmailed to donate ? ... what if he's selling his organs for a pittance while the doc and the middlemen reaps the big bucks from the buyer ? ... the ethics committee was set up to make sure that this organ trading ban was not flouted ..... and, as we have seen, it has been repeatedly flouted till these recent cases blew everything out into the open ....
so what has the ethics committee been doing ? ... obviously, they have been failing in their jobs, no ? ...
now the doctor next ... I cannot help if you cannot see the stupidity of your mechanic analogy ... so I shall reproduce wholesale what I've written previously ... hopefully, you do better with route learning
your analogy fails, but you still haven't come round to understanding it yet ...
you illegally buys an organ, asks a doc to transplant it for you, that makes the doc breech medical ethics ....
you stupidly buys a stolen car, take it to the mechanic for servicing afterwards, found out about it afterwards, you don't farking blame the mechanic, you blame the person who sold it to you, savvy ? ....
i shall use the same doctor example again ... if you get a doctor to deliver your wife's baby, and then afterwards discover that the baby is not yours, you don't blame the doctor, you blame the man who slept with your wifey behind your back, yah ....
that's what i meant by barking up the wrong tree ....
I feel sad for you if you can't see the difference ... but anyhow ... to paraphrase gasband ... sure, the doc's got a piece of legal black and white declaring that the "donor" and the "buyer" are related, even if one man's a yellow skinned rich singaporean chinese and the other's a brown skinned indonesian peasant with a name like sulaiman .... his ass is covered .....
of course, you're right in that the doctor need not go out of the way to make sure everything is ship shaped .... but look at the description above ... can the doctor plead innocence in such circumstances ? ....
touch your head and tell me, if it's wilfully turning a blind eye to a blatant breech of the law or not ? ...
of course ... legally, the doc's done nothing wrong ....
and you're not wrong, per se, to say that the doc's, and the ethics committee, have done nothing illegal ....
but, here's where i question your values and ethics .... for it appears to me, that the only standard of proof, to you, is that little piece of legal black and white signed by the buyer and seller that they are related, nothing else is required ....
do you not care that some poor, wretched third world peasant may be exploited by the middle men, with the connivance of certain doctors, and the medical ethics committee that's supposed to catch all of this has been failing all this while till these recent cases blew wide open ? ....
so to you, nothing is wrong, nothing needs fixing ... because everything is "alright", "legally" .... aren't you not twisting the words of the law and hiding behind it for your convenience then ? ....
perhaps it's not a troubling thought to you, and it does not offend your personal sense of right and wrong, morals, propriety ... because, like you said before ... you are well off enough not to work for several life times ? ....
I find it amazing that you can think nothing needs to be done, nothing needs to be looked into, and that a legal document would absolve any parties of any connivance against the law ... either you're trying to argue B just because I said A, or your personal set of values need some serious examining ...
you are hiding behind the words of the law because your personal set of morals and ethics have failed ....
I shall say it yet again ... i find it amazing that you think then only burden of proof the doctor and the ethcis committee need is a signed piece of declaration saying that the two parties are related ... and that all this while, the committee has allowed such cases to go through till this case blew open ....
so yet again ... do you not think that anything needs fixing, despite the fact that organ trading has been tacitly going on all these while, and that the ethics committee has failed in it's job ? ....
hiding behind the words of the law doesn't not absolve you of the responsibility of thinking for yourself, and applying ethcs and right and wrong ....
to me, I think you fail at both ...
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Fatum,
Also.
Who are you blaming for this oversight (if the doctor was ever guilty)?
The transplant ethics committee or the government?
Seems like you have a penchant for passing the guilty verdict based on conjectures on anything and everything. Hang all of them, let god sort them out.
No evidence, yet you claim that the doctor is guilty.
Ask yourself, its a damn fair trade. The rich giving the poor money to extend his lifespan on earth. And the poor can use the money to solve his problems. The doctor is just a human butcher who accepted the money.
Money speaks for all things la. Especially it gives you the power to hire prostitutes to engage in extreme sexual activities that you cant give to your wife as a form of respect.
-
Btw not bad sia the sentence, one day jail nia. Damn worth it.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
the basis of law is the moral and ethical values of a society ... it is designed to preserve and protect these values in a society ... in this case, organ trading is banned to prevent exploitation of the poor, and the underprivileged for their organs (perhaps it's something you, a self-professed wealthy boy, would have trouble understanding ? ) ....
like the scenario I listed out to you ... what if the "donor" was forced to donate under duress ? ... what if he was blackmailed to donate ? ... what if he's selling his organs for a pittance while the doc and the middlemen reaps the big bucks from the buyer ? ... the ethics committee was set up to make sure that this organ trading ban was not flouted ..... and, as we have seen, it has been repeatedly flouted till these recent cases blew everything out into the open ....
so what has the ethics committee been doing ? ... obviously, they have been failing in their jobs, no ? ...
now the doctor next ... I cannot help if you cannot see the stupidity of your mechanic analogy ... so I shall reproduce wholesale what I've written previously ... hopefully, you do better with route learning
your analogy fails, but you still haven't come round to understanding it yet ...
you illegally buys an organ, asks a doc to transplant it for you, that makes the doc breech medical ethics ....
you stupidly buys a stolen car, take it to the mechanic for servicing afterwards, found out about it afterwards, you don't farking blame the mechanic, you blame the person who sold it to you, savvy ? ....
i shall use the same doctor example again ... if you get a doctor to deliver your wife's baby, and then afterwards discover that the baby is not yours, you don't blame the doctor, you blame the man who slept with your wifey behind your back, yah ....
that's what i meant by barking up the wrong tree ....
I feel sad for you if you can't see the difference ... but anyhow ... to paraphrase gasband ... sure, the doc's got a piece of legal black and white declaring that the "donor" and the "buyer" are related, even if one man's a yellow skinned rich singaporean chinese and the other's a brown skinned indonesian peasant with a name like sulaiman .... his ass is covered .....
of course, you're right in that the doctor need not go out of the way to make sure everything is ship shaped .... but look at the description above ... can the doctor plead innocence in such circumstances ? ....
touch your head and tell me, if it's wilfully turning a blind eye to a blatant breech of the law or not ? ...
of course ... legally, the doc's done nothing wrong ....
and you're not wrong, per se, to say that the doc's, and the ethics committee, have done anything illegal ....
but, here's where i question your values and ethics .... for it appears to me, that the only standard of proof, to you, is that little piece of legal black and white signed by the buyer and seller that they are related, nothing else is required ....
do you not care that some poor, wretched third world peasant may be exploited by the middle men, with the connivance of certain doctors, and the medical ethics committee that's supposed to catch all of this has been failing all this while till these recent cases blew wide open ? ....
so to you, nothing is wrong, nothing needs fixing ... because everything is "alright", "legally" .... aren't you not twisting the words of the law and hiding behind it for your convenience then ? ....
perhaps it's not a troubling thought to you, and it does not offend your personal sense of right and wrong, morals, propriety ... because, like you said before ... you are well off enough not to work for several life times ? ....
