:Originally posted by robertteh:
The minister if he is going to do his job conscientiously has the
ultimate responsibility to take into consideration all relevant
issues and factors in deciding to go for presumption of consent
(unless opted out) scheme of organ involving forced taking of organ
from dying persson.
OM:
I think he has and this decision, which is in line with the concept
of presumed consent in many western nations, is the right one.
Did the minister foresee such consequences as raised in Mr.
Sim's situation in his original motion or the accompanying white
paper or during parliamentary debates.
Can he now retrospectively excuse his own foresight and now try to
find some excuses like other countries having done the same when he
had not sufficiently dealt with the issues in his original motion
or white paper.
If other countries you mention come across Mr. Sim's type of
problems, will they not have to change and make amends of
shortcomings and oversight.
So why do you want to retrospectively find excuses which open more
pandora boxes which will be forever opening.
:Originally posted by robertteh:
I have given my comments on situations where a dying person cannot
really be deemed to have given his consent and the specific
objection by family of the Mr. Sim case is only one of them.
Family members of the dying person have the right to do their very
best for the dying person in situation like a coma or so-called
brain death which is open to interpretation by different medical
authorities.
OM:
I disagree. Family members do not have the right to disregard the
intention of the patient, even if they disagree with it. We are
talking about brain death and there is no 'different
interpretation' about the clinical criteria used to determine it.
The debate is about whether society is prepared to accept the use
of brain death as the legal definition of death, since dying is a
process, not a point in time. Brain death marks the point where the
dying process becomes completely irreversible. And that is a
medical fact. Of course, you do not know that as a lay person but
it would be irresponsible to obfuscate the issue.
You appear to be unable to answer to this question: Is "brain
dead conclusive of death medically like you have claimed since
there are differing medical opinion. Is the minister aware of this
possibility as the doctors might make mistake over such
decisions.
All possibilities which are raised should have been thoroughly
debated and facts forwarded to the parliaments with answering to
queries by citizens. The press must not be controlled to limit open
and thorough debates on all major policies and actions.
If we have a government which always seems to make all decisions in
such top-down manner by prohibiting discussions and debates, then
this system itself needs to change before going into policies and
discussions on specifics.
What is wrong with making changes which will improve our corporate
governance?
:Originally posted by robertteh:
If countries in Europe in practising HOTA do take considerable care
in allowing certain objection by family members, at least our
minister should be fully acquainted with such delicate situation
and not be overly bureaucratic or presumptuous that the law of
opt-out is enough reason for state to do as it likes.
Did the minister study why in Europe family members are given the
extra right to raise objection.
OM:
You are wrong. Some European countries like Spain have a soft
opt-out system which permits family members to oppose a donation.
Others, such as Austria, do not allow family members that
right.
I go with Austria and Singapore. It is the patient's decision is
that paramount. Family members do not have the right to oppose the
intention of the patient, in as much as they cannot change his will
relating to inheritance.
Advice to our over-confident arrogant ministers as was given by
a reputable author on error corrections arising from so many
mistakes found in NKF, Shin Corp and Mr. Sim's organ robbery
case:
"Error Correction achieves data integrity at the cost of
transmission speed. The need to send extra few characters (the
result of error-correction calculation) along with each block of
data lowers the amount of "keepable" data transmitted per second.
But the overwhelming benefits of an error-free transmission make
this small sacrifice well worthwhile"
