IN THE Review article, 'To receive, S'poreans must learn to
give' (ST, Jan 11), Ms Salma Khalik argued that the Human Organ
Transplant Act, which states that specified organs taken from
deceased persons can be given only to Singaporeans or permanent
residents, is selfish.
This is because if no Singapore citizen or permanent resident is
waiting for an organ, it cannot be harvested, even if there are
foreigners who need it urgently.
A Ministry of Health (MOH) spokesman responded by saying that 'We
don't want to be seen as doing a tourist trade in organs. We don't
want to see a waiting list of foreign patients.'
Ms Khalik had earlier pointed out that Singaporeans have no qualms
getting organs from abroad. I would go further.
The MOH spokesman's explanation is politically correct. Organ
trading is frowned upon and usually not allowed in countries where
political correctness reigns. However, it is entirely irrational
and medically incorrect.
No one is harmed by harvesting an organ for transplant into a
foreigner needing it desperately when there is no potential local
recipient.
On the contrary, a life is likely to be saved. Whether money
changes hands is irrelevant. If a person needing an organ
transplant is willing to pay for it, what is wrong in us allowing
this, so long as Singaporeans and permanent residents take priority
over foreigners?
To go further, our law which prohibits live-donor organ transplant
whenever there is a contract or arrangement is irrational.
Healthy people can live with one kidney or after having part of
their liver removed. If monetary incentive makes a potential living
donor more willing to save another life, what is wrong in allowing
that?
What is important is that a competent doctor must have assessed and
determined that the potential donor's health is not at risk when he
gives away the required organ or part of it.
Once that has been confirmed, whether the living donor is doing it
from the goodness of his heart, or because he needs money
desperately, the fact is that another life is saved.
So long as the donor is fully appraised of the risks and consents
voluntarily, who are we to decide for him?
Some years back, a TV personality was allowed to receive part of
the liver of her fiancee, yet an Indian woman in a similar dire
situation was not allowed to receive a transplant.
This probably was because it could not be confirmed then that there
were no commercial considerations involved. So that poor woman
died.
This contrast is ethically very muddy. It should not happen
again.
Dr Lee Wei Ling
National Neuroscience Institute
NO REASON FOR BAN
If a person needing a transplant is willing to pay for it, what is
wrong in us allowing this, so long as S'poreans and PRs take
priority over foreigners?
