haha ok la not so drama. but time is really FLYING man. esp this week. just last saturday, i was studying in YIH after training and i was half-chatting with gao the smelly on msn. he sent me some retarded website and kept INSISTING that i take a look cos it's so darn funny.
and when i opened the link, it was FREAKING PORN LA!!!
like WTF!??!! in the middle of YIH my laptop screen was displaying PORN!!!! and mind you, it's not those hot sex scenes ok. it's like ANAL SEX LA!! MAGNIFIED ON THE ASS SOMEMORE!! i'm completely mortified and traumatized.
GAO YOU BITCH. thank goodness the study room was relatively empty and there wasn't anyone sitting behind me. i would have DIED on the spot if someone saw and think i'm some sick, perverted girl who indulges in anal sex. GROSS.
anyhow, fast forward a week later and i'm back in school on a saturday studying again after training. what a snoozefest. my life is boring i tell you. ok la not really studying. more like rushing through my essaySSSSS because they're all freaking due on the same week so i have no choice but to act nerdy and start on them earlier. bleh.
it wasn't too bad though. the bf and i studied in the science library today (yay my fave) and i managed to get started on my ethics essay. yay. i've decided to write on EUTHANASIA.
cheem right. it's some bioethics topic. in a nutshell, it's basically about doctors having a right to take away a patient's life if he/she consent to it. there has been debates and controversies that euthanasia shouldn't be made legal la, but i personally don't see why not. i know doctors have some hypocritical oath or whatever-u-call-it stating that they are not allowed to take away a person's life or something like that. so euthanasia kinda goes against that oath. but then again, the life belongs to me what. i can choose what i wanna do with it, and if i want the doctor to take it away, what's the big deal right?
and in the first place, how do u even define 'life'? i mean let's say a guy is a vegetable (no, i don't mean the green leafy thingies), and he's brain dead but his heart is still beating, why is the person considered alive? technically he's dead what. so there's not much 'life' to prolong by keeping him on the life-support system. in cases like that, i don't think doctors are in any wrong to take away the person's 'life'.
it's the same for abortions too. people are against abortions because they claim it's taking away a human life. but technically, at the stage where abortion is permitted, the foetus isn't fully developed yet, so it has no senses whatsoever. how is it define as a 'human life'? how is it morally wrong for abortions to take place? it's not really murder cos i don't think the foetus can feel anything.
ok i'm not being heartless and neither am i pro-abortion or anything. just that when it comes to ethical issues, there seemed to be no right or wrong and it's damn frustrating to read one whole long, boring article and see how the author beats around the bush just to conclude that.....there is no conclusion. yawn.
ok i have no idea how i started off talking about porn and ended up talking about euthanasia and abortions. i'm damn good at digressing la.
and to digress even further, MR500 is in one week's time! how exciting (yeah right).
sleep now, train tomorrow.
gdnite.
Ps: what a funny photo! hurhur.
12 comments:
I just had 2 weeks of sermon on euthanasia and abortion. they are both wrong because it's murder.
and the part about 'the currently approved time for abortion is when the baby's not even life yet' that can be very controversial. As far as i know u cann abort a baby as far as 28 weeks into pregnancy, but it's proven that 22 weeks baby can survive. A lot of pro abortionist claim that as long as it cannot survive on his own, it's not a life, but then isn't that so for a 2 yr old too?
abortion and euthanasia are sins, but of course they're still highly practised because of various circumstances, like homosexuality, it happens, but we should not regard it as acceptable.
oh yea! i should write essays.
Interesting how you seem so fascinated about a topic we were talking about way back when we were in GP class in AC!!
But nonetheless..it still is a fascinating topic because the whole issue revolves around definitions. Because people have a different definition of key words like "life".
Personally, i think as long as the heart is beating, no matter what state the rest of the body is in, a life is still a life. If a person is incapable of making rational decisions, but prior to being in this state had signed in black and white that he would allow doctors to pull the plug should something like that happen then it's a non issue. The problem comes about when there is no such indication and members of the family are torn between whether to keep him 'alive' and hope he comes round no matter how small the chance, or let him and those around 'suffer' because he may be in pain but is unable to voice it and those around are the ones that have to deal with it.
Abortion is another complicated issue. Personally to me, i think once a heartbeat can be found, its considered a life. And abortion should not be allowed at this stage. Of course, its a lot more complicated that having that basic rule, but i'm sleepy so i'll let Lam finish off. I'm sure he'll be glad too.
haha
Anyway, here are 3 basic steps you can follow.
1) The Rule Utilitarian approach. Is there a rule you can come up with to pertaining to euthanasia that will generate an ideal outcome and ensure maximum positive utility?
2) Identify the main stakeholders involved and use the Veil of Ignorance to determine whether the utilitarian rule is fair to them.
