Organ donation

The term organ donation refers to the removal of the tissues of the human body from a person who has recently died, or from a living donor, for the purpose of transplantation to a deserving recipient. Organs and tissues are removed in procedures similar to regular surgery, and all incisions are closed at the conclusion of the surgery, resulting in extremely superficial and unnoticeable wounds and scars. Simple, effective steps can be taken to provide a traditional funeral viewing whenever this might be desired. People of all ages may be organ and tissue donors. In comparison, donations from dead donors far outweigh donations by living ones. The laws of different countries allow either the potential organ donor to consent or dissent to the donation during his or her life time, or allow the potential donor's relatives to consent or dissent. Due to cultural and social issues, the number of donations per million people varies a great deal in different countries.

To give some background information, there are hundreds of thousands of people around the globe awaiting organ transplants everyday, but only an estimated two hundred people on the waiting list receive an organ. Also, around 19 people die each day through waiting for an organ.

To discuss the first perspective of organ donation, I feel that it is justified in every sense and should be carried out in a more large-scale basis. This is because organ donation, especially from the deceased merely results in them not having a complete body with internals intact at their funeral. I reason that they are already dead anyway and what difference would it make whether they are put in the coffin with or without a kidney or heart? Maybe to some, it might have a certain religious or cultural significance. However, I then question whether this significance is substantial enough to potentially deprive another living person the right to life? Would the desire for a complete and intact body for a deceased person at his or her funeral outweigh the importance of human life which potentially would still have the chance to live and flourish? I don’t think so. Another point to note would be that for organ donation for the living, the donor would be able to live a normal life as he or she was doing before. The lack of one kidney or blood would not impact the donor’s life in any way. On the other hand, with this extra kidney, intestine or blood, the recipient’s life might be extended for another five, ten or even fifty years. Personally, I feel that even if there was a sacrifice to be made on the donor’s part, it is well worth it.

On the other hand, however, there are of course social and cultural issues on the subject of organ donation. In certain races, the removal of a person’s organ before he or her brain stem cells cease to function would be tantamount to murder. However, many doctors have stated that removal of most organs by this time would not be useful as their lifespan would have been run out. Thus, the question of whether these religious beliefs and traditions should be upheld, or the value of human life should take precedence over everything else should prevail is inherent. It can be reasoned that, like organ donations, religions are a person’s right to choose and since a person has chosen a certain religion, it is the duty of the people around him to respect the beliefs that he and his religion upholds.

In conclusion, my take on this issue would be that the value of human life should be regarded over everything else. However, I also believe that religious beliefs should be upheld and respected by the rest of the community. Thus, I feel that organ donations should be encouraged where it does not clash with religious beliefs or rules. For example, if someone does not want to donate his or her organ because of disfiguration of his or her body, it is important that the procedures of the transplant be made clear to the donor. For example, the ruling that all incisions made must be sewn up after the surgery might appease many donors as minimal scars will be left behind. Personally, I feel that organ donation should be allowed and even encouraged if the donor has personally agreed to the process. I also feel that more should be done to inform the potential donors the desperate need for organs and the potential benefit that it might bring to the person on the receiving end. To counter the potential ugly side of organ donation, I also feel that the organ market should be disallowed totally as other issues of human trafficking and abuse would ensue. However, for organ donation, the little sacrifice, if any, would result in the extension of someone else’s life, what could be more worth it?

Name: Chin Ken Min

Class: 3P

Date: 22-5-2008

Does democracy result in more stability in a country?

Democracy was first conceptualised by the ancient Greeks. It was first introduced to society via the outstanding philosophers in this period of history. The concept of the power to rule a state lying with its citizens has been adopted today in all of the world’s developed countries and many other countries as well.

The very concept of democracy seems to suggest stability in a country from initial observation, with the absence of a “bullying” and oppressive single party or dictatorship system, and the presence of rule by the masses. Firstly, and most importantly, people have a choice of the ruling party. This results directly from a lawful and orderly method of changing an ineffective or unsatisfactory ruling party, through an election. This eliminates instability in that coups, rebellions or even revolutions, would no longer be needed to force change.

