The Meaning of It All

Excerpt from a Lecture Series: The Uncertainty of Science

By Richard P. Feynman

[Feynman is considered one of the 20^th century's most brilliant theoretical physicists and original thinkers. He became Professor of Theoretical Physics at Cornell University, where he worked with Hans Bethe. He all but rebuilt the theory of quantum electrodynamics and it was for this work that he shared the Nobel Prize in 1965. His simplified rules of calculation became standard tools of theoretical analysis in both quantum electrodynamics and high-energy physics. Freeman Dyson, of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, called him 'the most original mind of his generation', while in its obituary The New York Times described him as 'arguably the most brilliant, iconoclastic and influential of the postwar generation of theoretical physicists'.]

The Uncertainty of Science

In the first of these lectures I will talk about the nature of science and emphasize particularly the existence of doubt and uncertainty.

What is science? The word is usually used to mean one of three things, or a mixture of them. I do not think we need to be precise—it is not always a good idea to be too precise. Science means, sometimes, a special method of finding things out. Sometimes it means the body of knowledge arising from the things found out. It may also mean the new things you can do when you have found something out, or the actual doing of new things. This last field is usually called technology.

The most obvious characteristic of science is its application, the fact that as a consequence of science one has a power to do things. And the effect this power has had need hardly be mentioned. The whole industrial revolution would almost have been impossible without the development of science. The possibilities today of producing quantities of food adequate for such a large population, of controlling sickness—the very fact that there can be free men without the necessity of slavery for full production—are very likely the result of the development of scientific means of production.

Now this power to do things carries with it no instructions on how to use it, whether to use it for good or for evil. The product of this power is either good or evil, depending on how it is used. We like improved production, but we have problems with automation. We are happy with the development of medicine, and then we worry about the number of births and the fact that no one dies from the diseases we have eliminated. Or else, with the same knowledge of bacteria, we have hidden laboratories in which men are working as hard as they can to develop bacteria for which no one else will be able to find a cure.

We are happy with the development of air transportation and are impressed by the great airplanes, but we are aware also of the severe horrors of air war. We are pleased by the ability to communicate between nations, and then we worry about the fact that we can be snooped upon so easily. We are excited by the fact that space can now be entered; well, we will undoubtedly have a difficulty there, too. The most famous of all these imbalances is the development of nuclear energy and its obvious problems.

Is science of any value?

I think a power to do something is of value. Whether the result is a good thing or a bad thing depends on how it is used, but the power is a value.

Once in Hawaii I was taken to see a Buddhist temple. In the temple a man said, "I am going to tell you something that you will never forget." And then he said, "To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven. The same key opens the gates of hell."

And so it is with science. In a way it is a key to the gates of heaven, and the same key opens the gates of hell, and we do not have any instructions as to which is which gate. Shall we throw away the key and never have a way to enter the gates of heaven? Or shall we struggle with the problem of which is the best way to use the key? That is, of course, a very serious question, but I think that we cannot deny the value of the key to the gates of heaven.

All the major problems of the relations between society and science lie in this same area. When the scientist is told that he must be more responsible for his effects on society, it is the applications of science that are referred to. If you work to develop nuclear energy you must realize also that it can be used harmfully. Therefore, you would expect that, in a discussion of this kind by a scientist, this would be the most important topic. But I will not talk about it further. I think that to say these are scientific problems is an exaggeration. They are far more humanitarian problems. The fact that how to work the power is clear, but how to control it is not, is something not so scientific and is not something that the scientist knows so much about…

The third aspect of my subject is that of science as a method of finding things out. This method is based on the principle that observation is the judge of whether something is so or not. All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea. But "prove" used in this way really means "test," in the same way that a hundred-proof alcohol is a test of the alcohol, and for people today the idea really should be translated as, "The exception tests the rule." Or, put another way, "The exception proves that the rule is wrong." That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.

The principle that observation is the judge imposes a severe limitation to the kind of questions that can be answered. They are limited to questions that you can put this way: "if I do this, what will happen?"

There are ways to try it and see. Questions like, "should I do this?" and "what is the value of this?" are not of the same kind.

But if a thing is not scientific, if it cannot be subjected to the test of observation, this does not mean that it is dead, or wrong, or stupid. We are not trying to argue that science is somehow good and other things are somehow not good. Scientists take all those things that can be analyzed by observation, and thus the things called science are found out. But there are some things left out, for which the method does not work. This does not mean that those things are unimportant. They are, in fact, in many ways the most important. In any decision for action, when you have to make up your mind what to do, there is always a "should" involved, and this cannot be worked out from "if I do this, what will happen?" alone.

There are in science a number of technical consequences that follow from the principle of observation as judge. For example, the observation cannot be rough. You have to be very careful. There may have been a piece of dirt in the apparatus that made the color change; it was not what you thought. You have to check the observations very carefully, and then recheck them, to be sure that you understand what all the conditions are and that you did not misinterpret what you did.

Another important characteristic of science is its objectivity. It is necessary to look at the results of observation objectively, because you, the experimenter, might like one result better than another. You perform the experiment several times, and because of irregularities, like pieces of dirt falling in, the result varies from time to time. You do not have everything under control. You like the result to be a certain way, so the times it comes out that way, you say, "See, it comes out this particular way." The next time you do the experiment it comes out different. Maybe there was a piece of dirt in it the first time, but you ignore it.

Another very important technical point is that the more specific a rule is, the more interesting it is. The more definite the statement, the more interesting it is to test. If someone were to propose that the planets go around the sun because all planet matter has a kind of tendency for movement, a kind of motility, let us call it an "oomph," this theory could explain a number of other phenomena as well. So this is a good theory, is it not? No. It is nowhere near as good as a proposition that the planets move around the sun under the influence of a central force which varies exactly inversely as the square of the distance from the center. The second theory is better because it is so specific; it is so obviously unlikely to be the result of chance. It is so definite that the barest error in the movement can show that it is wrong; but the planets could wobble all over the place, and, according to the first theory, you could say, "Well, that is the funny behavior of the 'oomph.'"

So the more specific the rule, the more powerful it is, the more liable it is to exceptions, and the more interesting and valuable it is to check.

