I Luv Dark Chocolate !

2007-11-28T00:04:00.000+08:00

Lookism

Lookism is discrimination against or prejudice towards others based on their appearance. The term is not in widespread use, though it appears in major English-language dictionaries. Lookism has received scholarly attention both from a cultural studies and an economics perspective. In the former context, lookism relates to preconceived notions of beauty and cultural stereotyping based on appearance as well as gender roles and expectations. Important economic considerations include the question of income gaps based on looks, as well increased or decreased productivity from workers considered beautiful or ugly by their co-workers.

Related Articles:

http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2007/05/07/40457/personnel-today-teasing-survey-finds-uk-workplace-is-becoming-increasingly-lookist.html

http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/04/18/29307/overweight-and-underpaid-as-lookism-sweeps-the-world.html

Ageism

Ageism is stereotyping and prejudice against individuals or groups because of their age. The term was coined in 1969 by US gerontologist Robert N. Butler to describe discrimination against seniors, patterned on sexism and racism.

Related Articles:

http://www.media-diversity.org/articles_publications/This%20unfair%20age%20barrier.htm

http://www.media-diversity.org/downloaded%20articles/Ageism%20in%20The%20Media.htm

Disableism

Ableism is a neologism of American coinage, since about 1981. It is used to describe inherent discrimination against people with disabilities in favor of people who are not disabled. An ableist society is said to be one that treats non-disabled individuals as the standard of ‘normal living’, which results in public and private places and services, education, and social work that are built to serve 'standard' people, thereby inherently excluding those with various disabilities.

Ableism - Ableist is the adjective form. Other words for the same concept include disableism and disabilism.

Related Articles:

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/09/12/72163317

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/09/19/72163419

Xenophobia

Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of foreigners or strangers and people . It comes from the Greek words (xenos), meaning "foreigner," "stranger," and (phobos), meaning "fear." The term is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people different from one's self.

Related Articles:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_4_41/ai_n13803093

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1012

http://www.queensu.ca/samp/migrationresources/xenophobia/responses/ancoct.htm

http://www.queensu.ca/samp/migrationresources/xenophobia/responses/anc.htm

2007-11-19T22:47:00.000+08:00

General Paper Research:

*Globalisation and Culture

"Globalization of Culture"
http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/

"GLOBALISATION OF CULTURE - TO WHAT END?"
- The Marxist (April-June 2000)
http://www.cpim.org/marxist/200002_marxist_culture_ss.htm

Globalisation and the Impact on Health, A Third World View - The Globalisation of Culture
Issue Papers (Evelyne Hong, August 2000)
-From People Health's Movement
http://phmovement.org/pubs/issuepapers/hong18.html

Globalisation and Culture in the Asia-Pacific Region by Hyung Gu Lynn
(World Review, february 2005)
http://www.mediatimesreview.com/february05/Globalisation.php

*Environment & Biodiversity, Sustainable development

Environment and Biodiversity
http://www.twnside.org.sg/enb.htm

Global Issues: Sustainable Development, by Anup Shah,
last Updated Monday, June 04, 2007
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Development.asp

*Terrorism and War

FEMA
http://www.fema.gov/hazard/terrorism/index.shtm

Terrorism and War by Howard Zinn
http://www.sevenstories.com/Book/index.cfm?GCOI=58322100383580

Terrorism and War, Written January 27, 2006 by Russ Allbery
http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/writing/terrorism.html

Terrorism and War: Context and Aftermath of September 11th
http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu/9-11/index.asp

2007-09-09T19:48:00.000+08:00

Is same sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?

Traditionally, marriage has been defined as a religious and legal commitment between a man and woman, as well as the ultimate expression of love. Through marriage, our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life.

In this age of globalisation, homosexual relationships are increasing gaining acceptance, however, these couples are not permitted to marry. Some states have considered a new form of commitment called a “civil union”, which essentially is marriage without using the word “marriage”.

There are many arguments for and against same sex marriages, which we will examine in greater details before deciding whether same sex marriage is a practical consideration in this age of globalisation.

Same sex marriage is a practical consideration in this age of globalisation because marriage benefits should be available to all couples. Marriage is more than a legal status. It affects many things in society such as tax filing status, joint ownership of property, insurance benefits and agency law. Furthermore, it also affects critical medical decisions. For example, if one member of a gay couple that has been together for 20 years gets critically ill, visitation may not even be allowed since the other is not considered a “spouse or immediate family member”. In addition, a gay couple is not able to make critical medical decisions when the other party is incapacitated. (e.g. should a certain surgery be done or not?) It is unfair to deny these privileges to them just because their relationship does not fit the state’s definition of one. Hence, same sex marriage is a practical consideration in this age of globalisation.

Moreover, same sex marriages can contribute to the increase of child adoption. Since gay couples cannot have children naturally, this will likely increase their desire to adopt, and since there are so many children around in the country in need of adoption, this may be a good thing. Although there are people who believe that a child reared in a same sex marriage do not develop ideally, evidence at this point is inconclusive since same sex adoptions have yet to become widespread. Hence, same sex marriage is a practical consideration in this age of globalisation as it is a solution to child adoption.

On the other hand, same sex marriage may not be a practical consideration in this age of globalisation most religions consider homosexuality as a sin. Virtually every religion in the world, including the major ones in this country, considers homosexuality unacceptable. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. The first step to legalise homosexuality is to make people accept and recognise it. Without acceptance and recognition from the public, same sex marriage may not be a practical consideration in this age of globalisation.

In addition, same sex marriage provides a slippery slope in the legality of marriage. Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it does not hurt anyone. However, it can start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn’t he able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the option is endless. These options may sound absurd, but it only takes a few activists to use the statute to open the door. Hence, sex marriage may not be a practical consideration in this age of globalisation.

