PUNCH LINE

Want to Hold On to a Memory?

A new study says it may be as simple as making a fist

APRIL 29, 2013

By Maia Szalavitz for TIME

Print

SAMI SARKIS—GETTY IMAGES

A new study says making a fist can help improve memory.

Getting a grip—literally— can boost your memory, according to a new study. Here’s how: Clench your right fist before taking in new information that you want to remember. Then clench your left fist when you want to remember it later.  

This strange trick may work because clenching your hands activates the side of the brain that handles memory. For example, in right handed people, the left side of the brain is primarily responsible for storing information while the right side of the brain is responsible for recalling memory. (If you are left-handed, the opposite applies).

Putting It to the Test

To test this idea, researchers led by Ruth Propper of Montclair State University in New Jersey studied 50 right-handed college students. Most of them were women. They were given a list of 36 words to remember. They were also given a small pink ball to clench.

One group clenched the ball twice for 45 seconds each with their right hands before memorizing the words. Then they did the same with their left hands before writing down as many words as they could remember. Another group performed the same task but reversed the order of the fists they made. Two other groups used the same hand each time, one group using the left and the other, the right. A final group didn’t clench the ball at all but held it gently in both hands each time.

JOHSUA HODGE PHOTOGRAPHY/GETTY IMAGES

What tricks do you use to study for tests?

The group that started with the right hand performed the best on the memory test. In doing so, they activated the left side of their brains, which helps store memory, and then clenched their left hand, activating the right side of the brain as they recalled the information.  

“The findings suggest that some simple body movements— by temporarily changing the way the brain functions— can improve memory,” Propper said in a statement describing the results, which were published in the online science journal PLoS One.

Participants recalled an average of ten words if they clenched their right hand for storing information and their left hand for recalling information. People in the group that used the opposite clenching pattern recalled an average of six words.

If you’re preparing to make fists while studying for a test or practicing a speech, the researchers say more work is needed to figure out whether this technique would actually be useful. In the meantime, however, it probably couldn’t hurt. But you would have to remember which hand to use for which step in the process.

science and ethics

From 1946 to 1948, the U.S. government, with the cooperation of a number of other bodies (including the Guatemalan government), tested an experimental syphilis vaccine on Guatemalan prisoners. In order to do this, it first exposed the men to syphilis, sometimes through prostitutes, sometimes directly injecting the bacteria into their spinal columns. In October, after a Wellesley College professor uncovered the practice, President Obama called Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom to apologize on behalf of the U.S.

nice gesture

but did it stop there?

is this the only one that was uncovered?

sad

In August, Chinese media reported on an extraordinary account of a mother bear saving her cub from a life of torture by strangling it and then killing itself.
The bears were kept in a farm located in a remote area in the North-West of China. The bears on the farm had their gall bladders milked daily for 'bear bile,' which is used as a remedy in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM).
A witness claimed that the mother bear broke out its cage when it heard its cub howl in fear before a worker punctured its stomach to milk the bile.
The workers ran away in fear when they saw the mother bear rushing to its cub's side.
Unable to free the cub from its restraints, the mother hugged the cub and eventually strangled it.
It then dropped the cub and ran head-first into a wall, killing itself.

IS SCIENCE A BANE OR A BOON

• 1 Denmark has liberal sperm donation policies that appeal to women who want to conceive using artificial insemination.
•  Denmark is tightening rules on sperm donation after one donor was found to have passed on a rare genetic condition to at least five of the 43 babies he is thought to have fathered.

•   3 Donors will now only be allowed to donate enough for 12 inseminations.

 MAGDALENE seriously? is thAT THIRD POINT THE BEST SOLUTION THEY COULD THINK OF!

CECELIA : CASTRATE THE DONOR!!

THOMAS: WE HAVE COME THIS FAR...THERE IS NO STOP BUTTON FOR SCIENCE...THE THIRD POINT SHOULD BE A STOP GAP SOLUTION UNTIL OTHER SOLUTIONS ARE FOUND...IT IS NOT OK IF ONLY 12 CHILDREN ARE INFECTED... 

this made me cry

The picture is that of a 21-week-old unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who is being operated on by surgeon named Joseph Bruner. The baby was diagnosed with spina bifida and would not survive if removed from his mother's womb. Little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta. She knew of Dr. Bruner's remarkable surgical procedure. Practicing at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb.

During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and makes a small incision to operate on the baby. As Dr. Bruner completed the surgery on Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. Dr. Bruner was reported as saying that when his finger was grasped, it was the most emotional moment of his life, and that for an instant during the procedure he was just frozen, totally immobile.

