Dec 22, 2008
The right to die: A litmus test for secularism
WHEN I read Mr Alex Tan's Online Forum letter last Wednesday ("Euthanasia: Singaporeans ignore sanctity of life at their peril"), I was reminded of a famous quote that essentially said that a society is best measured by how it treats its poorest.
Mr Tan's diatribe against secularism and euthanasia has inspired me to disagree. A society is better measured by how its members treat one another, despite their differences.
Because, by that measure, if Mr Tan's sentiments are prevalent among Singaporeans, then we have failed as a society.
To Mr Tan, our lack of a universal moral compass is secularism's failure, but he forgets that a diversity of religions and moral standards has always been inherent in civilisation, secular or not. Everyone is also entitled to live and behave in any way, including subscription to moral standards (or not), as long as others are not harmed - as protected by the law, which is purely rational and not adherent to any one set of morals.
Given our rights and diversity, a single moral compass for all is therefore untenable; its non-existence is instead a boon and the natural consequence of religious freedom in our secular state.
Our secularism is why people like Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, even atheists and agnostics, can co-exist harmoniously and engage in respectful debate, despite differing views.
That there is yet "no right or wrong" answer to euthanasia, and that some Singaporeans feel "uptight and queasy" about it, is good. Why hide our differences and pretend that debate is unnecessary? It trumps forcing our beliefs on one another and failing as a society.
The sanctity of life is one such belief central to the objection to euthanasia. I have no personal stake yet in this issue, but the logic of my conclusion revolves solely around whether the freedom of choice is violated - and the best solution is to legalise euthanasia and just let the individual patient weigh the sanctity of his or her own life.
I cannot imagine how euthanasia opponents like Mr Tan would be legally affected when their personal choice to refuse euthanasia would remain intact, and when the personal decisions of terminally ill patients are nobody else's business. Showing respect for one another's personal choice instead of seeking to restrict choice just because we think others are immoral, would be a sign of a society's progress by any measure.
Jonathan Lin
[I asked a colleague, who is a strong, level-headed Christian that I respect, if she automatically opposes euthanasia. Surprisingly, she said no. She might support it actually. I went on to lightheartedly berate her for picking and choosing which tenets of her faith to support, but it is in part this ability and willingness of her to look at things objectively and decide for herself what she feels is right, that I respect her. I do not think she's right. Or wrong, for that matter. I don't know. My religion also says that euthanasia is wrong. I can agree with that... sometimes. I can also question it. And I can also disagree with it. Between these two letters you see the difference between a secularist (or atheist?) and a theist (specifically, a Judeo-Christian theist). The difference is not between "Yes to euthanasia" or "No to Euthanasia". Or the difference between "Sanctity of Life" or "Life is cheap".
No. The real difference between a secularist (atheist) and a theist is the ability to live with ambiguity. The secularist and the atheist are able to live with ambiguity. The theist requires absolutes. (And absolution?)
And it is this demand for absolutes that is the mark of immaturity and which is the seed for destruction.]
Dec 17, 2008
Euthanasia: Singaporeans ignore sanctity of life at their peril
I WRITE to share my personal reflections on the special report on euthanasia by Ms Sandra Davie last Saturday ('Right to die... or right to kill?').
The first reflection is why the renewed debate on euthanasia is taking place now. Ms Davie pointed to the declining role of religion in politics and daily life as one reason for this renewed debate. This is an indictment that secularism and postmodernism have failed to provide a clear moral compass for societies at large. When one subscribes to a philosophy that denies the existence of objective truths, and that truth is a product of a person's culture, secular societies are left paralysed by the individual's clamour to decide his own fate. It also led to Ms Davie to conclude in her blog that 'there is no right or wrong in this issue'. This is indeed a profound statement from secularists. If this is the best that secularism can muster, then I suggest there should be no reason why Singapore society needs to be so uptight and queasy on this issue. As Ms Davie suggested in her blog, this issue just 'requires a full and informed debate'.
The second reflection is the question of sanctity of life in the euthanasia debate. It is disingenuous for doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath to 'do no harm', to oppose euthanasia and yet in the same breath, remain silent with regard to abortion. To objections that we will set ourselves on a slippery slope if Singapore legalises euthanasia, I would venture to suggest that we already started on the slippery slope in 1974 when the Government passed the Termination of Unwanted Pregnancy Act. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, in a parliamentary speech, said the Act was 'to provide for the safe termination of unwanted pregnancies by trained persons in appropriately equipped facilities. It is to safeguard the health and well-being of the woman who has, for various reasons, decided to terminate her pregnancy. This is intended to ensure that all children born in Singapore are wanted children, who will be properly cared for, and will have opportunities to develop to their full potential'. I suggest we consider Mr Khaw's advice regarding abortion to euthanasia by 'basing our decision purely on science so we take the emotion out of this particular subject'.
I am against euthanasia. Granted there are emotive, passionate and seemingly heart-rending reasons why it should be legalised, two wrongs do not make a right.
Sanctity of life has an 'in-your-face' logic that Singaporeans and societies at large choose to ignore at their peril.