I find it amazing that you can think nothing needs to be done, nothing needs to be looked into, and that a legal document would absolve any parties of any connivance against the law ... either you're trying to argue B just because I said A, or your personal set of values need some serious examining ...
So.....right now you are indirectly blaming the government for the failure in the transplant ethics committee.
I thought there were laws against blackmail and criminal intimidation already. What ifs.....what ifs......If there was then they probably be prosecuted under those sections of the law.
If the transplant ethics committee fails in their job, then who is to blame?
With your replies about the doctor, you are "assuming" that the doctor has privilege information regarding the illegal act. Like I said before, do you have concrete proof? Or do we have to hang everybody that's accused of witchcraft?
Like you said, the mechanic is not guilty because he has no knowlege and not privy to the contract between thief and buyer.
Like I told you before, illegitimate child is not a criminal offence, you cannot prosecute your child's illegitimate father. Hence, where is HOTA and this illicit affair equivalent. A wrong choice of examples by you.
You mean to say it's not possible that they are remote relatives? There is still a possibility that his great grand father could have migrated to Indonesia, married a native, have children, the offsprings married natives again and so on. In the past few decades, most Indonesian Chinese adopt Indonesian sounding names, because of the government stance against anything Chinese.
Wake up and smell the roses, the world isn't perfect like you make it out to be. It's an imperfect world governed by imperfect beings with errors aplenty. Haven't the ruling elite done the same by enshroud themselves under legal auspices?
Be it exploit or willing donor, this was transacted by willing parties. One willing to part with money, the other willing to sacrifice a kidney. Who are we to talk about morality when we employ Gurkhas who sell their lives to their master for paltry sums?
Insightful quote
Reverence for life affords me my fundamental principle of morality, namely that good consists in maintaining, assisting, and enhancing life, and that to destroy, to harm, or to hinder life is evil -- Albert Schweitzer
Albert Schweitzer, M.D., OM, (January 14, 1875 – September 4, 1965) was an Alsatian theologian, musician, philosopher, and physician. He was born in Kaisersberg in Alsace-Lorraine, a bilingual Romano-Germanic region which France regained from Germany after World War I. Schweitzer challenged both the secular view of historical Jesus current at his time and the traditional Christian view, depicting a Jesus who expected the imminent end of the world. He received the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize in 1953 for his philosophy of "reverence for life",[1] expressed in many ways, but most famously in founding and sustaining the Albert Schweitzer Hospital in Lambaréné, now in Gabon, west central Africa (then French Equatorial Africa) .
What I see here is a poor man willing to part with his kidney, without which he could still live a fruitful and productive life. Another rich person giving up money so that he could make his life less of an incumbrance and maybe prolong it.
Without the money from the rich person, the poor man's family could ill afford food and other luxuries. Which could also mean the death of his family members due to malnutrition.
Without the transplant, the rich person could live a less productive life and maybe even a shortened one.
Two person benefitted from this immoral transaction, as opposed to the eventuality that the rich person dies from kidney related issues or the poor person family's death from inability to provide basic necessities due to financial hardship, had this transaction not taken place. So on your moral high ground. Is it better to leave this two person on a sinking boat; or give them another boat so that two may survive?
Reflecting on the above quote, I'd rather be immoral that two persons survive, than be moral so that two persons die.
Do rich people peeve you? Fear not, work hard and you will be rich soon.
-
Originally posted by KungPaoChicken:
Ask yourself, its a damn fair trade. The rich giving the poor money to extend his lifespan on earth. And the poor can use the money to solve his problems. The doctor is just a human butcher who accepted the money.
Money speaks for all things la. Especially it gives you the power to hire prostitutes to engage in extreme sexual activities that you cant give to your wife as a form of respect.
I was typing out my reply, only managed to see your post thereafter.Reverence for life affords me my fundamental principle of morality, namely that good consists in maintaining, assisting, and enhancing life, and that to destroy, to harm, or to hinder life is evil -- Albert Schweitzer
What I see here is a poor man willing to part with his kidney, without which he could still live a fruitful and productive life. Another rich person giving up money so that he could make his life less of an incumbrance and maybe prolong it.
Without the money from the rich person, the poor man's family could ill afford food and other luxuries. Which could also mean the death of his family members due to malnutrition.
Without the transplant, the rich person could live a less productive life and maybe even a shortened one.
Two person benefitted from this immoral transaction, as opposed to the eventuality that the rich person dies from kidney related issues or the poor person family's death from inability to provide basic necessities due to financial hardship, had this transaction not taken place. So on your moral high ground. Is it better to leave this two person on a sinking boat; or give them another boat so that two may survive?
Reflecting on the above quote, I'd rather be immoral that two persons survive, than be moral so that two persons die.
-
Oooo .... that was a stunning turn around ! ... suddenly you became a humanist ? ... nice googling btw ... you like to do it so often in your posts I think you're becoming pretty good at it ...
for someone who's been trying to hide behind the words of the law and legal nuances, now he's suddenly turned around and become a champion morals and the ethics of human life ?! ...
you still don't see why I pointed out the failure of your analogies do you ? ...
let's try it again
you illegally purchase an organ from someone else, and ask the doc to transplant it for you, that makes the doc breech medical ethics, and makes him guilty of conniving in this offense, if he can be shown that he knows it before hand ....
you stupidly buy a stolen car, take it to the mechanic for servicing afterwards, and found out it was stolen, you cannot blame the mechanic .... but you can only blame the person who sold it to you ... these two are not the same ...
in a similar vein to your silly mechanic example, if you get a doctor to deliver your wife's baby, and then afterwards discover that you're not the baby's father, you don't blame the doctor, but you blame the man who slept with your wifey behind your back ...
the stolen car example, and the delivery doctor example, are different from the situation of a doctor transplanting an illegally purchased organ .... so where did that illegitamate sons and what not come from ? ... people talk about chicken, there you are talking about dogs ....
of course, l know the world is not perfect ... it's the same thing I said to you when you insisted on blaming the goverment for falling tree trunks and expensive ipods .... but how far would an intelligent man, like a doctor, accept such a story at face value, before it triggers an alarm bell in his head ? .....
true, some ancestors might have migrated generations ago and married a native blah blah blah .... I suppose if we go back up the ancestor tree far enough that makes every person on the planet related, no ? ... after all, we either came from the same group of apes or adam and eve, depending on your inclinations, no ? ....
so what thoughts would be going through the minds of the ethics committee when a rich chinese tycoon comes along with a poor indonesian native peasant, declare that they are related by that tenous stretch of a story you described above ? ... what constitutes reasonable doubt ? ... obviously, the standards they applied were not stringent enough, for many cases have slipped through until this case blew everything out into the open, no ? ...
so really, the issue is really about how this could have been allowed to happen for so long, you may attempt to steer this towards the ethical and moral stand that you have been trying so hard to shy away from all this while .... but it still won't help your case.