The photograph captures this amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors titled the picture, "Hand of Hope." The text explaining the picture begins, "The tiny hand of 21-week-old fetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges from the mother's uterus to grasp the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life."

Little Samuel's mother said they "wept for days" when they saw the picture. She said, "The photo reminds us pregnancy isn't about disability or an illness, it's about a little person" Samuel was born in perfect health, the operation 100 percent successful. Now see the actual picture, and it is awesome...incredible.

about lies, legal action and the profit motive - in the medical scene ...for crying out loud

What made Dr Burzynski a threat to the cancer industry from the beginning was the prospect that antineoplaston therapy represented a successful alternative to toxic and dangerous chemotherapy drugs, upon which most of the cancer industry’s profits depend.

remember i was talking to you about this in class there is a movie -to be released or already released - not sure

Burzynski is the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food & Drug Administration in American history.

His victorious battles with the United States government were centered around Dr. Burzynski's belief in and commitment to his gene-targeted cancer medicines he discovered in the 1970's called Antineoplastons, which have currently completed Phase II FDA-supervised clinical trials in 2009 and could begin the final phase of testing in 2010—barring the ability to raise the required $150 million to fund them.

When Antineoplastons are approved, it will mark the first time in history a single scientist, not a pharmaceutical company, will hold the exclusive patent and distribution rights on a paradigm-shifting medical breakthrough.

Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Various cancer survivors are presented in the film who chose his treatment instead of surgery, chemotherapy or radiation - with full disclosure of medical records to support their diagnosis and recovery.

One form of cancer - diffuse, intrinsic, childhood brainstem glioma has never before been cured in any experimental clinical trial in the history of medicine. Antineoplastons hold the first cures in history - dozens of them.

Burzynski takes the audience through the treacherous, yet victorious, 14-year journey both Dr. Burzynski and his patients have had to endure in order to obtain FDA-approved clinical trials of Antineoplastons.

Dr. Burzynski resides and practices medicine in Houston, Texas. He was able to initially produce and administer his discovery without FDA-approval from 1977-1995 because the state of Texas at this time did not require that Texas physicians be required to adhere to Federal law in this situation. This law has since been changed.

As with anything that changes current-day paradigms, Burzynski's ability to successfully treat incurable cancer with such consistency has baffled the industry. However this fact has prompted numerous investigations by the Texas Medical Board, who relentlessly took Dr. Burzynski as high as the state supreme court in their failed attempt to halt his practices.

Likewise, the Food and Drug Administration engaged in four Federal Grand Juries spanning over a decade attempting to indict Dr. Burzynski, all of which ended in no finding of fault on his behalf. Finally, Dr. Burzynski was indicted in their 5th Grand Jury in 1995, resulting in two federal trials and two sets of jurors finding him not guilty of any wrongdoing. If convicted, Dr. Burzynski would have faced a maximum of 290 years in a federal prison and $18.5 million in fines.

However, what was revealed a few years after Dr. Burzynski won his freedom, helps to paint a more coherent picture regarding the true motivation of the United States government's relentless persecution of Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D.

DO U THINK CHINA WILL FACE THE SAME PROBLEM THAT WESTERN COUNTRIES HAVE EXPERIENCED?

With more than 160 million people over the age of 60 and its ageing rate gaining pace, China is facing a curious problem: It is greying while still in development - a challenge other economies have only had to face at a more advanced stage.

The speed at which the number of elderly in China is increasing has alarmed both the government and demographers about the future, with the nation's health-care system already straining and two-thirds of rural workers without pensions.

'Population ageing is going to be a big social problem in China,' said Ms Wang Xiaoyan, the founder of Community Alliance, one of the few non-governmental organisations in China that addresses the needs of senior citizens.

The first generation of parents affected by China's population control policy put in place in 1979 - which the government says has averted 400 million births - is now hitting the age of 60.

The tens of millions of one-child homes, coupled with mass migration of students and workers to urban areas, has destroyed the traditional nuclear family model.

Instead, ordinary Chinese are coping with a 4-2-1 inverted pyramid - four grandparents and two parents, all the responsibility of an only child.

As a result, half of China's over-60s - 80 million people - live in 'empty nests' without their children, who are unable to assume responsibility for their ageing parents.

'This is why we have problems now,' said demographer Wu Cangping, 88, who still teaches at Renmin University. 'Children do not have enough money to take care of their parents. We're getting old before we are getting rich.'