Next, democracy also creates channels for people to express unhappiness, and provide feedback. The ruling party, through the democratic process, is made accountable to the people, and has to listen to their grievances. They have no choice but to comply to the majority’s wishes as they would be voted out if they misgovern the state. In this way, there is no build-up of unhappiness among the common folk, as would be the case in a dictatorship, where everyone is ruled by fear. This absence of build-up is indeed important in eliminating instability, as many of the coups, rebellions and major protests in history have been as a result of the people not being able to speak up for a long time, and more often than not, is as a result of an accumulation of unhappiness with the rulers.

Finally, the democratic process, including the Opposition in parliament, ensures checks and balances of the ruling party. It ensures a certain level of transparency in the government, and allows people to have the opportunity to assess the laws and policies before they are passed, to ensure that they would not be harmful to the society as a whole. This would deter and prevent excesses, corruption, and abuse of power, as misconduct by the ruling party would eventually cost them their mandate to govern. The few factors just mentioned are the main causes for internal instability between the people and the government in many countries where the ruling party abuses its power because there is no one to keep them in their place. Another measure would be the uncovering of the excesses and abuses of the previous government when there is a change in ruler. This would further deter the ruling party from abusing its power.

However, as fair and beneficial as democracy may seem, it has its cons, which may create instability. Democracy can only be effective when the majority of the citizens are educated and well-informed, only then can they can make the election process meaningful. This responsibility of objective and wise voting usually rests on the shoulders of the middle class of the society. In many young democracies, there is not a sufficient mass of middle class, possibly resulting in an immature political system, or the absence of a clear two-party system. In this case, it would result in the absence of neither strong nor reliable leadership, which in many cases would result in instability and unhappiness.

Secondly, in many democracies in the world, including Italy, a developed nation, the presence of a fragmented political parties system, coupled with the absence of clear dominant parties, resulting in frequent multi-party coalitions, would often result in weak, indecisive leadership, and power struggles, causing instability. If the transfer of leadership, and the change of ruling party, are not handled properly, it would also cause disruption and instability.

Thirdly, since the ruling party is decided on popularity, it would undeniably be slow to make prompt, effective and robust decisions, especially in times of emergencies; for fear that they would anger a segment of voters who may make the difference between their win or loss in the next election. The consultative nature of democracy does not help either in pressing situations, when ruling based on an iron fist is necessary. This lack of toughness in decision-making may often result in protests and even rebellions, when a problem has dragged on for too long.

Fourthly, because in a democracy, the majority’s votes count, it may result in marginalization of minority groups/insignificant states, because they do not carry significant voting power. Also, the ruling party, for fear of losing the majority’s popular vote, would tend to make decisions and policies which would favour the majority, e.g. by race or religion. This, in many cases such as Northern Ireland and Sri Lanka, would be the main cause for rebellions due to the suppression of minority rights over prolonged periods. In addition to this, the popular decisions might not always be beneficial to the society in the long run, and may cause future instability.

Another factor to consider would be that unlike a dictatorship, the pay and incentives of politicians, e.g. Ministers, are subjected to public scrutiny, such that their compensation tends to be less attractive than top-paying jobs in the private sector. There are also other sacrifices such as loss of privacy. This unattractiveness may result in the incompetent taking up politics, resulting in weak leadership, and thus, poor governance. This incompetence could result in the people taking advantage of the government, and instability would ensue.

In federated political systems, the ruling party of the federal government may be of a different party from that of the state government. The federal government may not work well with the state government, e.g. allocating insufficient budget for the state, and neglect the development of national infrastructure. This unfairness may lead to potential instability.

Finally, corruption in a democracy is not entirely impossible. The decentralization of power to the individual states would probably result in a lack of control over excesses, thus resulting in conflicts in the states, possibly building up to the country level. Also, the ruling party, in order to retain their mandate to rule the country, might put in place mechanisms to entrench their power. This will cause frustration among the citizens in that they would not be effective in making a ruling party change, even though democracy is in place.