There is a quote from the Statement of Affirmation and Reconciliation by the Quaker meeting in Aotearoa, “Each individual’s journey through life is unique. Some will make this journey alone, others in loving relationships – maybe in marriage or other forms of commitment. We need to ponder our own choices and try to understand the choices of others. Love has many shape and colours and is not finite. It cannot be measured or defined in terms of sexual orientation.” Nonetheless, there are many other social issues which we have to consider. Although new reproductive technoscience means that same sex couples will be able to reproduce as a couple, but there are limits to this use of technology. In addition, making people recognise and accept same sex marriages is a long and tedious process which cannot be dealt with immediately, hence same sex marriage may not be a practical consideration in this age of globalisation to a large extent.

2007-08-19T16:20:00.000+08:00

The Second Asia Shock

[ First came the workers, now the shoppers. Is the world ready? ]

-Taken from Newsweek May 28, 2007

This article highlights the growth of two countries, namely China and India. China is well known for being the world’s factory, while India’s new wealth has been built on services. If both countries continue on roughly their current growth path, we will witness the creation of massive new consumer markets which will reshape our global markets as well as unprecedented reductions in poverty.

According to what I have learnt in Geography recently under globalization, it confirms what the articles reported, that China and India are the two rising economies in Asia. Hence judging from the rate China and India are growing, there is no doubt that they will rise up and dominate the world market, it is merely a matter of time. With reference to the article, it says that rising income have the potential to lift over a hundred million people out of poverty in China. Higher income also means greater purchasing power, hence the creation of new consumer markets will contribute to the world’s economy as both China and India are highly populated, hence if the income of their population rises, they will have higher purchasing power, hence benefiting the economy. This is a boom to the economy.

However, with rising affluence in India and China, Asian countries should also be mindful of the threat China and India can pose to them. Besides creating a new consumer market, they are also capable of creating a business market. Realising that more people are now having a higher income and the presence of a new consumer market, they can now venture into business, posing a threat to foreign companies who set up business in their countries. As such, foreign companies will face a stiff competition if more and more locals (referring to the locals in China and India) set up business in their own country to tap on the new consumer market. Hence, Asian countries should be careful of the rapid growth of the two rising economies, China and India.

Nonetheless, this article also states that despite rising wealth, public services remain weak, households have high savings rates because they do not trust their government to provide health care, education and pensions. This is a cause for concern as a strong and efficient government is critical for economic growth of any country. In contrast, a weak government will hinder growth and development as the government serves as the foundation of any country. Hence, Singapore owns its growth and prosperity to a clean, stable, strong and efficient government. Singapore also has different departments and ministries which cater to the different interests and welfare of its people. For instance, the Ministry of Health (MOH) manages the public healthcare system to ensure that good and affordable basic medical services are available to all Singaporeans. MOH achieve this through providing subsidised medical services while promoting individual responsibility for the costs of healthcare services through encouraging the population to adopt a healthy lifestyle. In addition, it also initiate a national healthcare savings scheme known as Medisave, whereby working individuals set aside part of their monthly income in their Medisave Account for future hospital expenses for themselves and their families. Furthermore, Singapore recognized that a good education is the key to better future; hence the Ministry of Education (MOE) introduces the financial assistance scheme to help the needy Singapore Citizen pupils in Government or Government-Aided schools and those in Independent schools. In addition, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) also introduce various schemes and policies as such the Singapore’s Shares, Economic Restructuring Shares and Progress Package to help improve the standard of living in Singapore, as well as to close up the income gap between the lower income and the higher income.

As such, as for whether China and India will become the largest consumer market remains questionable, as it is dependent on other factors such as a strong and efficient government. If its people do not have trust and confidence in the government, it does not matter if its population’s income is increasing, as they would not be spending anyway.

2007-08-13T04:13:00.000+08:00

“The mother of revolution and crime is poverty.” (Aristotle) Do you agree?

Poverty is defined as the lack of some fixed level of material and social goods necessary for survival and minimal well-being. These fixed level of material and social goods may include food, safe drinking water, shelter, access to information, education, healthcare, social status, political power and opportunity to develop connections with other people in the society. Poverty may be seen as the collective condition of poor people or developing countries, although there is evidence of poverty in every region.

Poverty was the first sociological variable of a possible cause of crime. Leading criminologists around the world recognize that demographic and social conditions have profound effect on the crime rate. The last “poverty causes crime” criminologists were Guerry and Quetelet in France during the early 1800s, and perhaps a few Marxist-inspired criminologists in the early 1900s. Desperation has a way of making man do the wildest thing on earth. Hence, when poverty drives one to desperation, that person will probably resort to crime or revolution (to a small extent, as it does not depend on one’s effort). For instance, a desperate parent will do anything to save their ill children who are in need of a big sum of medical bill, even if it is considered illegal. Money is not everything, but without money, you can’t do anything! Longitudinal studies have revealed that children who live in poverty, especially in concentrated areas of disadvantage, are more likely to engage in criminal activity later in life. Hence, I agree that the mother of revolution and crime is poverty.

However, there goes a saying, “Money is the root of all evil!” Without money, poor people will resort to crime to get it or rise up together to stage a revolution against the existing government to improve their standard of living and quality of life. However, rich people commit crime too, as greed tempts them to desire even more. An example will be T.T. Durai, the former Chief Executive Officer of the National Kidney Foundation Singapore (NKF). Durai was once highly respected as the head of an extremely successful fundraising organisation and he was now facing corruption charges. T.T. Durai is rich and inflential, he owns a terrace house and a car, therefore showing no sign of poverty. However, he was corrupted and spent from the charity's funds on luxury items which appeared to be for the personal use of Durai and his wife due to his own greed and pleasure. Hence, there are limintations to the statement, “The mother of revolution and crime is poverty.”

Does poverty always lead to crime and revolution? I do not think so; there are external factors which trigger those people in poverty to resort to crime and revolution. Karl Marx once said, “A house can be large or small; as long as the surrounding houses are equally small it satisfies all social demands. But if a palace rises beside the little house, the little house shrinks into a hut.” This shows that social factors such as income disparity and difference in standard of living play a part as well. It is this difference that cause the discontentment in people, making the poor seems “worst-off”, hence triggers them to either resort to crime or stage a revolution to improve their standard of living and quality of life.