Organ trading is banned, because there is no way to ensure that the poor and the underprivileged are not exploited, to the detriment of their health and wealth .... if a society wants to legalize organ trading, fine, then we'd have to think of a fair and equitable system to ensure that the seller gets what he deserves, not scammed off by middle men and unscruplous doctors .... and that he's accorded the same level of medical care as the receipient ... none of that is in place, that's why organ trading is banned.
I shall not even go too deeply into the even more sticky moral and ethical debate of how fair a system that so blatantly benefits the rich be .... I do have egalitarian inclinations, and at first glance, such a system offends my sensibilities ...
I dunno about you though, the self-professed rich kid ... but, allow me to quote you again ...
有钱能使鬼推墨
perhaps this statement from you, illuminates something about your values ? ... and perhaps why you'd be so willing to think that there's nothing wrong with what has happened ? ...
so now that we have established why organ trading is currently banned ... back to the orignal point of this whole thing ... has something gone wrong ? ... obviously, doctors has performed transplants on patients who were really organ sellers, not donors, obviously, the medical ethics committee has failed in it's job for all this while by not picking this up ....
for someone who was strenously trying to hide behind the law just now ... you are still avoiding the question ... do you not think that something has gone wrong ? ... or are you just going to go back and try to hide behind your old defense that everything is "legal" and "above board" ... because of the black and white ? ...
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
Oooo .... that was a stunning turn around ! ... suddenly you became a humanist ? ... nice googling btw ... you like to do it so often in your posts I think you're becoming pretty good at it ...
for someone who's been trying to hide behind the words of the law and legal nuances, now he's suddenly turned around and become a champion morals and the ethics of human life ?! ...
you still don't see why I pointed out the failure of your analogies do you ? ...
let's try it again
you illegally purchase an organ from someone else, and ask the doc to transplant it for you, that makes the doc breech medical ethics, and makes him guilty of conniving in this offense, if he can be shown that he knows it before hand ....
you stupidly buy a stolen car, take it to the mechanic for servicing afterwards, and found out it was stolen, you cannot blame the mechanic .... but you can only blame the person who sold it to you ... these two are not the same ...
in a similar vein to your silly mechanic example, if you get a doctor to deliver your wife's baby, and then afterwards discover that you're not the baby's father, you don't blame the doctor, but you blame the man who slept with your wifey behind your back ...
the stolen car example, and the delivery doctor example, are different from the situation of a doctor transplanting an illegally purchased organ .... so where did that illegitamate sons and what not come from ? ... people talk about chicken, there you are talking about dogs ....
of course, l know the world is not perfect ... it's the same thing I said to you when you insisted on blaming the goverment for falling tree trunks and expensive ipods .... but how far would an intelligent man, like a doctor, accept such a story at face value, before it triggers an alarm bell in his head ? .....
true, some ancestors might have migrated generations ago and married a native blah blah blah .... I suppose if we go back up the ancestor tree far enough that makes every person on the planet related, no ? ... after all, we either came from the same group of apes or adam and eve, depending on your inclinations, no ? ....
so what thoughts would be going through the minds of the ethics committee when a rich chinese tycoon comes along with a poor indonesian native peasant, declare that they are related by that tenous stretch of a story you described above ? ... what constitutes reasonable doubt ? ... obviously, the standards they applied were not stringent enough, for many cases have slipped through until this case blew everything out into the open, no ? ...
so really, the issue is really about how this could have been allowed to happen for so long, you may attempt to steer this towards the ethical and moral stand that you have been trying so hard to shy away from all this while .... but it still won't help your case.
Organ trading is banned, because there is no way to ensure that the poor and the underprivileged are not exploited, to the detriment of their health and wealth .... if a society wants to legalize organ trading, fine, then we'd have to think of a fair and equitable system to ensure that the seller gets what he deserves, not scammed off by middle men and unscruplous doctors .... and that he's accorded the same level of medical care as the receipient ... none of that is in place, that's why organ trading is banned.
I shall not even go too deeply into the even more sticky moral and ethical debate of how fair a system that so blatantly benefits the rich be .... I do have egalitarian inclinations, and at first glance, such a system offends my sensibilities ...
I dunno about you though, the self-professed rich kid ... but, allow me to quote you again ...
有钱能使鬼推墨
perhaps this statement from you, illuminates something about your values ? ... and perhaps why you'd be so willing to think that there's nothing wrong with what has happened ? ...
so now that we have established why organ trading is currently banned ... back to the orignal point of this whole thing ... has something gone wrong ? ... obviously, doctors has performed transplants on patients who were really organ sellers, not donors, obviously, the medical ethics committee has failed in it's job for all this while by not picking this up ....
for someone who was strenously trying to hide behind the law just now ... you are still avoiding the question ... do you not think that something has gone wrong ? ... or are you just going to go back and try to hide behind your old defense that everything is "legal" and "above board" ... because of the black and white ? ...
Oooo .... that was a stunning turn around ! ... suddenly you became a humanist ? ... nice googling btw ... you like to do it so often in your posts I think you're becoming pretty good at it ...
for someone who's been trying to hide behind the words of the law and legal nuances, now he's suddenly turned around and become a champion morals and the ethics of human life ?! ...
I thought you were the one brandishing the immorality of transplant?
you still don't see why I pointed out the failure of your analogies do you ? ...
let's try it again
you illegally purchase an organ from someone else, and ask the doc to transplant it for you, that makes the doc breech medical ethics, and makes him guilty of conniving in this offense, if he can be shown that he knows it before hand ....
Like I said before again and again and again, which you still fail to understand with your limited comprehension ability. Does the doctor konw that it was an illegal transaction? You made assumptions that the doctor knew, then crucified him.
you stupidly buy a stolen car, take it to the mechanic for servicing afterwards, and found out it was stolen, you cannot blame the mechanic .... but you can only blame the person who sold it to you ... these two are not the same ...
How is it different? Both are criminal acts in the eyes of the law.
in a similar vein to your silly mechanic example, if you get a doctor to deliver your wife's baby, and then afterwards discover that you're not the baby's father, you don't blame the doctor, but you blame the man who slept with your wifey behind your back ...
So a stolen car is not a criminal act like the illegal organ transplant? But your wife sleeping with her ex-lover conceiving a bastard for you is a crime?
Under which Act of Singapore law is this section found in?the stolen car example, and the delivery doctor example, are different from the situation of a doctor transplanting an illegally purchased organ .... so where did that illegitamate sons and what not come from ? ... people talk about chicken, there you are talking about dogs ....