3) Use the Deontology approach, and try to come up with a maxim that can be universalised.
haha we are such freaks that we write replies at the same time.
just some info..
i think pulling the plug is not really killing, euthanasia's defined as adminstering drugs to kill patient. pulling the plug is really just nature doing it's course, everyone will die one day right?
and foetal heartbeat starts really early..first few weeks of pregnancy
How is pulling the plug "just nature doing it's course"?
I think pulling the plug is killing because killing is taking away life. and my definition of life is anything that has his / her / it's own heartbeat.
but how do u define having his own heartbeat really? the heart can be made artificially to pump. And the heart can continue pumping forever (or at least many more years) as long as the right nutrients and stuff's given to it...possibly without even any other organs.
the thing about euthanasia is that allowing someone to die and making someone die is different. its a fine line. i mean it would really be hard to 'pull the plug' and see the person die in front of you. but giving a lethal drug to killsomeone's wrong.
but everyone's gotta die. i think.
Having your own heartbeat, would mean having a heartbeat sustained by yourself only (hence the word own?)
I think that's why we all agree it's a very complicated issue with a lot of grey areas and there's really no right or wrong opinion to it.
But i don't agree with your argument that just because everybody's gotta die someday, we should be entitled to pull the plug for someone that is incapable of making his own judgement? I think in such a case the family would have to come to a consensus on what to do, and not left to the sole discretion of the doctors.
As someone studying to be a doctor, i'm worried about the quality of treatment you're gonna be giving your patients since "everybody's gonna die anyway"
!
His meaning of "pulling the plug" is that of taking the patient off life support . And that is not euthanasia. Euthanasia would be taking away the life of someone who is capable of living on his own ability. Firstly by putting a patient on life support is one way we humans are "challenging" nature. If not for the advances in technology, many would have succumbed to severe illness and infections. It's not an issue if the patient has the ability to recover but the problem comes when the patient has to rely on the machine to survive. And he will be semi-comatose by then already. So is taking him off life support and letting the natural course progress really wrong? Who are doctor's to challenge God's will or nature in this way?
As for euthanasia, errr its wrong hahah. It is like how someone wishes to take his own life but places the responsiblity and consequences on the doctor. I feel there's never a correct way of taking life. And thats applicable to capital punishment too.
For abortion in singapore, the date of viability is 24. But by our standards of care, 22 weeks is very possible already. And there's no doubt that this upper limit where abortion is 'legal' will become earlier and earlier in the future. Heartbeat in a fetus can be SeEn by 8 weeks on ultrasound. But we will never know what and how to define life. Is it the heart? Or is it tradition perpetuated by our ancestors who linked the heart to our soul and emotions? Other religions used to think that the liver was the source of emotions.
haha ethics its just an outlet for pple to talk. Theres never a real answer to it.
Oh yea and abortion is especially important for those parents who find that the fetus they are carrying possesses some form of congenital abnormality. To take it to the extreme , in the case where it's some congenital abnormality like trisomy where the fetus will be born grossly deformed and can only survive for a few months or even a few weeks carries a great deal of emotional stress for the parents.
And thats one reason why so many of the screening tests have to be rushed and done few weeks earlier than 24 weeks gestation.
oh, and by the way, its hippocratic oath, not hypocritic heheh :)
OMG ah hu.. look at the "mess" you've created!!! this time i'm not joining in the argument... too many essays to write already... only lam so free....
as much as i must agree with everything that's been said and the sanctity of life in general, that has to be balanced with the sanctity of an individual's autonomy, and the right to make decisions which at the end of the day, concern themselves. however this of course has to be balanced with policy considerations & societal expectations or values.
everyone's right though, it's a question of balance, of definitions - what is life, when does it begin, when does it end, what constitutes valid consent, etc. what about someone who's mentally disabled, can relatives choose to reject treatment or to pull the plug?
very interesting topic =)
lol, yes i wanted to make fun of xh for saying hypocritic oath. LOL...!!
anyways, was watching CSI and Grissom was saying something about we can infer from the bible that life starts when there's blood flow, since blood gives life. something like that.
*shrug*
What euthanasia is:
an act by a thrid part that intentionally casuses a patient's death,
the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.
What euthanasia is not:
some medical actions that are often labelled passive enthanasia are no form of euthanasia, since the intention to 'take' life is lackig. These include not commencing treatment that would not provide a benefit to the patient, withdrawing treatment that has been shown to be ineffective, too burdensome or is unwanted. The withholding of medical therapy is reasonable when the treatment is disproportionately burdensome (that is, the therapy and not the disease is hard on the person) and relatively ineffective.
Just an example also to show how 'grey' the term euthanasia is and what happened..
People who advocates euthanasia think that mercy killing should be allowed if someone is terminal ill. Dutch psychiatrist Dr Boudewijn Chabot, provided a fatal dose of drugs to a depressed but physically healthy woman, stating that ''persistently sucidal patients are indeed terminal''.
My pastor actually talked a lot about this lately, and he does his notes like scientific paper...think it'd be useful to u in your argument...if only u could get it..haha.
Post a Comment