Alex Tan
The right to die: A litmus test for secularism
WHEN I read Mr Alex Tan's Online Forum letter last Wednesday ("Euthanasia: Singaporeans ignore sanctity of life at their peril"), I was reminded of a famous quote that essentially said that a society is best measured by how it treats its poorest.
Mr Tan's diatribe against secularism and euthanasia has inspired me to disagree. A society is better measured by how its members treat one another, despite their differences.
Because, by that measure, if Mr Tan's sentiments are prevalent among Singaporeans, then we have failed as a society.
To Mr Tan, our lack of a universal moral compass is secularism's failure, but he forgets that a diversity of religions and moral standards has always been inherent in civilisation, secular or not. Everyone is also entitled to live and behave in any way, including subscription to moral standards (or not), as long as others are not harmed - as protected by the law, which is purely rational and not adherent to any one set of morals.
Given our rights and diversity, a single moral compass for all is therefore untenable; its non-existence is instead a boon and the natural consequence of religious freedom in our secular state.
Our secularism is why people like Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, even atheists and agnostics, can co-exist harmoniously and engage in respectful debate, despite differing views.
That there is yet "no right or wrong" answer to euthanasia, and that some Singaporeans feel "uptight and queasy" about it, is good. Why hide our differences and pretend that debate is unnecessary? It trumps forcing our beliefs on one another and failing as a society.
The sanctity of life is one such belief central to the objection to euthanasia. I have no personal stake yet in this issue, but the logic of my conclusion revolves solely around whether the freedom of choice is violated - and the best solution is to legalise euthanasia and just let the individual patient weigh the sanctity of his or her own life.
I cannot imagine how euthanasia opponents like Mr Tan would be legally affected when their personal choice to refuse euthanasia would remain intact, and when the personal decisions of terminally ill patients are nobody else's business. Showing respect for one another's personal choice instead of seeking to restrict choice just because we think others are immoral, would be a sign of a society's progress by any measure.
Jonathan Lin
[I asked a colleague, who is a strong, level-headed Christian that I respect, if she automatically opposes euthanasia. Surprisingly, she said no. She might support it actually. I went on to lightheartedly berate her for picking and choosing which tenets of her faith to support, but it is in part this ability and willingness of her to look at things objectively and decide for herself what she feels is right, that I respect her. I do not think she's right. Or wrong, for that matter. I don't know. My religion also says that euthanasia is wrong. I can agree with that... sometimes. I can also question it. And I can also disagree with it. Between these two letters you see the difference between a secularist (or atheist?) and a theist (specifically, a Judeo-Christian theist). The difference is not between "Yes to euthanasia" or "No to Euthanasia". Or the difference between "Sanctity of Life" or "Life is cheap".
No. The real difference between a secularist (atheist) and a theist is the ability to live with ambiguity. The secularist and the atheist are able to live with ambiguity. The theist requires absolutes. (And absolution?)
And it is this demand for absolutes that is the mark of immaturity and which is the seed for destruction.]
Dec 17, 2008
Euthanasia: Singaporeans ignore sanctity of life at their peril
I WRITE to share my personal reflections on the special report on euthanasia by Ms Sandra Davie last Saturday ('Right to die... or right to kill?').
The first reflection is why the renewed debate on euthanasia is taking place now. Ms Davie pointed to the declining role of religion in politics and daily life as one reason for this renewed debate. This is an indictment that secularism and postmodernism have failed to provide a clear moral compass for societies at large. When one subscribes to a philosophy that denies the existence of objective truths, and that truth is a product of a person's culture, secular societies are left paralysed by the individual's clamour to decide his own fate. It also led to Ms Davie to conclude in her blog that 'there is no right or wrong in this issue'. This is indeed a profound statement from secularists. If this is the best that secularism can muster, then I suggest there should be no reason why Singapore society needs to be so uptight and queasy on this issue. As Ms Davie suggested in her blog, this issue just 'requires a full and informed debate'.
The second reflection is the question of sanctity of life in the euthanasia debate. It is disingenuous for doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath to 'do no harm', to oppose euthanasia and yet in the same breath, remain silent with regard to abortion. To objections that we will set ourselves on a slippery slope if Singapore legalises euthanasia, I would venture to suggest that we already started on the slippery slope in 1974 when the Government passed the Termination of Unwanted Pregnancy Act. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, in a parliamentary speech, said the Act was 'to provide for the safe termination of unwanted pregnancies by trained persons in appropriately equipped facilities. It is to safeguard the health and well-being of the woman who has, for various reasons, decided to terminate her pregnancy. This is intended to ensure that all children born in Singapore are wanted children, who will be properly cared for, and will have opportunities to develop to their full potential'. I suggest we consider Mr Khaw's advice regarding abortion to euthanasia by 'basing our decision purely on science so we take the emotion out of this particular subject'.
I am against euthanasia. Granted there are emotive, passionate and seemingly heart-rending reasons why it should be legalised, two wrongs do not make a right.
Sanctity of life has an 'in-your-face' logic that Singaporeans and societies at large choose to ignore at their peril.
Alex Tan
No comments:
Post a Comment