I think you really have problems comprehending, despite my copious explanation. Doctor transplanting illegal organs is governed under Human Organ Transplant Act. Theft of car is governed under Penal Code. So where does your bastard child come in?
of course, l know the world is not perfect ... it's the same thing I said to you when you insisted on blaming the goverment for falling tree trunks and expensive ipods .... but how far would an intelligent man, like a doctor, accept such a story at face value, before it triggers an alarm bell in his head ? .....
"Trees falling on trees" and now "falling tree trunks"!! Good one!!
You do understand the meaning of tree trunks, don't you. So falling tree branches is not related to NParks and cost of ipods not related to exchange rate differential which cause Apple to price their products differently. So why are you blaming the transplant ethics committee? true, some ancestors might have migrated generations ago and married a native blah blah blah .... I suppose if we go back up the ancestor tree far enough that makes every person on the planet related, no ? ... after all, we either came from the same group of apes or adam and eve, depending on your inclinations, no ? ....
so what thoughts would be going through the minds of the ethics committee when a rich chinese tycoon comes along with a poor indonesian native peasant, declare that they are related by that tenous stretch of a story you described above ? ... what constitutes reasonable doubt ? ... obviously, the standards they applied were not stringent enough, for many cases have slipped through until this case blew everything out into the open, no ? ...
I don't know what are the processes involved with the ethics committee, so I can't comment on their procedures. If you are moral like you said you are, perhaps you could offer your services on the board.
so really, the issue is really about how this could have been allowed to happen for so long, you may attempt to steer this towards the ethical and moral stand that you have been trying so hard to shy away from all this while .... but it still won't help your case.
Organ trading is banned, because there is no way to ensure that the poor and the underprivileged are not exploited, to the detriment of their health and wealth .... if a society wants to legalize organ trading, fine, then we'd have to think of a fair and equitable system to ensure that the seller gets what he deserves, not scammed off by middle men and unscruplous doctors .... and that he's accorded the same level of medical care as the receipient ... none of that is in place, that's why organ trading is banned.
What is your definition of exploited? Rich man pays money to the poor who can't afford basic necessities for his kidney. Does this constitute exploitation?
You have not provided me a reply for the analogy I provided.
Be it exploit or willing donor, this was transacted by willing parties. One willing to part with money, the other willing to sacrifice a kidney. Who are we to talk about morality when we employ Gurkhas who sell their lives to their master for paltry sums?
Insightful quote
Reverence for life affords me my fundamental principle of morality, namely that good consists in maintaining, assisting, and enhancing life, and that to destroy, to harm, or to hinder life is evil -- Albert Schweitzer
Albert Schweitzer, M.D., OM, (January 14, 1875 – September 4, 1965) was an Alsatian theologian, musician, philosopher, and physician. He was born in Kaisersberg in Alsace-Lorraine, a bilingual Romano-Germanic region which France regained from Germany after World War I. Schweitzer challenged both the secular view of historical Jesus current at his time and the traditional Christian view, depicting a Jesus who expected the imminent end of the world. He received the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize in 1953 for his philosophy of "reverence for life",[1] expressed in many ways, but most famously in founding and sustaining the Albert Schweitzer Hospital in Lambaréné, now in Gabon, west central Africa (then French Equatorial Africa) .
What I see here is a poor man willing to part with his kidney, without which he could still live a fruitful and productive life. Another rich person giving up money so that he could make his life less of an incumbrance and maybe prolong it.
Without the money from the rich person, the poor man's family could ill afford food and other luxuries. Which could also mean the death of his family members due to malnutrition.
Without the transplant, the rich person could live a less productive life and maybe even a shortened one.
Two person benefitted from this immoral transaction, as opposed to the eventuality that the rich person dies from kidney related issues or the poor person family's death from inability to provide basic necessities due to financial hardship, had this transaction not taken place. So on your moral high ground. Is it better to leave this two person on a sinking boat; or give them another boat so that two may survive?
Reflecting on the above quote, I'd rather be immoral that two persons survive, than be moral so that two persons die.
Other than your comprehension problems, you seem to have problems understanding the meaning of question marks also.
I shall not even go too deeply into the even more sticky moral and ethical debate of how fair a system that so blatantly benefits the rich be .... I do have egalitarian inclinations, and at first glance, such a system offends my sensibilities ...
I dunno about you though, the self-professed rich kid ... but, allow me to quote you again ...
Maybe I am just better at handling my finances than you.
有钱能使鬼推墨
Interesting comprehension issues with you, also regarding this sentence. Chunseah said "Wow, now i see the real power of money. Money dont just make to world go round...it even do more...", so I merely replied "有钱能使鬼推墨". Your comprehension issues seemed to have mistaken that statement as a stamp of approval from me. Did I in anyway state my stance on it from those quotes? It's a common quote babe.
perhaps this statement from you, illuminates something about your values ? ... and perhaps why you'd be so willing to think that there's nothing wrong with what has happened ? ...
Two lives were made better from this immoral transaction. One being able to afford necessities for his family, the other granted an extension of his life. It's a positive sum game between two willing parties.
so now that we have established why organ trading is currently banned ... back to the orignal point of this whole thing ... has something gone wrong ? ... obviously, doctors has performed transplants on patients who were really organ sellers, not donors, obviously, the medical ethics committee has failed in it's job for all this while by not picking this up ....
Are you implying the government's at fault again?
What an irony!!!!for someone who was strenously trying to hide behind the law just now ... you are still avoiding the question ... do you not think that something has gone wrong ? ... or are you just going to go back and try to hide behind your old defense that everything is "legal" and "above board" ... because of the black and white ? ...
Didn't I already enunciated to you, but you failed to comprehend as usual. It is illegal if the doctor is privy to the illegal transaction. Didn't I also tell you that one has to based his accusations on solid evidence and not conjectures. So like I asked you a many times. Do you have proof that the doctor has knowledge of this illegality? If he has, then he is guilty of criminal conspiracy. If he has no knowledge, then it's equivalent to the mechanic reparing a stolen car thinking that it belongs to the person who brought it in.
Seriously, something is screwed when you can convict somebody based on conjectures. Perhaps a main ingredient in your perfect Utopian society.
Try not to squirm your way out of this by avoiding my replies. Paragraph by paragraph reply would do fine. Thank you.
-
You have to ask why alarm bells did not ring in the commitee members' heads when they saw these 2 unrelated patients presented before them (and they're not even dating unlike Ms De Cruz's case several years ago), unless they weren't given enough information to prevent this in the first place. Otherwise it should look suspect to them.
As for organ trading in general, it might mutually benefit the 2 parties involved, but look at the bigger picture...why should the poor be disadvantaged by his financial status if they need an organ, when we all have the right to life?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Oooo .... that was a stunning turn around ! ... suddenly you became a humanist ? ... nice googling btw ... you like to do it so often in your posts I think you're becoming pretty good at it ...
for someone who's been trying to hide behind the words of the law and legal nuances, now he's suddenly turned around and become a champion morals and the ethics of human life ?! ...