Most people find it surprising that in science there is no interest in the background of the author of an idea or in his motive in expounding it. You listen, and if it sounds like a thing worth trying, a thing that could be tried, is different, and is not obviously contrary to something observed before, it gets exciting and worthwhile. You do not have to worry about how long he has studied or why he wants you to listen to him. In that sense it makes no difference where the ideas come from. Their real origin is unknown; we call it the imagination of the human brain, the creative imagination—it is known; it is just one of those "oomphs."

It is surprising that people do not believe that there is imagination in science. It is a very interesting kind of imagination, unlike that of the artist. The great difficulty is in trying to imagine something that you have never seen, that is consistent in every detail with what has already been seen, and that is different from what has been thought of; furthermore, it must be definite and not a vague proposition. That is indeed difficult.

Incidentally, the fact that there are rules at all to be checked is a kind of miracle; that it is possible to find a rule, like the inverse square law of gravitation, is some sort of miracle. It is not understood at all, but it leads to the possibility of prediction—that means it tells you what you would expect to happen in an experiment you have not yet done.

It is interesting, and absolutely essential, that the various rules of science be mutually consistent. Since the observations are all the same observations, one rule cannot give one prediction and another rule another prediction. Thus, science is not a specialist business; it is completely universal. I talked about the atoms in physiology; I talked about the atoms in astronomy, electricity, chemistry. They are universal; they must be mutually consistent. You cannot just start off with a new thing that cannot be made of atoms.

I come now to an important point. The old laws may be wrong. How can an observation be incorrect? If it has been carefully checked, how can it be wrong? Why are physicists always having to change the laws? The answer is, first, that the laws are not the observations and, second, that experiments are always inaccurate. The laws are guessed laws, extrapolations, not something that the observations insist upon.

They are just good guesses that have gone through the sieve so far. And it turns out later that the sieve now has smaller holes than the sieves that were used before, and this time the law is caught. So the laws are guessed; they are extrapolations into the unknown. You do not know what is going to happen, so you take a guess.

For example, it was believed—it was discovered— that motion does not affect the weight of a thing—that if you spin a top and weigh it, and then weigh it when it has stopped, it weighs the same. That is the result of an observation. But you cannot weigh something to the infinitesimal number of decimal places, parts in a billion. But we now understand that a spinning top weighs more than a top which is not spinning by a few parts in less than a billion. If the top spins fast enough so that the speed of the edges approaches 186,000 miles a second, the weight increase is appreciable—but not until then. The first experiments were performed with tops that spun at speeds much lower than 186,000 miles a second. It seemed then that the mass of the top spinning and not spinning was exactly the same, and someone made a guess that the mass never changes.

How foolish! What a fool! It is only a guessed law, an extrapolation. Why did he do something so
unscientific? There was nothing unscientific about it; it was only uncertain. It would have been
unscientific not to guess. It has to be done because the extrapolations are the only things that have any real value. It is only the principle of what you think will happen in a case you have not tried that is worth knowing about. Knowledge is of no real value if all you can tell me is what happened yesterday. It is necessary to tell what will happen tomorrow if you do something—not only necessary, but fun. Only you must be willing to stick your neck out.

Every scientific law, every scientific principle, every statement of the results of an observation is some kind of a summary which leaves out details, because nothing can be stated precisely. The man simply forgot—he should have stated the law "The mass doesn't change much when the speed isn't too high."

The game is to make a specific rule and then see if it will go through the sieve. So the specific guess was that the mass never changes at all. Exciting possibility! It does no harm that it turned out not to be the case. It was only uncertain, and there is no harm in being uncertain. It is better to say something and not be sure than not to say anything at all.

It is necessary and true that all of the things we say in science, all of the conclusions, are uncertain, because they are only conclusions. They are guesses as to what is going to happen, and you cannot know what will happen, because you have not made the most complete experiments.

It is curious that the effect on the mass of a spinning top is so small you may say, "Oh, it doesn't make any difference." But to get a law that is right, or at least one that keeps going through the successive sieves, that goes on for many more observations, requires a tremendous intelligence and imagination and a complete revamping of our philosophy, our understanding of space and time. I am referring to the relativity theory. It turns out that the tiny effects that turn up always require the most revolutionary modifications of ideas.

Scientists, therefore, are used to dealing with doubt and uncertainty. All scientific knowledge is uncertain.

This experience with doubt and uncertainty is important. I believe that it is of very great value, and one that extends beyond the sciences. I believe that to solve any problem that has never been solved before, you have to leave the door to the unknown ajar. You have to permit the possibility that you do not have it exactly right. Otherwise, if you have made up your mind already, you might not solve it.

When the scientist tells you he does not know the answer, he is an ignorant man. When he tells you he has a hunch about how it is going to work, he is uncertain about it. When he is pretty sure of how it is going to work, and he tells you, "This is the way it's going to work, I'll bet," he still is in some doubt. And it is of paramount importance, in order to make progress, that we recognize this ignorance and this doubt.

Because we have the doubt, we then propose looking in new directions for new ideas. The rate of the development of science is not the rate at which you make observations alone but, much more important, the rate at which you create new things to test.

If we were not able or did not desire to look in any new direction, if we did not have a doubt or recognize ignorance, we would not get any new ideas. There would be nothing worth checking, because we would know what is true. So what we call scientific knowledge today is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty. Some of them are most unsure; some of them are nearly sure; but none is absolutely certain. Scientists are used to this. We know that it is consistent to be able to live and not know. Some people say, "How can you live without knowing?" I do not know what they mean. I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know.

This freedom to doubt is an important matter in the sciences and, I believe, in other fields. It was born of a struggle. It was a struggle to be permitted to doubt, to be unsure. And I do not want us to forget the importance of the struggle and, by default, to let the thing fall away. I feel a responsibility as a scientist who knows the great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, and the progress made possible by such a philosophy, progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought. I feel a responsibility to proclaim the value of this freedom and to teach that doubt is not to be feared, but that it is to be welcomed as the possibility of a new potential for human beings. If you know that you are not sure, you have a chance to improve the situation. I want to demand this freedom for future generations.

Doubt is clearly a value in the sciences. Whether it is in other fields is an open question and an uncertain matter. I expect in the next lectures to discuss that very point and to try to demonstrate that it is important to doubt and that doubt is not a fearful thing, but a thing of very great value.