Recognizing income disparity and social difference play a bigger role in contributing to the increase in crime rate and revolution, the Singapore government was quick to introduce measures to help the lower income group so as to close the income gap between the rich and the poor. Such measures include providing training for low-skilled or retrenched workers, introducing the workfare bonus and progress package etc…

In conclusion, I agree, “The mother of revolution and crime is poverty.” (Aristotle) to a small extent as there are many other factors, such as thirst for power, greed, which trigger people to resort to crime and revolution, apart from poverty. Furthermore, poverty alone does not lead to crime or revolution, as nobody will feel that he/she is poor if everyone else is the same. Hence, social factors play a bigger role as it is the difference in their social level which cause discontentment in the people and thus cause them to try to improve their standard of living and quality of life through illegal means. Thus, I agree, “The mother of revolution and crime is poverty.” (Aristotle) to a small extent.

2007-08-04T23:15:00.000+08:00

Author A:

Discrimination against one’s sexuality has been a timeless sociological trend. If a man were queer, he would never dare to reveal his sexual orientation in public. He would instead choose to live in the shadow of his true identity, even going so far as to get married and to start a family.

Often the legislation of a country does not recognize the rights of homosexuals because same-sex partnership is a violation of essential biological determination - that a man and a woman are required to procreate and form a child.

Same-sex marriage would also cause social disorder as a result of its violation of time-honoured traditions, since the fabric of society has long been held together by the institution of male-female marriage, followed by the reproduction of offspring from that union. Homosexual unions would require adoptive procedures, artificial insemination and sperm donor programs. All these are economically unsound and would drain the resources of the government.

Author B:

Discrimination against one’s sexuality is a basic violation of human rights. It suggests that the right to marry or love another is controlled by the state. Two people should have the absolute freedom in deciding whoever they choose to live or start a family with.

Often the legislation of a country encroaches on the rights of individuals to form partnership and start their own families. It can be argued that heterosexual couplings would not always mean more stable marriages as this has yet to be proven scientifically.

It can also be argued that because homosexual couples have to take great efforts to adopt a child, they would value their families a lot more than biological parents, reducing the rates of divorce, child-abuse and social dysfunction. After all, it takes a village to raise a child, and the gay community tends to be close-knit, since they have to stick together for mutual help and support. Children raised in this environment of open-ness and acceptance would benefit them positively.

Author A discuss about the negative aspects of homosexuals and he supports discrimination against one’s sexuality while Author B discuss about the positive aspect of homosexuals and he argued that discrimination against one’s sexuality is not justified.

Discrimination has existed in many forms throughout the long human history, be it discrimination against race, gender, religion, sexuality etc… Discrimination against sexuality can be traced as far back as the 19th century during World War II, the time when Hitler rise up and attempt to bring Germany to power again. During that time, all the homosexuals were first brought to concentration camps and then left to die in a gas chamber, which was a brutal way of killing as most of the victims suffocate to death. It is not justify to kill or discriminate someone just because they are homosexuals because ultimately, we are all humans, be it we are homosexuals or not, and hence we should possess the same rights. During the holocaust, homosexuals were killed in gas chambers just because Hitler discriminated and hated them, furthermore they are not the only group being targeted at, hence Hitler’s actions brought much dispute and disturbances to the world. Many people condemned Hitler’s actions because it is not morally upright to kill you because of who you are, but because of what you do. If everyone behaves like Hitler, the world will be in chaos and everyone will be living in fear as everyone is different from one another and you never know when you are being discriminated by another party.

I agree with Author A, who says that discrimination against one’s sexuality has been a timeless sociological trend. However, I must say that over the years, education has taught us to be tolerant of others and to accept others for who they are, hence discrimination against one’s sexuality has not been as severe as my grandparents’ time. I think for the traditional old Chinese people who tends to be more conservative, have yet to come to accept homosexuals. As such, if I were to tell my grandfather that my friend is a homosexual, he might probably ask me not to mix with him anymore, saying that it is an outrageous behavior and a disgrace to his family. Although discrimination has not been as rife as before and the modern society have learnt to accept homosexuals more, we have yet learn to accept it if it were to happen on one of our family members. I believe most parents can accept others as homosexuals as long as their own children are not one. This is where the irony sets in, why can we accept it when it happens to others but not when it is someone closest to us like our family, despite saying that discrimination is not justified and we should eliminate discrimination etc… The fact that we cannot accept our family members to be homosexuals shows that discrimination against sexuality still persists, subconsciously. This is due to how the media and the world portrays homosexuals and manipulate our minds into believing that they are abnormal. The fact that we cannot accept our family members to be homosexuals is because we do not want them to be categorized into this abnormal group and view abnormally by the world. Although many people do not say that homosexuals are abnormal aloud, it does not necessarily mean they think the same way.

Very often, we only think of the negative aspects of homosexuals as what is said by Author A and neglected the positive aspects of homosexuals stated by Author B. I think Author B brings out a very good point, that is, since homosexual couples have to take great efforts to adopt a child, they would value their families a lot more than biological parents, reducing the rates of divorce, child-abuse and social dysfunction. In addition, the gay community tends to be close-knit, since they have to stick together for mutual help and support. This shows that the homosexuals would appreciate and treasure hat they have more compared to a normal couple, as nothing comes by easy for them and they have to fight for what they deserve through hard work and perseverance.

All in all, I think discrimination should be eliminated for a country to progress economically and socially, as we should recognize the fact that different people have different talents and qualities. If we discriminate against a particular group, we might overlook his talents or qualities, thereby losing a talent who can make valuable contributions to the country. For instance, Singapore, this tiny little island with limited manpower and resources, while trying to recruit foreign talents to work in Singapore, realizes that some of these foreign talents are homosexuals, hence Singapore is trying to review the law on homosexuals, so that these talents can work in the parliament and help to contribute to the progress of Singapore.