The thorny problem of a greying population has not escaped notice in the corridors of power in Beijing.

The authorities have put in place a system effective this year that will give pensions to 10 per cent of rural workers. In recent years, they have also been raising health-care allotments for the elderly.

The government wants to allow 90 per cent of older people to receive family care with welfare assistance, 6 per cent to receive state-backed community care services and the other 4 per cent to move to nursing facilities.

But the country's 40,000 retirement homes have only 2.5 million beds - enough for a little more than a quarter of the eight million it needs.

xenotransplantation

Twenty-five years ago, California's Dr. Leonard Bailey transplanted a baboon heart into human infant Baby Fae. The interspecies heart transplant generated headlines and ethical debates.

Unhealthy heart: Baby Fae was born in 1984 with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. After receiving the baboon heart, Baby Fae lived 20 days. She was the first infant to get a nonhuman heart transplant.

Primate provider: Where did Bailey find the baboon?

Moral storm: Baby Fae's operation sparked animal rights protests and medical ethics debates.

Heartfelt success: Although baboon hearts are no longer used, human pediatric heart transplants are now possible.
Just Fae: For privacy, the hospital identified the baby only by her middle name, Fae. Her first name was Stephanie. Years later, her mother revealed the family surname.

Life goes on: Baby Fae's mom, Teresa, attends college in Kansas. Bailey still works at the same hospital (doing what?).

Fae on film: Bailey will mark the 25th anniversary by introducing the documentary "Stephanie's Heart: The Story of Baby Fae."

well this is what is happening in our medical scene

*Doctors from abroad form growing pool in Singapore
Hospitals step up recruitment to meet health-care needs

* Medical schools are upping intake to ensure more public doctors - the National University of Singapore will take in 300 students a year by 2011, up from 260 in 2008. Duke Medical School doubled its intake from 26 in 2007 to 50 last year. A third medical schoolat the Nanyang Technological University is under consideration.


mag
well, it is about time. i know of many students who had straight As and were denied a place in the medical faculty...why...because they had a quota...
well- the govt at that time rationalised that they did not want an excess...
somebody has not done their calculations well, it seems

cecelia
oh man, that explains why our economy is screwed up...perhaps we have to worry about everything now - our buildings are designed by, our finances are taken care of, our children are being taught by....people who actually wanted to be doctors?...

sane thomas

it is all about a matter of timing. in the past, we had enough; now we need more; anyway we neeed tobe selective about the kind of people who are going to be touching our hearts....literally...so there is a need to get in the best...i dont want an exam smart and creative heart surgeon...

euthanasia - right or wrong?

PRO-EUTHANASIA group Exit International is set to hold a talk and a workshop here next month.

Dr Philip Nitschke, 61, a Darwin-based doctor who heads the Australian right-to-die organisation, said he decided to come here after receiving several e-mail messages from interested Singaporeans seeking more information on euthanasia.

He said his group, whose activities are funded by 3,500 members across Australia, New Zealand, Britain and the United States, has also been monitoring the euthanasia debate in Singapore and feels it is timely.

Exit International has held its controversial events in Australia, New Zealand and Britain, and has sometimes been forced to change venues due to run-ins with pro-life and religious groups.

In Singapore, euthanasia and other end-of-life issues were hotly debated last year when Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan flagged the need for individuals and families to start thinking about an 'end-of-life care plan'. He wanted people to be prepared for death, for example by signing living wills.

This led some religious leaders to voice their opposition to euthanasia. However, some members of the public said the issue needed airing in a rapidly ageing society like Singapore's.

SO IS EUTHANASIA THE WAY TO GO, FOR TERMINALLY ILL?

some information about organ donation in singapore

THE controversial legislation which allows reimbursement of living kidney donors was passed in Parliament yesterday after a heated debate.

most agreed with
the age limit on cadaveric(dead) donors
allowing recipients to swop donors for a better match,
increasing penalties for organ trading

But most were uncomfortable about allowing reimbursement of living kidney donors. Their main fear was that people would exploit it to induce donors to sell their kidneys, opening the back door to organ trading.

They were also worried about an uneven playing field, with the rich finding it easier than the poor to obtain kidneys.

Questions they posed: Should there be caps on payments? Should foreign donors be excluded from receiving reimbursements? What role does the Government play to safeguard against abuses?

should we legalise euthanasia?