Exercise

Identify and evaluate the key arguments put forth by Feynman. To what extent do you agree with what he is saying?

Thou Shalt Not Kill, says he.

In accordance with modern views on life in first world countries, every single human being comes screaming and kicking into this world with an unconditional right to live, and killing is in fact the breaching of this inherent entitlement. Killing is defined as the act of causing death and taking life - with this definition alone, we can see that killing violates this unspoken agreement between humans regarding the right to live. The law also supports this notion of the intrinsic value of human life. The act of murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being, and is thus illegal by definition, as it is against the will of the victim. To kill would be to violate the victim's right to live. Following logically, respecting others' rights as our own, killing would be wrong.

An exception to the general rule of, well, not killing, would be the dissolution of said agreement on the value of life. As a person has the right to live, he or she thus has the right to do the opposite and not live - it is his or her responsibility, after all. In this case, the individual acknowledges the value of his life and rejects it, choosing the dark opposite, and thus the value he holds on his life is gone. However, this right to "not live" only extends to himself and not beyond - other people may not reach out and take his life simply because he desires it, as the implications of taking another's life is the rejection of one's on right to live. In the said scenario, only the depressed and dejected individual wishing to end his own life may choose to take it - the choice belongs to no other. Regardless of his reasons, be they emotional or physical anguish, it is not the authority of any other to end his living, although such power is available to such an individual.

Jamie, Arjun, Serena, Kersh, 09S06J

(were we to have replied to a post somewhere?)

DONE BY : FIONA;HUIJUN;MARTIN;BHUVAN

TASK 1

‘Thou shall not kill’. Why not?

Kill:
Euthanasia should be allowed as everyone should have the right to decide their own fate – whether to live or die. In the case where euthanasia is often seeked as a solution to problems, an individual may choose to undergo it as he or she finds it the most effective solution to rid themselves of their own physical pain and suffering and to reduce the emotional and financial burden on their family members and loved ones. This is also termed as voluntary euthanasia. For those who are not in the correct state of mind to makes these decisions themselves, this right can be entrusted to a loved one who can be trusted to make the decision to benefit the majority of the masses – patient and family members, also known as involuntary euthanasia. Often, individuals who consider undergoing euthanasia have reached a point in their illness where the negative impact on their friends and family exceeds that of themselves. Thus, after considering the welfare of the masses, euthanasia becomes the best way to eradicate all problems and alleviate the pain and suffering of one’s self and loved ones. Hence, thou shall kill.

Not kill:
On the other hand, it is unjustified to say that for those who are not in the correct state of mind to make the decision to undergo euthanasia themselves may have their “trusted” love one to decide for them. What is considered “trusted” enough? As mentioned earlier, he is not in the correct state of mind to decide for himself, so there is even less right for his loved one to decide for him. If this right should be entrusted to a loved one, then who exactly is entitled to this right? All these remain doubts. Indeed, it is hard to judge if the patient is undergoing such intense pain that he wants to end his life when he is unable to express himself, but it is even more difficult to ascertain if he has the willpower to fight till the end. Once a life is ended, it cannot be brought back. The patient may want to end his life as a decision made during a period of excruciating pain, but how can one be sure if the pain will not be relived? He may lack the will to live for that moment, but it may be short-lived. It is virtually impossible to judge exactly whether one will remain in that state forever, so for that small glimpse of hope to survive, we must not encourage one to end his life easily. Thus, thou shall not kill.


TASK 2

Question 1

Singapore does not support any kind of euthanasia.

As quoted from Singapore Medical Association’s Response to Straits times articles:
“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. We believe that when nothing more can be done to fight terminal disease, much can still be done in offering comfort to, and relieving the pain and suffering of, our patients.”
Dr Lee Pheng Soon President, Singapore Medical Association

Question 2.
· Advanced Medical directive
Question 3

We feel that Sabire should have been allowed to practice euthanasia legally as it would have given her the dignified death she desired in its true right rather than what happened after that. Unable to use morphine due to side effects, Sebire was in constant pain. Hence we feel that she should have been allowed to legally receive life-terminating drugs as she would have felt like her pleas were being listened to, at the very least.

Question 4.

Advanced medical directive will permit an incapacitated patient’s wishes to Oven due regard and restore respect of the patient’s autonomy which other competent and legally capable patients have and exercise. Hence together with good hospice care, it will in fact reduce the pressure for euthanasia. Just that the doctors would not be sole decision makers in the decision process.


TASK 3: [In progress!]

Euthanasia & Singapore

In Singapore, active euthanasia is prohibited by law but passive euthanasia can be carried out on a terminally ill patient as long as he has signed the Advance Medical Directive (AMD).

AMD is an order to your doctor not to prolong your life. Family members cannot revoke his AMD. However, if the patient is unconscious and has not applied for one, family members and the doctor can decide on the best course of action.

Our group agrees with Singapore’s legalization of euthanasia. In our opinion, it is morally insensitive to deny a suffering patient the right to choose to end his life. We are unable to comprehend the amount of pain he is suffering and to insist he tolerates his tormented plight is inhumane. We should do away with conservative notions which lack empathy. Moreover, we feel that every human being is entitled the right to choose the way he lives, or dies. Also, by permitting passive euthanasia, we are able to preserve the patient’s dignity, giving him the respect he rightfully deserves and respecting his choice.

Done By: Elaine, Thomas, Nicholas & Abhijit

Euthanasia

Task 1
“Thou shalt not kill.” Why not?

In every case, there are exceptions to the rule. This includes “Thou shalt not kill”. One of these exceptions could be killing in self-defense. The law of nature is that of the survival of the fittest. Everybody has a right to live and thus has the right to protect that right. When somebody is assaulted, it is only right that he protects himself, even if it means killing the attacker unintentionally in the process. It would be unreasonable to blame the victim for his attacker’s death because, given the circumstances, it was the only thing he could do at that point in time to protect his own right to life. Thus, in such an exception, the rule does not stand.


