Today, my class had a panel discussion. The topic was,"Should organ trading be allowed in Singapore?" The panellists came prepared with powerpoints or scripts and they could present their work. Kevan, one of the panellists, was bombarded with questions after his speech. Kevan (I have forgotten the role he was playing) was a person who feels that organ trading should be allowed in Singapore. However, many people asked him why should organ trading be allowed in Singapore when probably, only the rich could afford the organs. Kevan answered them quickly by saying that they will subsidise the costs for the poor if they are in need for these organs.
Some people asked Kevan what if the poor wanted to sell their organs just for the money without caring for their health. Kevan said that the hospital will do a medical checkup on these people first before making a decision if they are fit enough to sell their organs. After Kevan said this, I wondered what if the patients were as fit as a fiddle before selling their organs and their health deteriorated after selling their organs. I wanted to ask Kevan this question, but the class just shut me off by saying this question had already been asked when I only said half of the question. However, I listened attentively to most of the questions asked and did not hear anything that was related to my question. Therefore, I just had to sit down and assume that probably, when that question was being asked, I didn't hear it.
The discussion was quite successful and most of my classmates felt that selling of organs should be disallowed. Actually, I felt that my classmates were quite attentive on that day and did not make much noise, perhaps because there was a teacher filming the entire process. At the end when the host asked the observers if they were ready, they were so engrossed in writing their comments such that they might have not heard the host and carried on writing, ignoring the host. When the observers came up and wanted to announce the best speaker, the time was up already and the next period teacher, my Chinese teacher, told them to announce during recess. This kept up the tension among those who spoke enthusiastically during the discussion as they wondered who would be the best speaker. When the class was returning to their seats, I asked one of the observers who is also one of my good friends, who was the best speaker. He said it was Jeremy. I could not believe that it was Jeremy as I thought that he contradicted with himself when he raised his opinions. (Unfortunately, I cannot remember what he said this morning, but I just remember him contradicting himself.) I thought that maybe it was because the observers had the mindset that Jeremy was good in debating and therefore, should be the best speaker. Some of my classmates thought so to. There were quite a few times when this was the case. However, there was nothing I could do as the final decision belonged to the observers, so I just had to agree with the observers' decision.
Well, I personally feel that organ trading should not be allowed as it might just cause those people who are selling their organs to have their health deteriorating, which is a bad consequence. This is all I can say about the panel discussion. Bye.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Dexter,
ReplyDeleteI have the same view as the character I played in the presentation, as well as you. Organ transplant or trade should not be encouraged because the end result is unpredictable. Who knows what may happen in the next twenty years? Who knows how this transplant and trade will be abused in the next decade? How can we possibly predict the possiblity and rate of success in the next century? The truth is, we cannot. I thought that there were many comments given during the debate that were based on personal beliefs as to what might happen in the future. Many students gave questions that the panelist felt difficult to answer. I didn't get much of a chance to reply, but some answers and queries, I felt, were irrelevant. We cannot predict the future. There is a chance that trade will have positive effects on the community, and there is also the possibility that it will cause a negative effect on the community. Who can tell? That's why I think that we should not legalise such trade before we can further understand the likely impact such an action would have on our future.
One more thing, a suggestion for improving the debate. Open the discussion to the panel members. Since the panel memebers have done research, we can better debate with each other. After listening to the panel members debate, maybe then we can get more relevant points from the audience.
Your sincerely,
Justin
A.K.A.
Regarding the part of the best speaker, this is entirely true. Observers, usually do not have enough time to decide on the best speaker as they are too engrossed in making their comments, and when the time comes, they just say any random good speaker who had shown his skills in previous CAs (In this case, Jeremy in the first CA about environmental growth vs. economic growth). This is a case of 'first impressions last', that they do 'last FOREVER'. In fact, we can say that it IS because that they do not have enough time to discuss properly and judge each person's views and abilities that they make such rash decisions, which can sometimes, be biased, and ultimateltly can affect your CPs.
ReplyDeleteAs for the main topic, I do feel that organ trade should be legalised, as sometimes, the queue is just too long in public hospitals, and we also must feel the need to clear this black market which is turning out to be a 'last-minute-place-to-save-my-life', as shown in the case of Tang Wee Sung. This will place Singapore's healthcare system in utter disgrace, and that it is inefficient. Hence, if we want to help everybody, why don't we just legalise organ trading, instead of having to wait for months in pain and misery, and sometimes ending up not even getting the organ? After all, this will add an additional sector to the economy, as a life-saving business. Organ trading will NOT be abused when it is legalised as due to the fact that it IS legalised, all the more the government will create and enforce laws to prevent this from happening.
Justin, I totally agree with you. Who can ever predict the consequences of this organ trading. However, the more likely outcome will be that people's health will deteriorate as they have less organs for their body to work as well as before. If you check thoroughly, there is sure to be people whose health deteriorated after donating their organs or selling them. Therefore, I still hold the stand that although we might not know the consequence of the organ trading, we should not take the risk and legalise organ trading.
ReplyDeleteRyan, I hope that from what I said to Justin, to add on my point, you will also change your mind. But of course, I cannot force a person to change his mindset. So, if you want to change your mind or not, it is entirely up to you.
Oh right. Justin, note that I used the word might in the last sentence,"...might just cause those people who are selling their organs to have their health deteriorating, which is a bad consequence." This means that I feel that there might be a possibility, but I did not say that this will definitely be the consequence. Therefore, the consequence is unknown.
ReplyDeleteWell I am glad that you are able to see that and isn't it interesting that first impressions do last. Hence shouldn't that work both ways? For us to always remember to be objective and for us to remember that people are going to judge us based on our cover.
ReplyDeleteGambling in casino - Drmcd
ReplyDeleteWhen 경상남도 출장안마 you have the opportunity to 경산 출장안마 play at the best of the best casino sites, you 화성 출장마사지 have to be prepared and willing to have the time 서귀포 출장샵 of your life 속초 출장마사지 to