Euthanasia and Plagiarism

Task 1 - "Thou shalt not kill" - Why not?

“The right to live gives us the right to die” – If a terminally ill patient or his family decides that his life is no longer worth living, should he or his family be given the right to end it?“Thou shalt not kill” is one of Ten Commandments authored by God, representing moral and religious imperatives. Is mercy killing, or euthanasia, all wrong?

Euthanasia refers to either painlessly putting to death or failing to prevent death from natural causes in cases of terminal illness or irreversible coma. The term comes from the Greek expression for ‘good death.’ It can be subdivided into its active or passive, as well as its voluntary or involuntary forms.

Voluntary active and voluntary passive euthanasia occurs when a competent, informed patient autonomously requests it. The only difference between the two is how euthanasia is carried out. These forms of euthanasia are often considered as the ‘acceptable’ ones due to the given consent from the patient himself.

On the other hand, involuntary active and involuntary passive euthanasia are often considered ‘unacceptable’ as it is usually up to the family or spouse of the person involved to make the decision. In involuntary passive euthanasia, the life-support machine is taken off the patient, allowing the patient to die. Despite it seeming immoral, unethical and against the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, involuntary euthanasia reliefs the family of the financial and emotional burden that arises from keeping the patient alive. It also ‘takes away’ the pain the patient was suffering from.

However, the decision made to end human life and the sanctity of life is questionable. By pulling the plug, it is no longer God’s decision to take life away, but rather that of humans themselves. Involuntary active euthanasia can be considered as murder and voluntary euthanasia suicide in this case. Killing another person by euthanasia involves taking someone else's life prematurely. Hence thou shalt not kill, and as euthanasia is almost equivalent to murder, it too should not be allowed.


Task 2 - Euthanasia in Singapore

What laws on regulations have been instituted with regard to this issue?
Singapore rejects active euthanasia that comes in the form of pressure for legislation to permit euthanasia and/or assisted suicide, both of which require active intervention, most often by a doctor.

However, passive euthanasia, though discouraged is possible in Singapore through the administration of the Advance Medical Directive (AMD)


Do you agree with Singapore’s position? Why or why not?
We do not agree with Singapore’s position in disallowing active euthanasia. We feel that active euthanasia is the more humane form of euthanasia compared to passive euthanasia. This is because the pain endured by the patient undergoing active euthanasia would be considerably less compared to one seeking passive euthanasia. Patients undergoing passive euthanasia die slowly from dehydration, which is an excruciatingly painful process. On the other hand, active euthanasia spares the patient from much suffering by ending their lives quickly.


Task 3 - "Battling term paper cheats"

Joey Smith states that relying on both honor codes and plagiarism-detection software is the whole idea of trust but verify. To what extent do you agree with this idea as a feasible solution to curb academic dishonesty in your country?

The “whole idea of trust but verify” is the situation where plagiarism software is used to check for cheating but at the same assuring the students integrity. This is a relatively feasible solution to curb academic dishonesty in Singapore. It will force students to think twice before committing plagiarism and ensure that those who do so are not ‘rewarded’. For example in Singapore, some schools run students’ projects through plagiarism software to sift out works that may contain plagiarism. Such practices help to prevent those who plagiarise from being unduly rewarded and to ensure fairness to all students. Such a method, I feel will help to ensure fairness when teachers assess their students’ works and will help to ease the minds of students, that they do not have to worry about someone else having an unfair advantage because that person plagiarised.

On the other hand, ‘the whole idea of trust but verify’, is not a feasible solution to curb academic dishonesty as it could possibly lead to greater mistrust between teachers and students causing ‘paranoia’. In Singapore, in order to prevent students from generating mistrust towards their teachers, some teachers do not believe in using plagiarism software, trusting the integrity of their students. I feel that such a method might make students think twice before committing plagiarism as they may not want to breach the trust their teacher(s) has in them. However, some students may also take advantage of their teachers’ trust in them and plagiarise. Hence I feel that whether or not a teacher uses plagiarism software to check his students’ work depends on how he rates the integrity of his students. Although he may not be able to rate their level of integrity accurately, it is a gamble that the teacher will have to take.

In Singapore, I feel that ‘the whole idea of trust but verify’ is generally a feasible solution to curb academic dishonestly and would most likely be a move that will be welcomed by Singaporean students. This is due to the relatively competitive nature of many young Singaporean students. As such, these students would not want anyone to get away with plagiarism and worse still, achieve a good grade despite having plagiarised someone else’s work. At the same time, Singaporean students would still be able to take heart that their teachers do trust them not to plagiarise and that the only reason why their teachers put their works through plagiarism software is so as not to reward those who plagiarise, those who cheat.

In conclusion, I feel that while ‘the whole idea of trust but verify’ might be a contentious issue in the States, it might be generally welcomed by Singaporean students as it help to weed out students who plagiarise and prevent them from being rewarded.


Inez, Bryan Oh, Charlene and Isis
09S03K