IN SINGAPORE, euthanasia was hotly debated last year after Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan flagged the need for individuals and families to start thinking about an 'end-of-life care plan'. He wanted people to be prepared for death by, for example, signing living wills so that their families would not be put in the difficult position of having to decide for them.
Some religious groups came out to say they opposed euthanasia but others welcomed the debate, saying it needed to be discussed in a rapidly ageing society.

A growing number of people worldwide are lobbying their governments to allow euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.

In physician-assisted suicide, a doctor supplies a death-causing means, such as barbiturates, but the patient performs the final act that brings about death, such as taking the drug. In voluntary euthanasia, the physician performs the death-causing act, usually a lethal injection, after determining that the patient indeed wishes to end his life.

Neither term applies to a patient's refusal of life-support technology, such as a respirator or artificial nutrition. This is allowed in many countries, including Singapore, which passed the Advance Medical Directive Act in 1996.
In Singapore, a person caught for attempted suicide can be jailed for up to a year. Assisting a suicide is a serious crime and carries severe penalties, including a mandatory jail term.

COUNSELLING HELPLINES IN SINGAPORE

euthanasia

A HUSBAND and wife with cancer have become the first terminally ill British couple to travel to Switzerland to be helped to die, their family said last night.

It is not yet known if anyone else travelled to Switzerland with them. If they went alone it would almost certainly mean nobody else would be implicated in their deaths. It is a criminal offence, punishable by up to 14 years' imprisonment, to assist in the death of another person.

But the Duffs' death is bound to reignite the controversy surrounding assisted suicides. Dignitas opened in 1998 and the clinic has so far helped at least 868 people, more than 100 from the UK, end their lives.

Quoted in The Guardian, a spokesman for Care Not Killing, which campaigns against euthanasia, said: 'This is a desperately sad case of a couple in a state of distress. However, hard cases make bad law and the fact remains that if euthanasia was ever legalised in Britain, vulnerable people and seriously ill people would come under pressure to end their lives prematurely.'

JUST A POINT TO SET YOU THINKING - SENTENCE IN BOLD...
BUT ITS BEEN LEGALISED IN SWITZERLAND...THEY HAVE NO SUCH FEARS THERE?....
RESPOND TO THIS PLEASE...

Mobile phones aim to be a 'doctor in your pocket'

thanks wai leong for this article



BARCELONA, Spain (AFP) - - Not content with offering calls, texts and Internet access, the mobile phone industry is convinced it can help save lives and offer health services to millions worldwide.

The idea of a phone serving as a "doctor in your pocket" has gained traction at the industry's biggest trade show, the Mobile World Congress, in Barcelona.

Among a slew of possible applications in poor countries, insiders stressed the potential for the mobile phone to remind people to get vaccinations, take medicine, or undergo HIV tests.

Doctors and nurses working at distance from hospitals or clinics can also use mobile connections to relay information on local patients or report disease outbreaks.

"When you consider that there are 2.2 billion mobile phones in the developing world, 305 million computers but only 11 million hospital beds you can instantly see how mobiles can creat effective solutions to address healthcare challenges," said Terry Kramer, strategy director at British operator Vodafone.

The Rockefeller Foundation, the UN Foundation and The Vodafone Foundation announced the Mobile Health (mHealth) Alliance this week, a partnership to advance the use of mobile technology in healthcare.

The UN and Vodafone also released a study, "mHealth for Development: The Opportunity of Mobile Technology for Healthcare in the Developing World," detailing 51 programmes in 26 countries.

The biggest adopters are India with 11 projects and South Africa and Uganda with six each.

"Innovative technology could reduce the pressure on public healthcare systems," Daniel Carucci, vice-president of health at the UN Foundation, told delagates here.

In Uganda, for example, a multiple choice quiz about HIV/AIDS was sent to 15,000 subscribers on the Celtel network in a rural region, inviting them to answer questions and seek tests.

Users who completed the quiz were given free airtime and each time they answered a question wrong they received a message informing them of the correct response.

At the end of the quiz, a final SMS was sent to motivate participants to go for voluntary testing and counseling at a local health centre.

Slightly less than one in five responded and the number of people who went for testing at the centre increased from 1,000 to 1,400 during a six-week period, the report said.

In another example given in the report, health workers in the Amazonas state of Brazil began filling in surveys last October on their mobile phones on incidences of the mosquito-borne dengue fever.

"The devices are providing us with precision (and) the information we need to develop (effective responses) in the areas where the infection levels are high," Luzia de Melo Mustafa, an Amazonas health agent is quoted as saying.

In Mexico, a medical hotline called MedicallHome was launched in 1998 to provide for people without access to a doctor. They can ring or send an SMS to ask for advice.