While speaking of the ‘right to life”, this argument against “Thou shalt not kill” could be turned around. Since everybody has a right to live, then we can always say that nobody has a right to take it away. The right to life is one of the most valuable rights a person can ever have. Life is precious – ever since conception it is already a miracle on its own. It is full of potential, full of surprise and it means a person’s existence. Even by according it the status of a “right”, the value of “life” is still impossible to quantify. Killing somebody else means taking a life, and regardless of the circumstances, it will be an infringement of the right to life and hence will be a sin – a sin worse than lying, stealing or infidelity. Therefore, “Thou shalt not kill.”

Task 2
1. What is Singapore's current position on euthanasia?
Singapore is against euthanasia and mercy killing is not legalised in the country.
However,there has been a gradual shift in the attitude public towards greater acceptance of euthanasia as an option for care of the terminally ill and dying. There have also been calls by certain groups to actually legalise voluntary euthanasia for patients that have a sound mind and is suffering from an incurable or terminal illness, experiencing unbearable suffering and uncontrollable pain.

2.What laws or regulations have been instituted with regard to euthanasia?
Netherlands - Requirements: repeated and well-considered request bypatient, unacceptable state of suffering, doctor has to consult a colleague whoagrees to it.

* Procedure:
o practitioner must not declare natural death, but fill in extensive questionnaire;
o medical examiner informed via questionnaire, reports to district attorney;
o district attorney decides if prosecution should be instituted - punishable by up to 3 or 12 years imprisonment or fine
o court-determined crieteria to be met to evade prosecution

Oregon, USA - TheDeath with Dignity act was passed in 1997 in Oregon, permitting physician-assisted suicide.The measures to safeguard against patients from using the law prematurely orimpulsively are that patients must make two oral requests and one writtenrequest at least two weeks part, be terminally ill with less than six months tolive, and be judged mentally competent to make the decision by two separatephysicians. They are also to administer the medicine themselves. Even withthese safeguards in place, objections still occur where the federal governmentwishes to deny the right to euthanasia for the people.

Takenfrom:http://projectsday.hci.edu.sg/2003/webreports/cat3/QL10/casestudies_a.htm

In some European countries, like Belgium, Netherlandsand Switzerland, and alsosome US-states (Oregon?) and some othercountries too - remarkable Thailandsince 2007, a new law, Euthanasia is legal - it is also a kind of'suicide', legally approved.

In Switzerland,you need medical certificates to attest, that you are terminally ill, and ifyou agree, you will get a poison drink, you will face some witnesses and youmust drink it by yourself without help of others, you will be soon in deepsleep within 5 minutes and in 20 minutes you are gone from this world...

Done by: Fang Ting, Bryan, Junling, Min Jia 09S03K

Task 1

One man's life should not be decided by another. We have no right to deprive others of the right to live, especially since we were not the ones who bestowed the gift of life onto them. Humans are emotional creatures whose judgement may be clouded at periods of time, a slip in judgement may lead to an accidental loss of an innocent life. In short, we have no right to play God when we are obviously limited by our inability to gather all the facts and deal with them objectively.

People should be allowed to kill if it benefits the majority of the society. For example, in the case of patients suffering from terminal illnesses or in persistent vegetative state, they should be allowed to pass away in order to minimize emotional and economical burden of family and friends, and to end their sufferings. When such people are forced to live, they drain resources that can be put into better use without being able to contribute to the society. Besides, they would not lead a meaningful life as they no longer have the will to live. Hence, for the good of the society, killing should be allowed under certain conditions.

AQ

We agree to a large extent that relying on plagiarism detection software is a feasible solution to curb academic dishonesty in our country. This is especially so in the short term where turnitin seems to be the best solution to such a problem. Turnitin is still currently the latest software used by countries all over the world and Singapore to battle plagiarism. While some may try to escape detection by buying custom made essays online, the numbers may be small due to the cost and time involved and the lack of confidence in such answers. In the short run, using technology is the only way schools can catch up with students and to ensure fairness in our grading system. Afterall, it would take some time and effort before students come up with new technology to work around such software and in the mean time, they might have an easier time just writing original essays.

However, Turnitin might not be feasible in rectifying the fundamental wrong in mindsets of many. With regards to academic dishonesty, it is usually the thought process and negative attitude towards completing assignments which directs students' actions, which leads them to plagarise and thus give rise to a need for Turnitin to be invented. Although Turnitin has prevented many cases of plagarism, it still doens't correct the root cause of plagarism. Unless we can come up with something else to change the mindsets of students and instill values which are uniform throughout society, Turnitin is not a feasible solution to eliminate academic dishonesty, as it will always be present.

Evelyn, Yihui, Emily, Yinghin, Mansi 09S03K

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

Euthanasia

1. What is Singapore's current position on passive and active euthanasia?

Singapore is highly against active euthanasia and only made passive euthanasia possible with the signing of the Advance Medical Directive (AMD) after 9 years of contreversy. Presently, Singapore is promoting and raising the standards of palliative care to encourage patients to do away with the thought of euthanasia.

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

An Advance Medical Directive (‘AMD’) is a document signed 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 (eg artificial respirator), where there is clearly no hope of finding a cure on either a temporary or permanent basis. The Act defines ‘extraordinary life-sustaining treatment’ as any medical procedure or measure which will only prolong the process of dying for terminally ill patients when death is imminent but excludes palliative care. Palliative care is the provision of reasonable medical procedures for relieving pain, suffering or discomfort and the reasonable provision of food and water.

One has to be 21 years and above and of sound mind, may obtain a prescribed AMD form at any polyclinic or private clinic. After completing the form, he must have it signed in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom must be a doctor. The other witness must be at least 21 years old and must not stand to gain upon your death (eg a beneficiary under your will or your policy of insurance or CPF monies). Both witnesses must be physically present to witness the signing of the AMD as well as to sign the AMD as witnesses. The doctor who signs as witness is responsible for ensuring that he is at least 21 years of age, of sound mind, and having made the AMD voluntarily and without inducement or compulsion, are informed of the nature and understand the consequence of making the AMD.

Three doctors, including the patient’s hospital doctor, must unanimously certify that the patient is terminally ill. Two of the doctors must be specialists. If the first panel of three doctors cannot reach a unanimous decision that the patient is terminally ill, the doctor-in-charge will review his diagnosis and may refer the matter to a second panel of three specialists, to be appointed by the Ministry of Health whose services will not be charged to the patient. If the second panel of specialists cannot agree unanimously that the patient is terminally ill, the AMD will not take effect.