I thought you were the one brandishing the immorality of transplant?
you still don't see why I pointed out the failure of your analogies do you ? ...
let's try it again
you illegally purchase an organ from someone else, and ask the doc to transplant it for you, that makes the doc breech medical ethics, and makes him guilty of conniving in this offense, if he can be shown that he knows it before hand ....
Like I said before again and again and again, which you still fail to understand with your limited comprehension ability. Does the doctor konw that it was an illegal transaction? You made assumptions that the doctor knew, then crucified him.
you stupidly buy a stolen car, take it to the mechanic for servicing afterwards, and found out it was stolen, you cannot blame the mechanic .... but you can only blame the person who sold it to you ... these two are not the same ...
How is it different? Both are criminal acts in the eyes of the law.
in a similar vein to your silly mechanic example, if you get a doctor to deliver your wife's baby, and then afterwards discover that you're not the baby's father, you don't blame the doctor, but you blame the man who slept with your wifey behind your back ...
So a stolen car is not a criminal act like the illegal organ transplant? But your wife sleeping with her ex-lover conceiving a bastard for you is a crime?
Under which Act of Singapore law is this
section found in?the stolen car example, and the delivery doctor example, are different from the situation of a doctor transplanting an illegally purchased organ .... so where did that illegitamate sons and what not come from ? ... people talk about chicken, there you are talking about dogs ....
I think you really have problems comprehending, despite my copious explanation. Doctor transplanting illegal organs is governed under Human Organ Transplant Act. Theft of car is governed under Penal Code. So where does your bastard child come in?
of course, l know the world is not perfect ... it's the same thing I said to you when you insisted on blaming the goverment for falling tree trunks and expensive ipods .... but how far would an intelligent man, like a doctor, accept such a story at face value, before it triggers an alarm bell in his head ? .....
"Trees falling on trees" and now "falling tree trunks"!! Good one!!
You do understand the meaning of tree
trunks, don't you. So falling tree branches is not related to
NParks and cost of ipods not related to exchange rate differential
which cause Apple to price their products differently. So why are
you blaming the transplant ethics committee? true, some ancestors might have migrated generations ago and married a native blah blah blah .... I suppose if we go back up the ancestor tree far enough that makes every person on the planet related, no ? ... after all, we either came from the same group of apes or adam and eve, depending on your inclinations, no ? ....
so what thoughts would be going through the minds of the ethics committee when a rich chinese tycoon comes along with a poor indonesian native peasant, declare that they are related by that tenous stretch of a story you described above ? ... what constitutes reasonable doubt ? ... obviously, the standards they applied were not stringent enough, for many cases have slipped through until this case blew everything out into the open, no ? ...
I don't know what are the processes involved with the ethics committee, so I can't comment on their procedures. If you are moral like you said you are, perhaps you could offer your services on the board.
so really, the issue is really about how this could have been allowed to happen for so long, you may attempt to steer this towards the ethical and moral stand that you have been trying so hard to shy away from all this while .... but it still won't help your case.
Organ trading is banned, because there is no way to ensure that the poor and the underprivileged are not exploited, to the detriment of their health and wealth .... if a society wants to legalize organ trading, fine, then we'd have to think of a fair and equitable system to ensure that the seller gets what he deserves, not scammed off by middle men and unscruplous doctors .... and that he's accorded the same level of medical care as the receipient ... none of that is in place, that's why organ trading is banned.
What is your definition of exploited? Rich man pays money to the poor who can't afford basic necessities for his kidney. Does this constitute exploitation?
You have not provided me a reply for the analogy I provided.
Be it exploit or willing donor, this was transacted by willing parties. One willing to part with money, the other willing to sacrifice a kidney. Who are we to talk about morality when we employ Gurkhas who sell their lives to their master for paltry sums?
Insightful quote
Reverence for life affords me my fundamental principle of morality, namely that good consists in maintaining, assisting, and enhancing life, and that to destroy, to harm, or to hinder life is evil -- Albert Schweitzer
Albert Schweitzer, M.D., OM, (January 14, 1875 – September 4, 1965) was an Alsatian theologian, musician, philosopher, and physician. He was born in Kaisersberg in Alsace-Lorraine, a bilingual Romano-Germanic region which France regained from Germany after World War I. Schweitzer challenged both the secular view of historical Jesus current at his time and the traditional Christian view, depicting a Jesus who expected the imminent end of the world. He received the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize in 1953 for his philosophy of "reverence for life",[1] expressed in many ways, but most famously in founding and sustaining the Albert Schweitzer Hospital in Lambaréné, now in Gabon, west central Africa (then French Equatorial Africa) .
What I see here is a poor man willing to part with his kidney, without which he could still live a fruitful and productive life. Another rich person giving up money so that he could make his life less of an incumbrance and maybe prolong it.
Without the money from the rich person, the poor man's family could ill afford food and other luxuries. Which could also mean the death of his family members due to malnutrition.
Without the transplant, the rich person could live a less productive life and maybe even a shortened one.
Two person benefitted from this immoral transaction, as opposed to the eventuality that the rich person dies from kidney related issues or the poor person family's death from inability to provide basic necessities due to financial hardship, had this transaction not taken place. So on your moral high ground. Is it better to leave this two person on a sinking boat; or give them another boat so that two may survive?
Reflecting on the above quote, I'd rather be immoral that two persons survive, than be moral so that two persons die.
Other than your comprehension problems, you seem to have problems understanding the meaning of question marks also.
I shall not even go too deeply into the even more sticky moral and ethical debate of how fair a system that so blatantly benefits the rich be .... I do have egalitarian inclinations, and at first glance, such a system offends my sensibilities ...
I dunno about you though, the self-professed rich kid ... but, allow me to quote you again ...
Maybe I am just better at handling my finances than you.
有钱能使鬼推墨
Interesting comprehension issues with you, also regarding this sentence. Chunseah said "Wow, now i see the real power of money. Money dont just make to world go round...it even do more...", so I merely replied "有钱能使鬼推墨". Your comprehension issues seemed to have mistaken that statement as a stamp of approval from me. Did I in anyway state my stance on it from those quotes? It's a common quote babe.
perhaps this statement from you, illuminates something about your values ? ... and perhaps why you'd be so willing to think that there's nothing wrong with what has happened ? ...
Two lives were made better from this immoral transaction. One being able to afford necessities for his family, the other granted an extension of his life. It's a positive sum game between two willing parties.
so now that we have established why organ trading is currently banned ... back to the orignal point of this whole thing ... has something gone wrong ? ... obviously, doctors has performed transplants on patients who were really organ sellers, not donors, obviously, the medical ethics committee has failed in it's job for all this while by not picking this up ....
Are you implying the government's at fault again?