In conclusion, I feel that while we discourage discrimination against sexuality, we must be conscious that we do not encourage people to be homosexuals as well, as same-sex marriages would cause social disorder. In addition, an increase in homosexuals would also mean lower birth rates and contribute to Singapore’s small and slow population growth, which is something we do not want to achieve. Furthermore, introducing homosexuals into the country will bring both positive and negative impacts to a country, this is a long process and it takes time in order to evaluate the overall impact it had on the country. Personally, I think the government will have to inculcate positive values in its people for this policy to work satisfactorily.

2007-06-09T02:30:00.000+08:00

Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.

Having read both articles, I think that both authors are right in saying what they feel regarding freedom of expressions as they are looking at the issue from different perspectives.

However, personally, I feel that Zsofia Szilagyi’s view on freedom rights is more applicable in the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism. Even though Singapore practiced democracy and we enjoyed freedom of rights, we must be conscious that we are a multi-racial society, thus we should be sensitive to other racial groups’ feelings and protect minorities’ rights as well. While we enjoy the freedom of speech and expressions, we must be responsible for what we say and that we do not hurt others unknowingly.

As Singapore is a small country with limited resources and land, we are very vulnerable to attacks. Szilagyi said that “Newspapers editors should have been aware, however, that in a world of global information flow there is an insurmountable contradiction between traditional free speech values and public discussion about Islam”, I think this is very true and countries should be wary of this, especially Singapore, because Singapore is surrounded by many Islamic countries as Malaysia, Indonesia etc, as such Singapore must be very mindful of its words when talking about sensitive issues such as Islam as Singapore cannot afford to offend its neighboring Islamic countries, who might then turn aggressive and attack us. To prevent this, Singapore has always been mindful of its actions and words and has established diplomatic ties with its neighboring countries. Singapore has come a long way in establishing diplomatic ties with Indonesia, as it is not an easy task especially just after the Indonesian Confrontation in 1963. In addition, Singapore also had to maintain its diplomatic ties with Malaysia despite having conflicts with them regarding the water issues. However, Singapore is aware that this is essential as having diplomatic relationships with them is necessary for our national security, thus Singapore was tactful about it.

Furthermore, being a multi-racial society, racial harmony is very important as we cannot tolerate racial and religious conflicts which Singapore is ill afford. As such, education played an important role here. Through education, Singaporeans learnt that racial harmony could contribute to our national security and bring about prosperity. Different races also learn to be tolerant of one another, as they do not wish to repeat the tragedy of the 1964 race riots. They understand that insensitiveness towards other races could bring about racial discord and huge consequences that could disrupt the economy. As such, despite having the freedom of speech, Singaporeans were mindful and conscious about what they say; this is what we call social responsibility.

There is a need for us to strike a balance between individual and collective press freedom rights. Though there is no doubt that freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy, we should focus more on responsibility and not solely on freedom, in the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, due to the factors discussed above. Singaporeans need to learn to be responsible, while enjoying their freedom rights, so as to avoid unintended consequences. In contrary, Peter Singer’s firm approach towards freedom of expression as a basic right does not apply to Singapore in this case, as it applies more to countries under autocratic rule instead. In those autocratic countries, they should allow more freedom rights, in order to bring about human progress, as stated in Peter Singer’s article.

Both authors’ viewpoints are not wrong, as they are looking from different perspectives. Different countries require different levels and forms of freedom rights, depending on the country involved. In a place where there is cultural and religious pluralism like Singapore, Singaporeans need to be responsible while using their freedom rights in this multi-racial society, hence Zsofia Szilagyi’s view is more applicable and should be adopted in the context of Singapore.

Word Count: 645 Words

2007-06-07T01:01:00.000+08:00

A Song: "Blasphemous Rumours" – Depeche Mode

Girl of sixteen, whole life ahead of her
Slashed her wrists, bored with life
Didn’t succeed, thank the lord for small mercies

Fighting back the tears, mother reads the note again
Sixteen candles burn in her mind
She takes the blame, it’s always the same
She goes down on her knees and prays

I don’t want to start any blasphemous rumours
But I think that gods got a sick sense of humor
And when I die I expect to find him laughing

Girl of eighteen, fell in love with everything
Found new life in Jesus Christ
Hit by a car, ended up on a life support machine

Summers day, as she passed away
Birds were singing in the summer sky
Then came the rain, and once again
A tear fell from her mother’s eye

Review on the song “Blasphemous Rumours” by Depeche Mode

This song talks about a sixteen-year-old miserable girl who is getting tired and bored with life. She tried to commit suicide by slashing her wrists, hoping that she could end her life and escape from her misery, however she failed. She did not die. Having escaped death, the girl and her mother thanked God for giving her a second chance in life to look at the world from another perspective.

The same old girl, who has turned eighteen year old, began to have a hopeful and positive attitude towards life. She fell in love with everything, looking forward to a meaningful life and a bright future. Furthermore, she found faith in God and was thankful for her life.

Unfortunately, she was hit by a car and ended up having to live on a life support machine. She passed away in summer, where birds sang melodiously in the sky, depicting happiness as if God was happy at her departure from the world, while her mother tear bitterly in sorrow.

The song is mocking at the irony of life and God. When the girl was filled with misery and wanted to die, God gave her life and let her carried on with life. However, when the girl finally sorted out her thoughts and was eager and ready to lead a fulfilling life, God let her meet with an accident and took her life away from her. This song sets to insult and mock God from doing the opposite of what the girl wishes and hence it states in the third verse that God should be laughing at her departure from the world as her life was in God’s hand and God has been playing with her life all the while. In a way, the song also question if God is really helping mankind or is he doing the reverse.

2007-06-07T00:19:00.000+08:00

Research on Life Support

Life support, in the medical field, refers to a set of therapies for preserving a patient's life when essential body systems are not functioning sufficiently to sustain life unaided.