A Lawyer is not required to make an AMD. However, since one of the witnesses has to be a doctor, one may be required to pay the doctor for services rendered. The AMD itself is free.

3. Do you agree with Singapore's position? Why or why not?

The Singaporean government does not allow the practice of euthanasia, but allows patients to sign an Advanced Medical Directive (AMD), thus giving consent to not want to continue life-sustaining treatment and be allowed to die. While this act of the government is undoubtedly in the best interest of society, it may not necessarily protect the patients’ welfare. The symptoms of dehydration, inclusive of delirium and paresthesia, entail extreme discomfort to the subject in question, and the process of dying may be a slow and painful one. In contrast, active euthanasia gives a quick and painless death to the patient, sparing him/her much suffering caused by passive euthanasia. Moreover, should the patient be in a persistent vegetative state and be unable to make such a decision, intimates would not be allowed to make the decision for him/her. The financial burden incurred from medical expenses could pose a problem for households lacking in wealth. By empowering family and close relatives to make the decision for the patient, the family would be absolved of a large amount of stress.

In conclusion, we disagree with Singapore’s position on euthanasia as the death it brings is neither quick nor painless, and the policy developed to deal with euthanasia is flawed and could have financial/emotional repercussions on the person’s immediate environment. The policy for euthanasia should be active euthanasia carried out on a case-by-case basis, with the primary intention being minimal suffering of the patient and family.

Edmund, Jonlim, Shiyuan
09SO6H

1. What is Singapore's current position on passive and active euthanasia?

Singapore disallows active euthanasia and treats it as murder or assisted suicide. However, passive euthanasia is possible in Singapore through the administration of the Advance Medical Directive (AMD) whereby one is able to decide for oneself whether to accept life-prolonging medical treatment.

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

Although an AMD form can be easily obtained from any polyclinic or private clinic, it is a hassle to process as two witness must be present at the time of signing the AMD. Also, one of the witnesses would have to be a doctor, while the other would have to be someone who would not stand to gain anything from your death.

3. Do you agree with Singapore's position? Why or why not?

We do not agree with Singapore's position of disallowing active euthanasia while passive euthanasia is allowed. Being the key to passive euthanasia, the AMD already sets a limitation to those who can administer passive euthanasia - one would have to be of sound mind at the point where he/she signs the AMD. In some cases, patients would postpone the administration of the AMD as they are not experiencing excruciatingly unbearable pain yet. However, by the time a degeneration of the human body is evident, patients may have already entered the state of an unsound mind, thereby preventing them from signing the AMD. When such a situation arises, patients have no way to change their decision to opt for euthanasia.

Even so, active euthanasia should be disallowed as others may stand to benefit from the death of one person and would then only allow others to achieve their ulterior motives. Hence, my group proposes that active euthanasia be carried out by a case-by-case basis in order to achieve only one motive - that is, to end the suffering of the patient and his family.

- Baorong, Bryan, Melissa, Ruisi 09S06J

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.

Euthanasia

What is Singapore’s current position on passive and active euthanasia?
Singapore does not legalise active euthanasia, as it is similar to murder. However, it does allow passive euthanasia to be administered (see AMD below).

What laws or regulations have been instituted with regard to this issue?
Section s.3 of the Advance Medical Directive Act (Cap.4A): A person above 21 and of sound mind is allowed to execute a directive (witnessed by a family member and a medical practitioner) that he does not desire to be subjected to extraordinary life-sustaining treatment in the event of his suffering from a terminal illness.

Do you agree with Singapore’s position? Why or why not?
We think that the issue of whether euthanasia should be administered should be considered on a case by case basis. As every patient’s circumstances will be different, there can be no standard criteria to determine if euthanasia should be legalised. Therefore, we disagree with Singapore's stand that active euthanasia should definitely be illegal, because a patient might be experiencing such intense suffering that he would very much prefer a quick, painless death.

Zoe, Yingxin, Benkhoo, Joel, Cheryl
09S06H

Singapore and Euthanasia

Singapore allows passive euthanasia (if the patient signs the Advance Medical Directive (AMD). The patient's decision in the AMD overrules EVERYTHING else, including his or her family's decisions.

If the patient did not sign the AMD and is legally unable (e.g. he's in a comma state and does not have the ability to think rationally or make his own decisions), his family/spouse/relative etc will make the decision for him.

Singapore is explicitly against active euthanasia. laws and regulations include the AMD (which reportedly took 8 years to pass due to ethical concerns) and the penal code (which deems active euthanasia as murder or assisted suicide)

we do not agree with Singapore's position, since active euthanasia should be allowed as an option in the AMD as well. There may be cases where the patient is suffering and wishes for a quick and painless death, and his quick death may allow his organs to be harvested, thereby saving other lives. Active euthanasia may therefore be respectful of the patient's wishes and may be for the greater good. In some cases, when patients have to wait for their death to come, their whole world is changed, and redefined. some of them with physical deformities may be looked at differently, some of them will not be able to interact with their family members, or carry out their daily routines. this to the patients, will become painful as life can slowly become meaningless. As such, active euthanasia can be a quick way to end their pain, and their family members' pain, who have to watch them suffer and go through this tiring process.

If active euthanasia is not allowed in Singapore due to ethical concerns and potential loopholes in such laws, then one should also consider how facilities, or institutions can be made more available for patients undergoing passive euthanasia, to allow them to have their last few days in peace and reserve their last bits of dignity.

posted by 09S06H, wenyu, tu guang, jasmine, amanda

Our stand on organ trading

Our group believes that organ trading should be allowed if it is mutually beneficial to both parties involved in the trade.

From the perspective of the patient on the receiving end of the trade, the benefits of organ trading to him are obvious. Organ trading can help to relieve the shortage of organs available for transplant, allowing the patient to have a higher chance of receiving an organ, which will go a long way in his recovery and rehabilitation. As such, from the patient's point of view, organ trading is certainly beneficial as it will improves his quality of life.

However, things are different from the perspective of the organ donor. While it can be argued that organ trading is beneficial to the donor since he receives a monetary return from donating his organ, many fear that permitting organ trading could create a situation whereby the poor and socially-disadvantaged who are unable to make informed choices would be exploited into selling their organs. This reason has been frequently cited by the Singapore government to support its ban on organ trading since such exploitation could subject the unsuspecting donor to potential medical risks. At the same time, the amount of money the donor receives can vary and poor donors might be tricked into accepting a smaller sum of payment. As such, organ trading might not be that beneficial to the donor after all.