What an irony!!!!for someone who was strenously trying to hide behind the law just now ... you are still avoiding the question ... do you not think that something has gone wrong ? ... or are you just going to go back and try to hide behind your old defense that everything is "legal" and "above board" ... because of the black and white ? ...
Didn't I already enunciated to you, but you failed to comprehend as usual. It is illegal if the doctor is privy to the illegal transaction. Didn't I also tell you that one has to based his accusations on solid evidence and not conjectures. So like I asked you a many times. Do you have proof that the doctor has knowledge of this illegality? If he has, then he is guilty of criminal conspiracy. If he has no knowledge, then it's equivalent to the mechanic reparing a stolen car thinking that it belongs to the person who brought it in.
Seriously, something is screwed when you can convict somebody based on conjectures. Perhaps a main ingredient in your perfect Utopian society.
Try not to squirm your way out of this by avoiding my replies. Paragraph by paragraph reply would do fine. Thank you.
you obviously do not understand what an analogy is, but persist in reading things literally, perhaps because you know that it's silly and stupid ? ...
let's try again ....
if a patient illegally purchases an organ, and a doctor who knowingly assists in transplanting that transplant would be guilty of conivance ......
but in your example, a fellow who knowingly purchases a car not knowing that it was stolen, cannot blame the mechanic he brought the car to service from ... any small kid would tell you to blame the fellow whom you brought the car from .... but of course, you're unique ....
now I brought up my second doctor example to show you how stupid your example was, if a doctor delivers your wifey's baby, and after that you discover that the child was not yours, you don't blame the doctor who delivers your baby, you blame the fellow who bonked you wife behind your back ....
these latter two examples, illustrates different circumstances from the first, while in the first instance, the patient was guilty of the law in the first place .... the doctor is an accessory to the crime ... in the latter two, the car buyer and the "father" were both victims who cannot blame the middleman for their misfortunes ....
this is elementary reasoning stuff, but you, inexplicably, brought in questions like "Doctor transplanting illegal organs is governed under Human Organ Transplant Act. Theft of car is governed under Penal Code. So where does your bastard child come in?"
this is a jaw dropping instance of "people talk about chicken, you talk about dogs" .... barking up the wrong tree at it's best ....
and yes of course, it is illegal if and only if the doctor in question knowingly took part in the transplants and went in with the knowledge that the organs were brought ... and of course, no criminal would be stupid enough to incriminate oneself under questioning ....
so back to the same issue ... as gasband and now kuali baba has put it .... and i now paraphrase for the third time ....
how would it look to an intelligent and HONEST man, if a rich chinese singaporean comes before the committee, and the transplant doc, bringing a native indonesian peasant chap with a name like sulaiman, declare that they were related, and ask the a transplant be performed ....
of course ... but a stretch of reasoning, one can believe a story like "oh, you know, my great great great great grandfather's brother migrated there generations ago and married his great great great great grandfather, but we are related" .... and of course, with a signed piece of black and white, the doctor has ensured that his ass is legally covered, and need not worry even if the "donor" was drugged and brought in before him ? ....
but yet again, I ask, what would constitute reasonable doubt for the doctor in question, and for the ethics committee ? .... where should the line be drawn such that cases of illegal organ trading are not allowed to slip through ? ...
yet again, I point out that the ethics committee has obviously failed in it's job, and that their standards of qestioning and doubts was insufficient for the job .... or we wouldn't have had these recent court cases in the first place.
Do you mean to tell me you see no doubts at all about the roles and actions of the doctors and the ethics committee involved ? .... do you mean to tell me that you see no cause for further review and investigation ? ....
So in marizio's world, there is only cause for alarm and investigation, when the people involved in an offense was caught red handed ? ..... but any other sort of smoking gun does not constitute cause for suspicions and investigations ? ...... wow .... just wow .....
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
you obviously do not understand what an analogy is, but persist in reading things literally, perhaps because you know that it's silly and stupid ? ...
let's try again ....
if a patient illegally purchases an organ, and a doctor who knowingly assists in transplanting that transplant would be guilty of conivance ......
but in your example, a fellow who knowingly purchases a car not knowing that it was stolen, cannot blame the mechanic he brought the car to service from ... any small kid would tell you to blame the fellow whom you brought the car from .... but of course, you're unique ....
now I brought up my second doctor example to show you how stupid your example was, if a doctor delivers your wifey's baby, and after that you discover that the child was not yours, you don't blame the doctor who delivers your baby, you blame the fellow who bonked you wife behind your back ....
these latter two examples, illustrates different circumstances from the first, while in the first instance, the patient was guilty of the law in the first place .... the doctor is an accessory to the crime ... in the latter two, the car buyer and the "father" were both victims who cannot blame the middleman for their misfortunes ....
this is elementary reasoning stuff, but you, inexplicably, brought in questions like "Doctor transplanting illegal organs is governed under Human Organ Transplant Act. Theft of car is governed under Penal Code. So where does your bastard child come in?"
this is a jaw dropping instance of "people talk about chicken, you talk about dogs" .... barking up the wrong tree at it's best ....
and yes of course, it is illegal if and only if the doctor in question knowingly took part in the transplants and went in with the knowledge that the organs were brought ... and of course, no criminal would be stupid enough to incriminate oneself under questioning ....
so back to the same issue ... as gasband and now kuali baba has put it .... and i now paraphrase for the third time ....
how would it look to an intelligent and HONEST man, if a rich chinese singaporean comes before the committee, and the transplant doc, bringing a native indonesian peasant chap with a name like sulaiman, declare that they were related, and ask the a transplant be performed ....
of course ... but a stretch of reasoning, one can believe a story like "oh, you know, my great great great great grandfather's brother migrated there generations ago and married his great great great great grandfather, but we are related" .... and of course, with a signed piece of black and white, the doctor has ensured that his ass is legally covered, and need not worry even if the "donor" was drugged and brought in before him ? ....
but yet again, I ask, what would constitute reasonable doubt for the doctor in question, and for the ethics committee ? .... where should the line be drawn such that cases of illegal organ trading are not allowed to slip through ? ...
yet again, I point out that the ethics committee has obviously failed in it's job, and that their standards of qestioning and doubts was insufficient for the job .... or we wouldn't have had these recent court cases in the first place.
Do you mean to tell me you see no doubts at all about the roles and actions of the doctors and the ethics committee involved ? .... do you mean to tell me that you see no cause for further review and investigation ? ....
So in marizio's world, there is only cause for alarm and investigation, when the people involved in an offense was caught red handed ? ..... but any other sort of smoking gun does not constitute cause for suspicions and investigations ? ...... wow .... just wow .....
You don't have any answers to my other points? Or are you conceding to my points?