Life support therapies utilize some combination of several techniques: feeding tubes, intravenous drips, total parenteral nutrition, mechanical respiration, heart/lung bypass, urinary catheterization and dialysis. The same techniques are also used for intensive care or in some cases during surgery, though life support is employed to stabilize a patient and is typically not sufficient to allow full recovery from their condition.

Information taken from: www.wikipedia.org

2007-06-06T01:20:00.000+08:00

Research on Terri Schiavo

Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005), from St. Petersburg, Florida, United States was a woman who suffered brain damage and became dependent on a feeding tube. She collapsed in her home on February 25, 1990, and experienced respiratory and cardiac arrest, leading to 15 years of institutionalization and a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state (PVS).

In 1998, Michael Schiavo, her husband and guardian, petitioned the Pinellas County Circuit Court to remove her feeding tube. Robert and Mary Schindler, her parents, opposed this, arguing she was conscious. The court determined that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The battle stretched on for seven years and included involvement by politicians and advocacy groups.

Before the court's decision was carried out, on March 18, 2005, the Florida Legislature and United States Congress had passed laws, signed by the Governor of Florida and President of the United States, respectively, that were designed to prevent removal of Schiavo's feeding tube. These laws were overturned by the supreme courts of Florida and the United States. These events resulted in extensive national and international media coverage.

By March 2005, the legal history around the Schiavo case included fourteen appeals and numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in Federal District Court; Florida legislation struck down by the Supreme Court of Florida; a subpoena by a congressional committee to qualify Schiavo for witness protection; federal legislation (Palm Sunday Compromise); and four denials of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.

She died at a Pinellas Park hospice on March 31, 2005, at the age of 41.

Information taken from: www.wikipedia.org

2007-06-06T00:52:00.000+08:00

Research on Advance Medical Directives

Advance directives began to be developed in the United States in the late 1960's.

Advance Directives: The term "Advance Directives" refers to treatment preferences and the designation of a surrogate decision- maker in the event that a person should become unable to make medical decisions on her or his own behalf.

Advance directives generally fall into three categories: living will, power of attorney, and health care proxy.

Living Will: This is a written document that specifies what types of medical treatment are desired should the individual become incapacitated. A living will can be general or very specific. The most common statement in a living will is to the effect that:

*If I suffer an incurable, irreversible illness, disease, or condition and my attending physician determines that my condition is terminal, I direct that life-sustaining measures that would serve only to prolong my dying be withheld or discontinued.

More specific living wills may include information regarding an individual's desire for such services such as analgesia (pain relief), antibiotics, hydration, feeding, CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) and the use of life-support equipment including ventilators.

Health Care Proxy: This is a legal document in which an individual designates another person to make health care decisions if he or she is rendered incapable of making their wishes known. The health care proxy has, in essence, the same rights to request or refuse treatment that the individual would have if capable of making and communicating decisions.

Durable Power of Attorney: Through this type of advance directive, an individual executes legal documents which provide the power of attorney to others in the case of an incapacitating medical condition. The durable power of attorney allows an individual to make bank transactions, sign Social Security checks, apply for disability, or simply write checks to pay the utility bill while an individual is medically incapacitated.

Information taken from: http://www.medicinenet.com/advance_medical_directives/article.htm

2007-06-06T00:44:00.000+08:00

Research on Death Machine

The Thanatron, or death machine, was a device created by Dr. Jack Kevorkian to aid in the euthanasia of his patients. The device functioned through an intravenous injection. First a drip of saline solution would be started, then the patient would trigger the delivery of sodium thiopental to initiate a coma. After 60 seconds the device would automatically deliver a dose of potassium chloride, capable of stopping the heart within minutes. After the first two deaths Kevorkian stopped use of the Thanatron, as his medical license had been revoked and he could no longer obtain the necessary drugs for its use.

Information taken from: www.wikipedia.org

2007-06-06T00:23:00.000+08:00

Research on Jack Kevorkian

Jack Kevorkian, is a controversial American pathologist. He was born in Pontiac, Michigan to Armenian-American parents. He is most noted for publicly championing a terminal patient's right to die via physician-assisted suicide and claims to have assisted at least 130 patients to that end. This has earned him the nickname of Dr. Death. He has famously stated, "dying is not a crime."

Imprisoned in 1999, he served eight years out of his 10-to-25-year prison sentence for second-degree murder in the 1998 poisoning of Thomas Youk, 52, of Oakland County, Michigan. Kevorkian was released from prison on June 1, 2007, but is expected to live less than 1 year due to a case of Hepatitis C that he contracted during service in Vietnam.

Kevorkian graduated in 1952 from the University of Michigan medical school, specializing in pathology. In 1970, he became the chief pathologist at Saratoga General Hospital in Detroit.
Early in his medical career, he showed a recurrent interest in the subject of death: In 1956, he published a journal article, "The Fundus Oculi and the Determination of Death", about his attempt to photograph the eyes of patients at the moment of death--a paper that first won him the nickname "Doctor Death". A paper he presented in December 1958 that advocated consensual experiments on convicts during executions led the University of Michigan to ask him to terminate his residency. A 1961 article in The American Journal of Clinical Pathology described his efforts to transfuse blood from dead bodies into living patients.

In the 1980s, Kevorkian wrote a series of articles for the German journal Medicine and Law that laid out his thinking on the ethics of euthanasia.

Between 1990 and 1998, Kevorkian assisted in the deaths of nearly one hundred allegedly terminally ill people, according to his lawyer Geoffrey Fieger. (Later autopsies on several of the individuals Kevorkian assisted in killing revealed that there were no signs of any terminal illness, and that the individual's main motivation to die was due to depression.) In each of the above mentioned cases, the individuals themselves allegedly took the final action which resulted in their own deaths: voluntary euthanasia. Dr. Kevorkian allegedly assisted only by attaching the individual to a device that he had made. The individual then pushed a button which released the drugs or chemicals that would end his or her own life. Two deaths were assisted by means of a device which employed a needle and delivered the euthanizing drugs mechanically through an IV. Kevorkian called it a "Thanatron" (death machine). Other people were assisted by a device which employed a gas mask fed by a canister of carbon monoxide which was called "Mercitron" (mercy machine). This became necessary because Kevorkian's medical license had been revoked after the first two deaths, and he could no longer have legal access to the substances required for the "Thanatron".