"Sixty percent of the time, you can replace the doctor," Pedro Yrigoyen, co-founder of MedicallHome told delegates here, highlighting the fact that mobile phones outnumber fixed lines in Mexico by five-to-one.

"Public healthcare is overwhelmed... people wait for hours just to see the doctor."

Elizabeth Boehm, an analyst at research group Forrester, sees the potential for mobile phones to help in public health information campaigns, but also points out limitations.

"One of the main challenges, in mobile health, is that people who are most in need of healthcare are usually more aged, so they don't use the mobile or they're not comfortable with it," she told AFP.

In the developed world, researchers are also looking for ways to harness mobile technology.

In several countries, diabetes sufferers can measure their blood sugar level with a device connected to a mobile phone which sends the data to doctors to verify.

Other applications are seen for monitoring people with heart problems or Alzheimer's disease.

In the United States, a service called "Foodphone" enables a user to take a photo of his or her food before a meal and send it to an expert who replies with information about the nutritional value.

fertitlity treatment for a mother of 6??

thank you jiamin for this article



A fierce ethical and medical debate has been raging in the United States after one woman gave birth to eight tiny babies in California on January 26.
Thirty-three-year-old Nadya Suleman's extraordinary multiple pregnancy was the result of fertility treatment.
She had already had six other kids, all under eight years-old, also by IVF treatment.
While the frail and tiny newborns - six boys and two girls - have beaten past odds and survived, tough questions are being asked about the use of fertility technology in this way.
Under intense scrutiny is the conduct of the physicians who agreed to carry out a procedure that placed the mother and babies at immense risk.
Guidelines issued 10 years ago by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine state that a woman of Ms Suleman's age should have no more than two embryos implanted.
One U.S. professor of obstetrics and gynecology has called the decision to implant eight embryos in a woman who already has six children as "insensitive and ignorant."
The octuplets were born nine-and-a-half weeks early. And, doctors have warned that this places them at significantly greater risk of longterm health problems ranging from lung disease, neurological and gastro-intestinal complications to blindness.
Adding to the ethical debate are Ms Suleman's personal circumstances. She is unmarried with no partner, few resources and lives with her parents.
Ms Suleman's mother has severely criticised her behaviour in the media, saying she has been "obsessed" with having babies.
For her part, Ms Suleman has defended her actions, saying in a U.S. television interview that she was counting on God to help provide for her 14 children.
While she and the octuplets are now celebrities, she has acknowledged that she is "struggling" financially, although she has hired a publicist.

should childless couples depend on surrogate mothers

Surrogacy not an answer but another problem

TUESDAY'S letter by Mr Siu Yow Wee, 'Make surrogate motherhood legal', appears to address certain needs. However, I cannot help but feel they are largely self-centred and bound to bring more pain than gain.
There is more to surrogacy than meets the eye. Legalising it will do society more harm than good. It will mean that anyone, male or female, who wants to have a child can do so simply by paying a surrogate mother. What about the implications for marriage and family, the foundations of society?

Why does society even have to consider fulfilling the needs of career women 'who do not want to give birth'? If pregnancy is a bother, and giving birth a pain, then motherhood is multiples of that. So, what is the logic in providing for one with a selfish mentality, one who is able to give birth but does not want to?

It is also a dangerous thought to allow foreign maids 'employed solely for this purpose, to act as surrogate mothers'. This is simply wrong. Besides, it will result in more instances of maid abuse. Who will be a witness when a maid is brought here unsuspectingly, taken to the hospital for a 'check-up', and then subsequently found to be pregnant? There is also the danger that after all the inconvenience, the maid suffers a miscarriage, develops a serious illness or carries a baby that is not properly developed. One can only imagine what will happen to these maids and what anguish they will have to endure.

Singaporeans have worked hard to bring the country to where it is today. Our people would not wish to undo that by becoming a nation providing 'surrogate motherhood services'. Such a service does not require even O levels, judging by the rise in teenage pregnancies. Are we then not making a mockery of ourselves?

Finally, and most important of all, children are priceless. They should remain so. Imagine if a child discovers he was 'bought' for less than another. Save for adoption, a child brought into the world for a fee becomes a commodity, like a pet. Have we not witnessed enough the plight of unwanted pets?

Some adopted children suffer because they do not know who their parents are. Would it not be harder for a child who has not only a birth mother but another who contributed the egg? Why subject a child to an identity crisis and possibly lifelong counselling?