Such drawbacks can however be overcome. The organ market can be made into a government-regulated monopsony with the government being the sole purchaser of donated organs. This will ensure equity since all donors will receive the same monetary payment and therefore will not be subjected to exploitation. At the same time, the government should also be the only one that carry out the harvesting of the organ so that it would be in the position to screen donors for potential medical risks prior to removing their organs and for compatibility with the recipient. A real-life case study for such a system would be Iran.

Eugene, Ruiting, Yingying, Yiksin (09S07A)

Advance Medical Directive (AMD) in Singapore

What is an Advance Medical Directive

An Advance Medical Directive (AMD) 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.

What is meant by "terminal illness"

The Advance Medical Directive Act (the “Act”) defines “terminal illness” as an incurable condition caused by injury or disease from which there is no reasonable prospect of a temporary or permanent recovery where death would be imminent regardless of the use of extraordinary life-sustaining treatment and where such use would only serve to postpone the moment of death of the patient.

What is meant by "extraordinary life-sustaining treatment"

The Act defines “extraordinary life-sustaining treatment” as any medical procedure or measure which will only prolong the process of dying for terminally ill patients when death is imminent but excludes palliative care. Palliative care is the provision of reasonable medical procedures for relieving pain, suffering or discomfort and the reasonable provision of food and water.

How do I make an AMD

If you are 21 years and above and of sound mind, you may pick up a prescribed AMD form at any polyclinic or private clinic. After completing it, you must have it signed in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom must be a doctor, preferably your family doctor or the doctor treating you at that time.

Who can be a witness and what must the witness do

As explained above, one of the witnesses must be a doctor. The other witness must be at least 21 years old and must not stand to gain upon your death (e.g. a beneficiary under your will or your policy of insurance or CPF monies). Both witnesses must be physically present to witness you signing the AMD as well as to sign the AMD as witnesses. The doctor who signs as your witness is responsible for ensuring that you are at least 21 years of age, of sound mind, and having made the AMD voluntarily and without inducement or compulsion, are informed of the nature and understand the consequence of making the AMD.

How much does it cost to make an AMD

You do not need to see a lawyer to make an AMD. However, since one of your witnesses has to be a doctor, you may be required to pay the doctor for services rendered. The AMD itself is free.

What happens after you make an AMD

After an AMD is made, it must be registered with the Registrar of Advance Medical Directives at:

The Registry of Advance Medical Directives Ministry of Health, College of Medicine Building, 16 College Road, Singapore 169854 Tel: 6325 9136 Fax: 6325 9212

Although you are not compelled to disclose your AMD to anyone, it would be preferable if you could discuss it with your family and loved ones before making an AMD. The Register of AMD is kept confidential and will only be disclosed to persons authorised by you in writing and/or your doctor when he has reason to believe that you are terminally ill and are unable to make your wishes known to him.

Can I be assured that I will be given the necessary treatment before the AMD is carried out

It is the practice and professional responsibility of every doctor, regardless of whether an AMD is made or not, to ensure that all necessary treatment be given as long as the patient is not certified terminally ill and there is a possibility of recovery. Even if the patient is terminally ill, the doctor has the responsibility to provide treatment to minimise pain and suffering.

When does the doctor certify that the patient is terminally ill

Three doctors, including the patient’s hospital doctor, must unanimously certify that the patient is terminally ill. Two of the doctors must be specialists. If the first panel of three doctors cannot reach a unanimous decision that the patient is terminally ill, the doctor-in-charge will review his diagnosis and may refer the matter to a second panel of three specialists, to be appointed by the Ministry of Health whose services will not be charged to the patient. If the second panel of specialists cannot agree unanimously that the patient is terminally ill, the AMD will not take effect.

Can I revoke the AMD if I change my mind

Yes you can. An AMD can be revoked at any time in the presence of at least one witness either orally, in writing, or by any other means of communication that the patient can manage. There is a prescribed form which can be completed to revoke an AMD made earlier. It is the duty of the person witnessing the revocation to inform the Registrar of the revocation.

Alternatively, you can send a simple letter to the Registrar of AMDs containing information such as the name, address, NRIC numbers, home and office telephone numbers of the person revoking the AMD and the witness, the time, date and place of the revocation and the method of communication (e.g. orally, in sign language).

All revocations should be sent to the Registrar of AMDs as soon as possible.

Copyright © The Law Society of Singapore

Definition of Hospice care

Hospice care: Care designed to give supportive care to people in the final phase of a terminal illness and focus on comfort and quality of life, rather than cure. The goal is to enable patients to be comfortable and free of pain, so that they live each day as fully as possible. Aggressive methods of pain control may be used. Hospice programs generally are home-based, but they sometimes provide services away from home -- in freestanding facilities, in nursing homes, or within hospitals. The philosophy of hospice is to provide support for the patient's emotional, social, and spiritual needs as well as medical symptoms as part of treating the whole person.

Hospice programs generally use a multidisciplinary team approach, including the services of a nurse, doctor, social worker and clergy in providing care. Additional services provided include drugs to control pain and manage other symptoms; physical, occupational, and speech therapy; medical supplies and equipment; medical social services; dietary and other counseling; continuous home care at times of crisis; and bereavement services. Although hospice care does not aim for cure of the terminal illness, it does treat potentially curable conditions such as pneumonia and bladder infections, with brief hospital stays if necessary. Hospice programs also offer respite care workers, people who are usually trained volunteers, who take over the patient's care so that the family or other primary caregivers can leave the house for a few hours. Volunteer care is part of hospice philosophy.

Trust but Verify

While the idea of ‘trust but verify’ does contain somewhat conflicting elements, it is a pragmatic approach to a very serious concern in society. Academic dishonesty is a breach of trust and respect for others’ work, and should never under any circumstances be tolerated, especially in institutes of education. Plagiarism, a dominant form of academic dishonesty made ever so convenient in today’s cyber age, neither contributes to man’s quest for knowledge nor aids in the progress of our society. We therefore feel that despite issues raised with regards to the moral implications of the use of such a system, it is definitely feasible and perhaps even desirable to adopt the ‘trust but verify’ approach in our society.

