Euthanasia & Plagiarism

Task 1
Thou shalt not kill. Why not?

Argument from opposing stand:
We should not kill as everyone has a right to life and death. We have no right to deny anyone that right to life. Life is sacred and we have no right to decide to take away life from another person, no matter from whom. Furthermore, killing infringes on moral values, and can be an act of murder if its intentions are malicious. There is no clear yardstick as to whether one is in the position to kill, and under which circumstances to do so.

Refutation:
It is often argued that everyone is equal and has the equal right to life and death. However, people who threaten the right to the life of the others have no right to keep their own right to life. For example, a serial murderer who kills innocent victims one after another should not get to keep his own right to life after he had robbed that very same right from so many people. We should put the murderer on death row in order to prevent him from killing more people, and depriving more people of their right to live. A person who does not respect others’ right to live deserves to be deprived of their own right to live. As such, the justification to kill also largely depends on its impact on the rest of the society, such as its potential benefits or harm.

Task 2
1) What is Singapore’s current position on passive and active euthanasia?

Singapore is against euthanasia, though it seems to give a certain leeway on this issue. It is definitely not encouraging passive euthanasia, but makes it accessible to people who might want it. For example, the Advance Medical Directive(AMD) form is available at any polyclinic or private clinic for adults above 21 years of age to fill up, indicating that you do not wish to use any artificial means of prolonging your life (when you are terminally ill and unconscious or incapable of making a rational decision).

On the other hand, Singapore seems to be extremely against active euthanasia. Dr Lee Pheng Soon, Director of the Singapore Medical Association said in year 2005 that “The Singapore Medical Association does not believe that there has been any change in attitudes towards euthanasia within the medical community here. We do not support euthanasia.” On the contrary, more and more doctors within Singapore are learning about, and practising, better palliative care. Dr. Akhileswaran pointed out 90% - 95% of patients suffering from terminally ill patients can have their situation relieved by palliative care, and that the remaining 5% to 10% can have their suffering reduced to a more tolerable level that would make them drop the idea of euthanasia completely but Singapore still has a lot to catch up on improving palliative care here.


2) What laws or regulations have been instituted with regard to this issue?

Passive Euthanasia—AMD (Advance Medical Directive) to be signed in the presence of a doctor and a witness who will have nothing to gain from your death. It is a document you sign to instruct the doctor treating you (where you are terminally ill and unconscious or incapable of making a rational decision) that you do not want any artificial means of prolonging your life, such as the use of life-sustaining equipment (e.g. artificial respirator), where there is clearly no hope of finding a cure on either a temporary or permanent basis.


3) Do you agree with Singapore’s position? Why or why not?

Singapore does not allow the execution of euthanasia. Although we understand that Singapore’s position on euthanasia is to protect the patient’s welfare and prevent any wrongdoings when dealing with patients with terminally ill diseases, we do not agree with Singapore’s position because we feel that active euthanasia is a more humane form of euthanasia compared to passive killing. In Singapore, a doctor is not allowed to administer drugs that can terminate the life of a patient or providing the means through which the patient can kill him or herself (assisted suicide). However, a patient will eventually die of dehydration if the life-supporting devices are withdrawn from him or her, which is a very painful process. On the contrary, active euthanasia, which involves taking specific steps to cause the patient’s death, such as injecting the patient with poison, can speed up the process of death of the patient. By carrying out active euthanasia, the patient can endure less pain and avoid dying through dehydration.

Active euthanasia must be accompanied by laws and regulations and better hospice care. It will be more difficult to regulate active euthanasia than passive euthanasia because active killing involves many ethical and moral issues. A basic principle that should be kept to is that active euthanasia should only be carried out with the patient’s consent. Furthermore, the patient should be in a clear psychological state of mind to make independent decisions. Any euthanasia performed without the patient’s knowledge should be considered as murder and charged. This is so as euthanasia can easily be equivalent to murder if its intentions are not carefully assessed. Similar to AMC, there should be a procedure for carrying out active euthanasia. A form should be filled up and doctors as witnesses should be present.

Task 3

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?

We agree that Joey Smith’s idea is a feasible solution to curb academic dishonesty in Singapore to a small extent.

We do not deny that relying on both honor codes and plagiarism-detection software is a good way to curb dishonesty. According to the passage this idea ensures the culture of trust, but couples it with verification to enable efficiency in curbing dishonesty. This is true to an extent in all societies as people prefer to be treated with respect than to be accused of cheating by the very existence of plagiarism-detection software. Thus Joey Smith’s idea is feasible so long as the implementing body sends out the right messages to the people, and ensures that the objective behind this idea is understood by all.

However, the success Joey Smith’s idea of “trust but verify” is largely dependant on the type of society where the idea is implemented in and it may not be feasible in Singapore’s context. From the passage, the student-union president of Mount St. Vincent University complained that plagiarism-detection software created “a culture of mistrust, a culture of guilt”. Similarly, the younger generation of Singapore consists of outspoken teenagers to young adults who are more than willing to challenge the governing body. For example, the existence of students’ councils in Singapore junior ensures students’ welfare are not exploited and should Joey Smith’s idea be implemented in Singapore, it may face strong protests from the youths, students’ councils, leading to banning of the plagiarism-detection software eventually.

Moreover, plagiarism-detection software inevitably consist of loopholes that youths can make use of, rendering it useless in curbing academic honesty. From the passage, Tim Dodd, executive director of the Duke-affiliated Centre for Academic Integrity stated “We will truly lose the battle if we think we’re going to fight technology with technology. Kids will always be two generations ahead of us”. This is true in all societies, especially in Singapore where majority of youths are internet users, as people can obtain unlimited information from the internet, or buy newly-designed essays from the internet such as affordabletermpapers.com . This makes it impossible for plagiarism-detection software to include all information in the world into its database so such software do not serve its purpose effectively and is not a feasible way to curb academic dishonesty.

In conclusion, Joey Smith’s idea is not impossible but definitely difficult to implement and curb academic dishonesty in Singapore as Singaporean youths are internet-savvy and will not tolerate events that threaten their stands.