On the November 23, 1998 broadcast of 60 Minutes, Kevorkian allowed the airing of a videotape he had made on September 17, 1998, which depicted the voluntary euthanasia of Thomas Youk, an adult male with full decisional capacity who was in the final stages of ALS. After Youk provided his fully-informed consent on September 17, 1998, Kevorkian administered a lethal injection. During the videotape, Kevorkian dared the authorities to try to convict or stop him from carrying out assisted suicides. This incited the district attorney to bring murder charges against him, claiming that Kevorkian single-handedly caused the death.

At the time of Kevorkian's release, the only state in the United States that had legalized doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill people was Oregon.

Information taken from: www.wikipedia.org

2007-06-06T00:10:00.000+08:00

Research on Ritual Suicide

Ritual suicide is the act of suicide motivated by a religious, spiritual, or traditional ritual.

An extreme interpretation of Hindu custom historically practiced, mostly in the 2nd millennium, was self-immolation by a widow as an assurance that she will be with her husband for the next life.

Other rituals of self-immolation or self-starvation were used by Hindu, Jain and Buddhist monks for religious or philosophical purposes, or as a form of extreme non-violent protest.

In China, some groups would practice suicide for similar reasons.

In Japan, rituals of suicide like seppuku were practiced.

Information taken from: www.wikipedia.org

2007-06-05T23:53:00.000+08:00

Research on Suicide

Suicide, intentional, self-inflicted death. A uniquely human act, suicide occurs in all cultures. People who attempt or complete suicide usually suffer from extreme emotional pain and distress and feel unable to cope with their problems. They are likely to suffer from mental illness, particularly severe depression, and to feel hopeless about the future.

Suicide ranks as a leading cause of death worldwide, making it a significant public-health problem. In addition, some researchers believe official statistics underestimate the actual number of suicides.

Methods of suicide vary from culture to culture. Hanging is the leading method of suicide worldwide. In the United States about 60 percent of all suicides are committed with firearms. In Canada, where guns are less accessible, about 30 percent of suicides are committed with guns. Poisoning, such as taking an overdose of medication, accounts for about 18 percent of U.S. suicides. Researchers believe that a small proportion of fatal single-occupant automobile accidents are actually suicides.

Suicidal behavior has numerous and complex causes. The biology of the brain, genetics, psychological traits, and social forces all can contribute to suicide. Although people commonly attribute suicide to external circumstances—such as divorce, loss of a job, or failure in school—most experts believe these events are triggers rather than causes in themselves.

The majority of people who kill themselves suffer from depression that is often undiagnosed and untreated. Because depression so often underlies suicide, studying the causes of depression can help scientists understand the causes of suicide. Other mental illnesses, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and anxiety disorders may also contribute to suicidal behavior.

Research indicates that suicidal behavior runs in families, suggesting that genetic and biological factors play a role in one’s suicide risk. Among one community of Amish people in Pennsylvania, almost three-quarters of all suicides that occurred over a 100-year period were in just four families. Studies of twins reared apart provide some support for a genetic influence in suicide.People may inherit a genetic predisposition to certain psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and alcoholism, that increase the risk of suicide. In addition, an inability to control impulsive and violent behavior may have biological roots. Research has found lower than normal levels of a substance associated with the brain chemical serotonin in people with impulsive aggressiveness.

Studies consistently show that although suicidal people do not appear to have greater life stress than others, they lack effective strategies to cope with stress. In addition, they are more likely than others to have had family loss and turmoil, such as the death of a family member, separation or divorce of their parents, or child abuse or neglect. The parents of those who attempt suicide have a greater frequency of mental illness and substance abuse than other parents. However, suicide occurs in all types of families, including those with little apparent turmoil.

Information taken from: www.encarta.com

2007-06-05T01:55:00.000+08:00

Research on Pro-choice vs Pro-life

Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light ("Pro-choice" implies the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life"). Similarly each side's use of the term "rights" ("reproductive rights", "right to life of the unborn") implies a validity in their stance, given that the presumption in language is that rights are inherently a good thing and so implies an invalidity in the viewpoint of their opponents.

Pro-life and pro-choice individuals often use political framing to convey their perspective on the issues, and in some cases, to discredit opposing views. Pro-life advocates tend to use terms such as "mother", "unborn child", "unborn baby", "pre-born infant" or infanticide. Pro-choice advocates tend to use terms such as "zygote", "embryo" or "fetus".

Pro-choice

Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro-choice movement.

Pro-choice activists believe that women should have access to safe and legal abortion and, equally, that women should be protected from forced abortions. Some see abortion as a last resort, and focus on a number of situations where they feel abortion is a necessary option. Among these situations are those where the woman was raped, her health or life (or that of the fetus) is at risk, contraception was used but failed, or she feels unable to raise a child. Some pro-choice moderates, who would otherwise be willing to accept certain restrictions on abortion, feel that political pragmatism compels them to oppose any such restrictions, as they could be used to form a slippery slope against all abortions.

Pro-choice activists frequently oppose legislative measures that would require abortion providers to make certain statements (some of which are factually disputed) to patients, because they argue that these measures are intended to make obtaining abortions more difficult. These measures fall under the rubric of abortion-specific "informed consent" or "right to know" laws.

On the issue of abortion, pro-choice campaigners are opposed by pro-life campaigners who argue that the central issue is a completely different set of rights. The pro-life view considers human fetuses and embryos to have the full legal rights of a human being; thus, the right to life of a developing fetus or embryo trumps the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

2007-05-15T14:29:00.000+08:00

Pro-life

Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for fetal rights. The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that all human beings have the right to life, and that this includes fetuses and embryos.

Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued from fertilisation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, associated with Christian morality (especially in the United States), and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism. From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a human being. Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or morally wrong. Such an act is not considered to be mitigated by any benefits to others through scientific advancement or, in the case of abortion, by ending the hardship of a woman with an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy, as such benefits come at the expense of the life of what they consider a person. In some cases, this belief extends to opposing abortion of fetuses that would almost certainly be unviable, such as anencephalitic fetuses. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are also opposed by some pro-life people based on a belief that life is sacred and must be protected even against the wishes of people who want to end their own lives.

Pro-lifers are frequently (but not always) in opposition to certain forms of birth control, particularly hormonal contraception such as ECP's, which may prevent the implantation of an embryo. Because pro-life advocates largely believe that life begins at conception, they often regard these forms of birth control as abortifacients. The Catholic Church recognizes this view, but the possibility that hormonal contraception has post-fertilization effects is currently disputed within the scientific community.

On the issue of abortion, pro-life campaigners are opposed by pro-choice campaigners who argue that the central issue is a completely different set of rights. The pro-choice view does not consider a fetus to have the full legal rights of a human being, so the issue is instead considered to be the human rights of the pregnant woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy or carry it to term.

Information taken from: www.wikipedia.org

2007-05-15T14:14:00.000+08:00

Research on Euthanasia

Euthanasia, practice of mercifully ending a person’s life in order to release the person from an incurable disease, intolerable suffering, or undignified death.

The word euthanasia derives from the Greek for “good death” and originally referred to intentional mercy killing. When medical advances made prolonging the lives of dying or comatose patients possible, the term euthanasia was also applied to a lack of action to prevent death.

Active euthanasia involves painlessly putting individuals to death for merciful reasons, as when a doctor administers a lethal dose of medication to a patient. Passive euthanasia involves not doing something to prevent death, as when doctors refrain from using an artificial respirator to keep alive a terminally ill patient.

In voluntary euthanasia, a person asks to die (by either active or passive euthanasia). Non-voluntary euthanasia refers to ending the life of a person who is not mentally competent to make an informed request to die, such as a comatose patient.

Euthanasia differs from assisted suicide, in which a patient voluntarily brings about his or her own death with the assistance of another person, typically a physician. In this case, the act is a suicide (intentional self-inflicted death), because the patient actually causes his or her own death.

Euthanasia has been accepted in some forms by various groups or societies throughout history. In ancient Greece and Rome helping others die or putting them to death was considered permissible in some situations. For example, in the Greek city of Sparta newborns with severe birth defects were put to death. Voluntary euthanasia for the elderly was an approved custom in several ancient societies.

As laws have evolved from their traditional religious underpinnings, certain forms of euthanasia have been legally accepted. In general, laws attempt to draw a line between passive euthanasia (generally associated with allowing a person to die) and active euthanasia (generally associated with killing a person). While laws commonly permit passive euthanasia, active euthanasia is typically prohibited.

The controversy over active euthanasia remains intense, in part because of opposition from religious groups and many members of the legal and medical professions. Opponents of voluntary active euthanasia emphasize that health-care providers have professional obligations that prohibit killing. These opponents maintain that active euthanasia is inconsistent with the roles of nursing, caregiving, and healing. Opponents also argue that permitting physicians to engage in active euthanasia creates intolerable risks of abuse and misuse of the power over life and death. They acknowledge that particular instances of active euthanasia may sometimes be morally justified. However, opponents argue that sanctioning the practice of killing would, on balance, cause more harm than benefit.

Supporters of voluntary active euthanasia maintain that, in certain cases, relief from suffering (rather than preserving life) should be the primary objective of health-care providers. They argue that society is obligated to acknowledge the rights of patients and to respect the decisions of those who elect euthanasia. Supporters of active euthanasia contend that since society has acknowledged a patient’s right to passive euthanasia (for example, by legally recognizing refusal of life-sustaining treatment), active euthanasia should similarly be permitted. When arguing on behalf of legalizing active euthanasia, proponents emphasize circumstances in which a condition has become overwhelmingly burdensome for a patient, pain management for the patient is inadequate, and only a physician seems capable of bringing relief. They also point out that almost any individual freedom involves some risk of abuse and argue that such risks can be kept to a minimum by using proper legal safeguards.

Information taken from: www.encarta.com

2007-05-06T13:46:00.000+08:00

“The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is murder” Do you agree?

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. Historically, the execution of criminals and political opponents was used by near all societies – both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent. In most places that practice capital punishment today, the death penalty is reserved as punishments for premeditated murder, espionage, treason, as part of military justice, drug trafficking or human trafficking. What deem to be a capital crime in one country may not be a capital crime in another, it varies from country to country. In present society, the current form of execution for capital punishment includes hanging, electric chair, lethal injection etc…

Capital punishment is a very contentious issue. Supporters of capital punishment argue that it deters crime, prevents recidivism and is an appropriate form of punishment for the crime of murder as justice can only be served when one pays with his/her life for another person life. Capital punishment serves as a deterrent for future crime, telling every criminal and future criminal that they’ll have to pay for the crimes they committed – reap what they sow. If we do not join together and defeat crime, it will most certainly take us over. We should no longer sit and let our lives terrorized, nor sit back and watch criminals be released and then kill again. We should come together and draw the line on crime, making sure that the world is safe and the lives of our loved ones will not be threatened, thereby preserving national security. On top of that, capital punishment saves taxpayers the huge cost of keeping murderers locked up.

Opponents of capital punishment argue that it does not deter criminals more than life imprisonments. Furthermore, it violates human rights. Death sentences have historically reflected racial bias and that the poor are more likely to be executed than the rich, as the quality of one’s legal counsel often depends on one’s economic status. It also leads to executions of some who are wrongfully convicted. Death is irreversible as we can never bring back the loved ones to the families that have lost them. Isn’t it better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one? In addition, execution is as brutal and barbaric, won’t the families of those criminals feel sad and pain seeing their kin ones being executed? Is capital punishment a moral outrage, a thirst of revenge or predilection for righteous anger? Can it ever be justified?