The need to use plagiarism-detection software instead of relying solely on honour codes has become more apparent in recent times. The advent of the Internet has seen millions of works from all over the globe relating to various fields being published online. While this has made information many times more accessible than before, it has also provided the desperate or simply lazy student with a quick fix to their assignment woes. And although this seemingly harmless ‘lifting’ of bits and pieces of others’ work from time to time may not appear to have detrimental effects on our health and wellbeing, if allowed to go unchecked in our community will eventually result in the degradation of values of honesty, respect and integrity in society. In the very long run, academic values on whose basis are founded the very ideals of the human pursuit of knowledge will be eroded.

Now, while this situation is clearly undesirable, there are many in society who are unaware of the consequences, in the bigger picture, of acts of academic dishonesty. There are also those who knowingly flout the rules for various reasons and motives, for example the Korean researcher who passed off somebody else’s work for his own and was eventually caught and charged for fraud. Here in this case, if not for verification in the medical research and reports, would his crime have been noticed? Even though society respects and trusts its experts in the various fields, does this stop people from giving in to temptation and committing acts of academic dishonesty? On the contrary, they may abuse the respect accorded unto them by using it as a smokescreen to cover up their wrongdoing. Likewise in the context of education institutions, where students may breach the trust placed in them by their schools by taking advantage of the absence of checks for such dishonesty. It is evident therefore, that strict monitoring must be administered as a sort of blanket rule, more so in a bid to stop the dishonest few than to revoke the trust placed in students. In fact, having stringent procedures for verification of academic integrity will effectively deter those of questionable character.

As it is known schools in Singapore have also turned to plagiarism detection services such as “turn-it-in” so as to verify the integrity of papers and reports submitted by students. While must controversy has been generated on the issue overseas, none of it has been seen here locally. This could be due to the fact that Singaporean students here have a very different perspective on the use of plagiarism detection software’s. For those who would be inclined to cheat, they are intimidated into handing up original work, and are thus less inclined to cheat. Those who are less inclined to commit plagiarism, see it as a way of preserving fairness in academic competition, in the sense that, they can submit their works with the knowledge that a certain level of academic integrity has been met and thus are reflective of the respective capabilities of his or her competitors. This positive mindset held by our local students has thus led to little or no resistance against the use of anti plagiarism websites such as turn it in. So far, it has been proven to work and both students and teachers are reaping its benefits, so why the fuss? Students overseas feel that the use of websites such as turn it in constitute a breach of trust between the students and the teachers but the fact of the matter is, why would students have to worry if their work is original and self invented? If that were the case the use of turn it in would not appear to be a breach of trust but would rather constitute an act of justice on the part of the teaching staff. Students are trusting their teachers to preserve a level playing field for all and this is indeed the whole idea behind turn it in. The “trust but verify” approach is indeed a feasible solution because it not only rewards but also has proven to be effective in dealing with those who try to plagiarize.


The whole idea that the use of turn it in is a malicious attempt to assault the integrity of the student population is indeed absurd. The fact of the matter is, teachers would much rather have cheating eradicated completely than have to go through the trouble of having to sniff out plagiarism. In fact, such acts not only punish those guilty of plagiarism, it also upholds and rewards academic integrity which is an ideal situation. Many students have come up and pointed out that such sites are contradictory to the trust reflected in the code of conduct most schools uphold. However, little have come to the realization that such forms of detection glorify the code of honor they themselves have sworn to uphold and it is only just that should they be caught breaking their part of the bargain. It is indeed, ridiculous that students with the motive of cheating are assaulting a system on the rationale that it cheats their trust and integrity.

Having considered the dangers of academic dishonesty in society and having justified the importance of proper forms of verification for academic integrity in our education system, it is undeniable that the use of plagiarism software is a prerequisite to a conducive learning environment, by virtue of the fact that it weeds out those who fail to respect the sovereignty of others’ work, and removes the pressure on those of more robust character to cheat as well for fear of ‘losing out’ to their peers in the ever competitive education system of Singapore. The issue yet to be addressed here is how we should react vis-à-vis the introduction of this software in school and more importantly, how we interpret the use of such verification methods. The true value and real potential of such a system in deterrence and punishing those who fail to adhere to the rules of the game. Indeed, the focus is on the trouble makers and not those who really deserve the trust placed in them; they already have it.

BNaChrisMMYixinYuanning09S06H

"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 ‘trust but verify’ phrase basically refers to using a host of technological software to validate the students’ work and to ensure none of it is a result of a malicious act of cheating or plagiarism, while at the same time assuring the students that the school fully trusts them and believes in their integrity. We believe that this method is contradictory and the system of verification defeats the very purpose of believing in the students’ morals and values. This system sends the message to the students that they are actually not trusted by their teachers but are given lip service about being trusted. It thus causes them to lose their faith in the school also and it makes it even more difficult for the school to demand adherence to the honour code by its students.

By using these anti-cheating applications, the school gives the students get the impression that they are expected to cheat and these software are there just to rectify any such cases. The severity of a cheating offence is thus reduced and the students might feel that there is lesser to lose by cheating. More might be tempted to give it a try and this is overall a detrimental effect for the school. We therefore believe that though the schools should not completely remove these applications, they should use them in a more constructive way by using them only when they suspect a case of dishonesty and not scanning every single piece of work. By doing so, it cannot be said then that the school trusts its students.

In Singapore, an honour code and the basic value of integrity exists in all educational institutes. It is the students’ duty to uphold this value. While majority do adhere to this norm, a small minority do prevail who neglect or ignore integrity and cheat to find the easiest way out. It is the case of “one rotten apple spoiling the whole basket”. In order to prevent an increase in the number of students being influenced by such cases and attempting to skive off themselves, the schools are forced to install and use this technology against all students’ work. These measures send fear through the students as they feel insecure about their work and are scared to use any sources. The sad truth however is that these measures are necessary to prevent a greater disaster.

In conclusion, even though the phrase ‘trust but verify’ is contradictory to a certain extent, we believe that it is necessary to adopt this approach in the Singaporean society so as to maintain a level of honour in all pieces of work and to prevent any malicious acts from occurring.