Your ASSUMPTION of the doctor's guilt was based on the doctor having 100% knowledge that the transaction was illegal. Similarly, if the mechanic knew that the car was stolen, he repairs it, he would also be guilty of criminal conspiracy. Don't you know about the quite recent case of an SAF personnel illegally bringing his M16 assault rifle out of camp. His friend though not a direct participant in the crime, knew about this illegal act, by not directly reporting it, he abetted him and was also charged in court.
First of all, when you go see the mechanic or doctor, you are not going for a court trial, hence where does this "reasonable doubt" issue come into play. Have you been watching too a many Boston Legal? Doctors are not judges, lawyers or police officers.
Reasonable doubt: uncertainty as to a criminal defendant's guilt; the level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime.
Also, can a judge convict someone based on reasonable doubt like what you are doing to the doctor right now.
Your case and logic is all based on assumptions.
If you really believe that the doctor has a priori and he perpetrated a crime.
If you are morally just and want to really make a point to change the world, Hong Lim Park is now opened to you for your protest.
But make sure you have evidence of what you assumed, we already have a CSJ, don't need another Fatum.
-
Were the donor and the patient both denied the right to live?
From the case, it appears that one got an extension on life, while the other lived a more viable life.
-
Organ trading debate continues with renewed call for more living donors
By Imelda Saad, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 04 September 2008 2109 hrsSINGAPORE: The middleman involved in Singapore's first illegal kidney transplant case will be sentenced on September 5.
Even before the case is wrapped up, there are renewed calls for authorities here to do more to increase the number of living donors.
While it may be a closed chapter for Mr Tang Wee Sung, who was jailed and fined on Wednesday in Singapore's first kidney-for-sale case, it is still an open book when it comes to the debate on organ trading in Singapore.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) has said that it will not rule out legalising organ trading.
In the case of renal failure, some 600 people are on a waiting list with an average waiting time of nine years before they get a transplant.
It seems that the way forward is to encourage more living donors, but there are costs involved.
Ameerali Abdeali, president, Singapore Muslim Kidney Action Association, said: "You really need an altruistic person to say I want to donate my kidney to save a life. For this person, there is a cost to them. Even to do a test for compatibility, there is already a cost."
Ideas that authorities here may look at include having philanthropic, charitable or religious bodies funding the compensation for donors. But compensation does not have to involve money changing hands between donor and recipient.
Mr Ameerali said: "I think that Singapore’s society is not ready for organ trading and certainly not developing Singapore as an organ trading hub. That.. (is) not acceptable. But there can be certain scenarios where it can be comfortable.
"Take for example, one person is affluent and suffering from kidney failure and there's another man who can give him that kidney, but his mother is critically ill in hospital and needs expensive surgery.
"So on this basis on quid pro quo, where no money actually exchange hands, this person pays for the medical bills and surgery bills for his donor's mother. Personally, I'm comfortable with that and I don't think that amounts to organ trading."
Mr Ameerali added that with trading, there is usually a profit component. He said: "Where there are actual organ sales and the money is used by the donor (for reasons such as) starting a business, that kind of scenario is really clear-cut trading."
Responding to Channel NewsAsia, MOH said moving forward, its focus is to prevent end-stage kidney failure.
It added that the key is in prevention, maximising organ yield from cadaveric kidney transplants, promoting living-related transplants and public education on the Human Organ Transplant Act.
Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan is expected to visit a village in the Philippines on the sidelines of a World Health Organisation meeting later this month. He plans to meet donors to find out what drove them to sell their organs and perhaps look at the compensation they received to understand their situation. - CNA/vmIt's a win-win situation for both donor and patient.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
You don't have any answers to my other points? Or are you conceding to my points?
Your ASSUMPTION of the doctor's guilt was based on the doctor having 100% knowledge that the transaction was illegal. Similarly, if the mechanic knew that the car was stolen, he repairs it, he would also be guilty of criminal conspiracy. Don't you know about the quite recent case of an SAF personnel illegally bringing his M16 assault rifle out of camp. His friend though not a direct participant in the crime, knew about this illegal act, by not directly reporting it, he abetted him and was also charged in court.
First of all, when you go see the mechanic or doctor, you are not going for a court trial, hence where does this "reasonable doubt" issue come into play. Have you been watching too a many Boston Legal? Doctors are not judges, lawyers or police officers.
Reasonable doubt: uncertainty as to a criminal defendant's guilt; the level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime.
Also, can a judge convict someone based on reasonable doubt like what you are doing to the doctor right now.
Your case and logic is all based on assumptions.
If you really believe that the doctor has a priori and he perpetrated a crime.
If you are morally just and want to really make a point to change the world, Hong Lim Park is now opened to you for your protest.
But make sure you have evidence of what you assumed, we already have a CSJ, don't need another Fatum.
oh ? ... suddenly you transformed from a CSJ worshipper to someone that derides him ? .. how quickly you change your spots ....
sure ... there is no evidence of wrong doing (else the docs would already be driving cabs already, like I said already) .... and of course ... everything is legally covered, in black and white, the declaration was signed by both parties, and that absolves the middle parties, the doc and the ethics committee, of any responsibilities ? ....
you mentioned criminal conspiracies and what not, but that's precisely what i've been trying to drive at .... say a rich chinese chap drags along an indonesian native peasant before the doc and the ethics committee, claims that they are related, and ask for one of the indonesian's kidneys .....
would you accept their story at face value and just rubber stamp the transplant ? ... would alarm bells not ring in your head ? ... would no doubts enter your head at all ? .... do you mean to say that you'd simply accept any stories at face value, and of course, get them to declare their relationships in black and white to safely cover your ass from any medical council investigations, and move on ? ...
do you deny that the ethics committee has failed in it's very job, that is, to weed out cases of organ trading ? .... else why would we have these court cases in the first place .... remember that we have already found people GUILTY OF ORGAN TRADING .... does that not imply that the system of checks HAVE FAILED ? ....
obviously, the level of checks and background investigations was not up to the task ..
SHOULD THIS NOT BE LOOKED INTO THEN ? ....
in marizio's world, the answer is no ... smoke doesn't matter ... smoking guns doesn't matter .... but a fellow is only guilty if he's caught red handing committing a crime and pulling the trigger .... everything else is pure baseless conjecture ...
perhaps in your version of utopia, there need not be investigations departments in the police force ... for all criminals have to be caught red handed ? ...
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
oh ? ... suddenly you transformed from a CSJ worshipper to someone that derides him ? .. how quickly you change your spots ....
sure ... there is no evidence of wrong doing (else the docs would already be driving cabs already, like I said already) .... and of course ... everything is legally covered, in black and white, the declaration was signed by both parties, and that absolves the middle parties, the doc and the ethics committee, of any responsibilities ? ....
you mentioned criminal conspiracies and what not, but that's precisely what i've been trying to drive at .... say a rich chinese chap drags along an indonesian native peasant before the doc and the ethics committee, claims that they are related, and ask for one of the indonesian's kidneys .....
would you accept their story at face value and just rubber stamp the transplant ? ... would alarm bells not ring in your head ? ... would no doubts enter your head at all ? .... do you mean to say that you'd simply accept any stories at face value, and of course, get them to declare their relationships in black and white to safely cover your ass from any medical council investigations, and move on ? ...
do you deny that the ethics committee has failed in it's very job, that is, to weed out cases of organ trading ? .... else why would we have these court cases in the first place .... remember that we have already found people GUILTY OF ORGAN TRADING .... does that not imply that the system of checks HAVE FAILED ? ....
obviously, the level of checks and background investigations was not up to the task ..