On the whole, the stability in democracy is achieved through the checks and balance system, the power lying with the voters, and transparency ensures significant problems are surfaced early. However, democracy may also swing the other way, and cause instability in the country when an incompetent government is in place, or when the political system is too immature to handle the problems that arise with the introduction of democracy. The absence of a two-party system, or a well-supported ruling party that is resolute and strong enough to make tough and robust decisions, would probably result in many of the problems listed above.

In conclusion, I feel that democracy is a good system, if it is implemented properly, and supported by the right underlying environment. The main factor deciding the success or failure of democracy would be the middle class of the society. They serve as the balance between the upper and working classes, and hold the balance of power. Thus, democracy relies on the idea that the “people deserve the government they get”, the voters would make the difference between an effective or unsuccessful democracy. Problems within a democratic country can be resolved with a strong and mature ruling party, which comes from wise and informed voting, and the presence of a sizeable middle class. The middle class would provide the objective voting.

Funny pictures on generation gap

Just some funny pictures......

Teenagers, the generation gap and social problems

Title/s: The gap generation
: Teenagers make good

Author: William Damon

Title of magazine: USA weekend

Date the article was written: 29-4-01

Links: Generation gap breached

What I will be talking and reflecting about would be the generation gap and social problems associated with teenagers which are reflected very well in the two articles.

"The gap generation" gives the reader extremely insightful views on today's teens,the actual truth, backed by statistics about what teens actually feel about elders, the concept of respect and the generation gap. To sum everything up into a few sentences, the article states flatly that the widening generation gap which is the concern of many may just be a false alarm and in real fact, teenagers are gtting closer and having better relationships with their parents than evert before. Also, it states, with statistics to back it up, that teenagers not only trust and respect their parents, but have also even gone to the stage where they feel their parents are "cooler" than their friends and enjoy "hanging out "with them", a phenomenon previously not seen, or even known. However, the article also highlights that teens are becoming more and more oblivous of the country's affairs and state welfare and issues.

In response, to the first part, i feel that it is indeed true, that contrary to public opinion, the generation gap is just a term applicable to the minority of teen-parent relationships. In real fact, teens would see their parents, inevitably through their constant contact with them, as role models and even as their confidants and friends. This i feel, is as a result of the parents understanding that teens tend to grow up and get into contact with society at an earlier age than themselves. It is through this mutually developed understanding that parents will trust their teens to take care of themselves that misunderstandings and the so called generation gap has been breached. I feel that it is credit to the parent for being able to adapt so well to their teen's new style of life that the families have been able to progress smoothly and with harmony. Next, I also feel that the generation gap problem has also been breached mainly because of both side's matuarity. By the use of this term, i refer to both sides assuming responsibility for things that go wrong and do not play the "blame game". These two words are the cause for many misunderstandings and break up many already delicate relationships. In this case, credit goes to bot parties for being able to be brave enough to take responsibility for what has or had happened. Finally, i feel that this breached generation gap spells even brighter future for the families. With this increased mutual respect, understanding and matuarity in handling each other and the things that happen, families will be able to concentrate better on developing the finer points, such as family planning, getting to know each other better, the parent about the child's education, and the child about a parent's job and stress. This will all add up to a more holistic and suitable environment for a child to grow up in.

Finally, about the social problem. I feel that teen's decreasd intrest in social issues arise from two main problems. First, the sheer pressure and workload of going through an education. These days, education and fun have been clearly distinguished as immiscible by the public. The emphasis placed on good grades had overtaken the teen's ability to be too concerned about anything else that is happening around them. Secondly, i also feel that teens feel that politics and national issues are somethig "for the adults" to worry about. In this case, it also boils down to the fact that teens just do not have the stamina to look and delve into anything deeper than getting straight A s. Thus, i feel what can be done to thissevere problem that strikes up enough concern in the country would be to encourage such topics to be that of discussions in schools and in homes. By this, i mean the media and other sources should give extra emphasis on such topics so that the teens are constantly exposed to them.

I feel, in conclusion, that the stereotypes of teens being constantly involved in colflicts with their parents are not true, which is indeed a thankful signal. Also, I feel that the social problems and ignorance towards thems be teensagrers is of enough concern to take the following steps as mentioned above.



Just some interesting pictures i found on the generation gap......