Done By: Abhijit, Elaine, Thomas & Nicholas 09S06H

AQ on the idea of "trust but verify"

Academic dishonesty exists everywhere, even in Singapore.

The whole idea of trust but verify revolves around the concept of 'better be safe than sorry'. In Singapore, we have always upheld the beliefs of meritocracy, where one is rewarded based solely on his achievements and standard. Although we should trust our students, in order to be fair to every student in Singapore, our education system also make use of plagiarism-detection software and any other forms of anti-cheat programs. By using such systems, we are not distrusting the students, but merely creating a fairer playing ground for all. For example, every project submitted for grading in Project Work will have to be verified through Turnitin. This procedure is a mark of respect to both the students and the assessors. We believe that every student in Singapore wants to display his or her best piece of written work without having to resort to cheating. The idea brought by Joey Smith gives the students an opportunity to garner respect from their peers.

The usage of honour codes is also widely accepted in Singapore, to instill a sense of integrity in the student. This idea is ultimately based on the integrity of the students. The honor code, such as the Rafflesian Code of Honor, can only act as a moral guideline to students who are willing to take it seriously. In fact, most of the time, the idea of “trust but verify” is similar to teachers invigilating the students during an examination. The teachers may trust the students, but there will always be a few black sheep taking advantage of the system. A hundred percent trust can only be developed when there are no assessments required. Hence, while the idea brought up by Joey Smith is a feasible solution, it will not eradicate school cheats totally.

In conclusion, although the idea of ‘trust but verify’ may be criticised for its possible ineffectiveness as a system of 'talk only but no action', it is an effective way to get students to reflect about the purpose of education.

Weiliang, Jiwei, Yong Sheng, Chen Xuan

6J

"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 idea of ‘trust but verify’ is the reliance on both school honour codes as well as plagiarism-detection software to prevent students from cheating in academics. While not an ignoble idea, the method itself entails two conflicting acts. The act of verification would no doubt be an indication of the institution’s mistrust towards its students. How then would the school expect its students to adhere to its honour code? Integrity on the students’ part could well depend on the willingness of the school to trust them, and in the ‘trust but verify’ system, such trust on the school’s part is evidently lacking.

However, the guilty-until-proven-innocent argument as mentioned in the passage may be dispelled with the implication of the ‘trust-but-verify’ system. Students who previously had no qualms cheating under a pure verification system may now find themselves at odds with their conscience. When schools rely solely on plagiarism-detection software to uncover cheating incidents, students may feel that the school is actually expecting them to cheat, thus do not feel guilty when they do so. If schools adjust their anti-cheating campaign to show more strongly that students are not expected to cheat, such as adopting the idea of ‘trust but verify’, there is a high probability that the amount of cheating incidents will lessen.

In Singapore, almost all educational institutions have an honour code for students to uphold, within which is a commitment for a student to uphold his/her integrity. While the majority would adhere to the rules and abstain from academic dishonesty, there might be a few people who think themselves above the law, or that the ends justify the means, or for whatever reason plagiarise and cheat. The sad truth is that there will always be a few students who cheat, abusing the trust of their teachers. This is where the whole idea of ‘trust but verify’ comes in. Trust alone is never effective, and preventive measures should be taken to ensure that those who violate that trust do not get away with it. Moreover, if students are upright and honest, they have nothing to fear from an extra layer of security against academic dishonesty as plagiarism-detection software will turn out clean results.

In conclusion, the idea of ‘trust but verify’ is a feasible solution to curb academic dishonesty in Singapore. Putting a dependence on the moral values of the students as well as using technology to enforce the no-cheating policy will limit the amount of cheating incidents to a bare minimum. In the long run, it will also cultivate students’ sense of integrity, laying the foundations for them to lead an honest, upright life.

Jia Han, Edmund, Jonlim, Shiyuan

"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 objective of education is to equip students with the necessary skills and knowledge that is vital for their future endeavours and for the progress of society. Throughout the long years of education, students are plagued with assignments, which teachers believe would help them in their academic development. Unfortunately, most students are unable to see this point, especially when there is a conflict of interest, between work and non-academic related issues. Hence, they turn to the easy way out of copying the work of others. Such action is frowned upon by educators and they turn towards technology to remedy this problem. Although many students consider this as a breech of trust, such a move is crucial to curb the problem of plagiarism.

The grade given to a paper reflects the standard of a pupil, and it serves as an acknowledgment for their efforts that a student put into their work. Such feedback gives students the chance to categorize themselves into many stratus (an A grade being outstanding work and an F as substandard), and may provide intrinsic motivation for students to improve in their respective academic fields. However, plagiarism causes this system to fail in many aspects. Firstly, the teacher is no longer able to peg the student according to his grade; or rather, the teacher would overestimate the capabilities of a student and not offer additional help through remedial and tuition. Furthermore, the student is no longer able to judge his intellect standard, and is unaware of his intellectual capacity in a certain subject.

The “whole idea of trust but verify” is a paradox in itself, since trust would imply that there isn’t a need for verification in the first place. However, it is unrealistic to trust all students entirely because there are bound to be bad apples no matter how ingrained the honour code is in school culture. Moreover, with the convenience technology provides, students are more tempted to pass off someone else’s work as their own.

Relying on honour codes seems like a good idea to curb academic dishonesty at first glance. By inculcating in the students the right mindsets and values, they definitely would not harbour the idea of plagiarising. However, it can be seen that this wouldn’t be very effective in the many schools around us. Almost every school has an honour code that strongly discourages cheating. However, the students do not necessarily abide by the honour code. Most of them do not even know the honour code by heart, much less abide by them.

Hence, it is inevitable for the “trust but verify” idea to be adopted. This idea is a feasible solution to curb academic dishonesty in Singapore because checks for plagiarism serve as deterrence for students from passing off someone else’s work as their own. The Singapore education system is a strict one, and plagiarism could leave a very bad mark on one’s record. Therefore, though it may evoke some negative feelings from students, having software which can detect plagiarism is necessary and will be an effective way of curbing academic dishonesty.

At the end of the day, it is both parties, student and teacher, who benefit from the lack of plagiarism.

Benkhoo, Joel, Zoe, Cheryl, Yingxin
09S06H