All in all, I do not agree to the statement, “The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is murder” as I do think that death penalty serves as a deterrent to people to think twice before committing a crime. It is undeniable that the death penalty has been successful in keeping our crime rates down. I could not imagine a day when death penalty is abolished, as the whole society will be thrown into chaos, with the criminals freely doing as they please. Although there is no clear division to which can capital punishment be ever justified, capital punishment is important as it gives protection and security to our lives. Perhaps, unless anyone could comes up with a better and suitable punishment, capital punishment will remains as the best solution to deter crimes. Hence, I think capital punishment should be the standard by which each and every state abides by. For a cold-blooded killer, capital punishment is the only true justice.

2007-04-22T22:16:00.000+08:00

Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state your reasons why you think it is un/necessary.

Censorship is the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Censorship is usually done by governments, religious groups, the mass media etc. Over the years, there have always been many disputes over the censorship issues, arguing whether it is justified.

Personally, I feel that there is no right or wrong pertaining to censorship, it all depends on how one looks at it as censorship brought along both merits and demerits.

The merits of censorship are as follow. Censorship is necessary as it gives protection to the young. For instance, horror or sexual images could leave a huge impact or deep impression on the young, affecting he or she psychologically. Thus, censorship helps to protect the young, who is not mature enough to differentiate between right or wrong, not to mention differentiating what is suitable for them, by censoring away what is deemed inappropriate for them as parents cannot be there physically to watch over their children at all times. Furthermore, there are people, known as “perverts”, who are not morally upright. Their minds may be led astray if they watched programmes containing sexual and violence content. The consequence will be dire if they start to imitate what they have watched in real life. This could lead to an increase in crime rate. Moreover, censorship also helps to safeguard political interests and national security as it ensures that political secrets and the country’s defence capability is not leaked to the outside. Most importantly, censorship helps to prevent religious or racial conflicts by censoring away sensitive issues pertaining to religion and race. This is extremely important to Singapore as Singapore is a multi-racial society where racial harmony plays a big part in the nation’s security. As such, censorship is absolutely necessary as being insensitive to sensitive issues could lead to religious conflicts and race riots that could threaten the stability of our country.

On the other hand, censorship also brought along several demerits. For instance, when censorship is overused, it is often associated with human rights abuse, dictatorship and repression. In addition, censorship inhabits learning and restricts one’s ability to learn on its own. Everyone deserves the right to see everything, people should learn to censor what is deeming suitable or unsuitable by themselves and not solely rely on an external agent. Furthermore, censorship could lead to ignorance as these people might be over-protected, these may have adverse effects on the people in times of emergency, leading to chaos. Moreover, without censorship, it allows transparency and encourages openness.

In conclusion, I think the merits of censorship far outweigh the demerits of censorship. Censorship is necessary because many people do not have the responsibility and maturity to censor what is deemed unsuitable for them. During these circumstances, censorship will come in and do the deed. Although censorship is often associated with violating the concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, people need to learn to enjoy their freedom responsibly and sensibly. We have to consider that not everyone is mature enough to judge what is right or wrong for himself or herself, be it an adult or a child. Therefore, in a way, censorship helps to uphold the moral values of the people. While censorship is necessary and inevitable, there is always a limit to what should be censored. As such, government officials and the mass media could not abuse their rights over what is being censored and hence human rights are protected.

2007-04-15T14:29:00.000+08:00

With reference to the article, “Spilling blood with oil in Iraq”, I have learnt that the mass media is indeed influential among us, the civilians, hence we should never underestimate their power of making us believe in what they want us to believe. I have also learnt that what media presents what they perceived today may not always be what is real as some of the truth may went on unreported. The media may not report the whole truth, thus we may not see the whole picture of the situation. As civilians, we are easily manipulated by the media, as we tend to believe what is reported in the news. A lesson learnt is that we should learn how to differentiate between the truth and lie and not believed what is reported on the news blindly.

It was astonishing to know that the real victim of the Iraq war is actually the Iraqi civilian and that the attack of US on Iraq is actually not justified. The “so called” reasons which was used to explain on why the Iraq war begun were actually lies that they used to justify the war. In reality, the aggressive party is not the Iraqi but the US as the Iraqi civilians have been crippled, traumatized and killed in 12 years of US-led sanctions and bombings. The greatest lie behind this war is that the US greatest concern in the war is not about unrest and threat in Iraq but about the oil industry in Iraq. In their attempt to capture and protect the oil industry in Iraq, they resort to attacking Iraq and even violated international legislation, the Geneva Convention (Article 54) and the UN Charter (Articles 2 and 39).

From this incident, we have learnt that we should not look at one issue only from one perspective. In addition, we should not trust the media completely; instead, we should learn to judge matters on our own as media is sometimes used as a tool to manipulate our thoughts.

2007-03-17T00:15:00.000+08:00

Hi, I’m Si Ting. After studying for a total of 10 years in CHIJ Our Lady Of The Nativity and CHIJ St. Joseph’s Convent, I have moved on to Anderson Junior College.

Even though I may seem to be a soft-spoken girl to some, I feel that this is often not the case. I may not be the kind to start a conversation with others, but I would usually interact with people more after I have known them better. My friends have always commented that my looks can be deceiving because after knowing me, I’m not as quiet as they thought in the beginning.

I like to watch television, play computer games, chat, eat and sleep during my free time. I also love music, as such I enjoy singing and dancing as well. This explains why I was once a choir and harmonica member.

I smile a lot, at least that is what most my friends said about me, one of my friend even commented that I was very scary because I looked like a smiling doll.

That is all I want to say about me for now, the rest is up to you all to find out more about me yourself. As this is my first attempt to blog, I hoped I have not done a bad job introducing myself.