SHOULD THIS NOT BE LOOKED INTO THEN ? ....
in marizio's world, the answer is no ... smoke doesn't matter ... smoking guns doesn't matter .... but a fellow is only guilty if he's caught red handing committing a crime and pulling the trigger .... everything else is pure baseless conjecture ...
perhaps in your version of utopia, there need not be investigations departments in the police force ... for all criminals have to be caught red handed ? ...
Since when was I a CSJ worshipper?
Assumptions assumptions again.
So you point is? Yes, the government err in it's duty to the community? So? What do you intend to do about this grave error?
Continue whining like us here, or put your words to task and stage a protest in Hong Lim Park?Smoking gun? First of all, does the doctor have prior knowledge that a crime is committed.
Obviously you don't understand the meaning of evidence also, that's why you insist on claiming that all criminals have to be caught in the act or red handed.
Like I asked you before, do you have proof that the doctor has prior knowledge. You said "no", if such evidence does not exist, yet you want to convict the doctor based on assumptions. You must have reincarnated from those lynch mob witch hunters.
-
I have a friend, she's from mixed marriages, her mom an Indonesian and her dad a Chinese. Her skin colour is brown, but it doesn't preclude her from being relatives with her uncles and aunties.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Since when was I a CSJ worshipper?
Assumptions assumptions again.
So you point is? Yes, the government err in it's duty to the community? So? What do you intend to do about this grave error?
Continue whining like us here, or put
your words to task and stage a protest in Hong Lim Park?Smoking gun? First of all, does the doctor have prior knowledge that a crime is committed.
Obviously you don't understand the meaning of evidence also, that's why you insist on claiming that all criminals have to be caught in the act or red handed.
Like I asked you before, do you have proof that the doctor has prior knowledge. You said "no", if such evidence does not exist, yet you want to convict the doctor based on assumptions. You must have reincarnated from those lynch mob witch hunters.
so you still refuse to acknowledge that something has gone wrong with the process and the system, despite the fact that a few fellows has been convicted of organ trading ... and that the ethics committee has obviously failed in their tasks .... and that the doctor in question has associated with this middle man so recently found guilty, on more than one occasion with different patients, as the middle man himself pointed out in court at his own trial ? ....
do you still think that a review of things is not neccessary at all, inspite of all this ? ...
obviously, your standard of a "smoking gun" is when someone is caught red handed in the act of doing something wrong ? ... anything else would not be reasonable suspicions and only baseless conjecture ? ...
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
so you still refuse to acknowledge that something has gone wrong with the process and the system, despite the fact that a few fellows has been convicted of organ trading ... and that the ethics committee has obviously failed in their tasks .... and that the doctor in question has associated with this middle man so recently found guilty, on more than one occasion with different patients, as the middle man himself pointed out in court at his own trial ? ....
do you still think that a review of things is not neccessary at all, inspite of all this ? ...
obviously, your standard of a "smoking gun" is when someone is caught red handed in the act of doing something wrong ? ... anything else would not be reasonable suspicions and only baseless conjecture ? ...
If it makes you happy.The P4P government's policies are screwed.
So........
What are you going to do to right this wrong?
Whine in here like the majority of us. Afterall, your case is not about partisan politics, I doubt you would suffer political reprisals like CSJ or Jeya, so fret not.
If you protest in Hong Lim Park. Do let us know, so that we can join you in your protest against the government.
Else, just continue to whine like everyone of us here.
-
Fatum,
Based on the news article from ChannelNewsAsia.
What if the MOH makes organ trading legal? Then it would be moral?
Time to get ready those placards and pickets.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I was typing out my reply, only managed to see your post thereafter.Reverence for life affords me my fundamental principle of morality, namely that good consists in maintaining, assisting, and enhancing life, and that to destroy, to harm, or to hinder life is evil -- Albert Schweitzer
What I see here is a poor man willing to part with his kidney, without which he could still live a fruitful and productive life. Another rich person giving up money so that he could make his life less of an incumbrance and maybe prolong it.
Without the money from the rich person, the poor man's family could ill afford food and other luxuries. Which could also mean the death of his family members due to malnutrition.
Without the transplant, the rich person could live a less productive life and maybe even a shortened one.
Two person benefitted from this immoral transaction, as opposed to the eventuality that the rich person dies from kidney related issues or the poor person family's death from inability to provide basic necessities due to financial hardship, had this transaction not taken place. So on your moral high ground. Is it better to leave this two person on a sinking boat; or give them another boat so that two may survive?
Reflecting on the above quote, I'd rather be immoral that two persons survive, than be moral so that two persons die.
Yeah absolutely. Either way it helps. Moral sometimes can be a killer, even the military policies are sometimes bended to create a better world.
-
it may be a bit difficult for your cognitive engine to grasp this ... but the issue of whether the doctor in question has contravened medical ethics, and whether the ethics committee has failed or not, are different issues from whether organ trading is right, or wrong ....
I shall offer you another analogy, a really simple one for you ... read it slowly ...
if a person is caught, or is suspected of drug trafficking, the question of the person's guilt is a different issue from whether trafficking drugs is an offense or not, from whether trafficking drugs is moral or amoral, or whether a capital sentence for drugs trafficking is appropriate ....
telling the judge that just because there's a debate on whether drug mules should be sentence to death, and that the death penalty may potentially be repealed in the future, doesn't fly .... as shown by this very case, tang wee sung's lawyer cavender bull tried this very argument, that organ trading may be legalized in the future, and the judge disregarded it, rightly so ....
if the school rules say no talking in class, and the teacher catches you at it, you don't come along and argue about whether talking in class is right or wrong, savvy ? ...
unless you're marizio perhaps ...
in any case ... the roles and action of the ethics committee are now being questioned by the authorities, Khaw himself has said before that the ethics committee would be investigated a long time back, early last month .... only marizio perhaps, still thinks that no smoking gun exists ...
-
To all friend so sorry to heard that u have lost someone u love, due to Doctor Protocol. It remind me 20 years old my dad told me that if i study hard and become someone or somebody (well educated) got a good job (higher post) people will not take your organ easily went u died. (during post mortem the doctor will take all your usable organ), find it a bit funny now when i think about it back after 20 years, don't know it true or my dad just want to scare me so that i will study hard for my future.