Surrogacy is not an answer to a problem. It is another problem. Hence, I urge the Ministry of Health to keep its focus on the population's health instead of contributing, by legalising surrogacy, to more cases of people in need of mental and emotional care. Besides diverting resources away from more pressing and legitimate issues, surrogacy may lead to a generation of 'lost' children in need of institutions like the 'SPCA' - the Surrogate People's Care Agency.

Grace Chua (Mdm)

doctors are against euthanasia

Dr Noreen Chan, 42, medical director of Dover Park Hospice and consultant at the National University Hospital

'I personally am against euthanasia. Also, the World Health Organisation's definition of palliative care states, among other things, that palliative care 'affirms life and regards dying as a normal process' and 'neither hastens nor postpones death'.

What is palliative care?
Palliative medicine is about improving the quality of life of patients with terminal illnesses such as end-stage cancer and advanced organ failure.

It involves managing pain as well as the social, emotional and spiritual needs of the patient and his relatives.

Our response to suffering should be first to acknowledge it, then try to relieve the suffering, rather than to remove the sufferer.

I feel very disturbed when people talk about euthanasia in Singapore. I do not think any society should make euthanasia available when it cannot ensure equal access for all its citizens to pain relief and palliative care.

I am not saying that we can relieve all suffering, or that with palliative care, no one will ask for a hastened death. But if we have not ensured that we have done everything we can for the people and their families who are suffering, and have safeguards to protect the vulnerable and the marginalised, allowing euthanasia could be open to abuse.

Only very few patients express a wish to die sooner. Of those, only a small proportion ask for euthanasia - which is usually expressed as a lethal injection. For example, they may say: 'Doctor, can't you give me an injection so I can go off?'

The wish for a hastened death fluctuates. Most people don't have a sustained desire, and the wish to die faster may be associated with factors such as bad pain or other symptoms, the fear (often unfounded) of unbearable suffering, which are all issues that we can deal with effectively.

Of course, we must be careful that we aren't missing major depression, which is treatable and could be a reason for someone wanting to die.

I don't think people have a problem with the issue of death. We all know one day we will be no more. But it would seem that many people have problems with the process of dying - becoming weaker, more dependent, needing help for even basic needs.

And what are the main reasons for people wanting to die? Not pain, or breathlessness, but losing autonomy, losing the ability to engage in enjoyable activities and losing dignity. There's no medicine for that kind of problem, because it's a state of mind.'
Dr Cynthia Goh, centre director of Lien Centre for Palliative Care and head of department of palliative medicine at the National Cancer Centre Singapore

'I personally disagree with euthanasia and would be against it being allowed in Singapore. This is because we have too many frail and vulnerable people in Singapore whose voices may not be heard properly, and who may become victims of non-voluntary euthanasia.

Also, I am worried that people who are old and sick, who already feel that they are a burden to their families and to society, would ask for euthanasia, not because they wish to die, but because they feel that it is their duty to die.

I often hear patients expressing a wish to die. But they are not asking for euthanasia, and we must not mistake it as such.

Often, it is an expression of sadness, a way of sharing and ventilating their frustration or grief. They often feel better after they have shared their feelings and find the wish to live on a bit longer. Sometimes, finding someone who will listen to the expressions of their hearts is enough encouragement to find a reason to live.'

Dr James Low, 43, senior consultant and head of department of geriatric medicine at Alexandra Hospital

'I disagree with euthanasia because it goes against one of the most fundamental principles of medicine, which is first and foremost to do no harm.

To me, ending someone else's life is the worst harm that can ever be done to another person, what more to a vulnerable population such as the sick, elderly and dying.

It is unthinkable that the profession that takes pride in healing, curing and comforting life be also the one that takes it away. It reminds me of the proverbial wolf in sheepskin, except that now the sheepskin is the white coat.

Countries that legalise euthanasia have set conditions for it to be implemented. For instance, they require patients who request euthanasia to be above a certain age, mentally sound, suffering from a terminal condition, suffering - and most importantly, it has to be voluntary.

Unfortunately, these conditions have on occasion not been met. Can euthanasia always be voluntary? Involuntary euthanasia is murder.

Legalising euthanasia would also set off a slide towards widening its applications, so that certain groups may feel a duty to be killed or coerced into requesting it.

Many patients do not know the implications when asking for death. Many are in utter misery and desperation from uncontrolled pain (physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual). What these patients require more than anything else is palliative care - the speciality that manages the person holistically. Many patients who request euthanasia are depressed and their expression of a desire for euthanasia is actually a cry for help from their loved ones, their nurses, doctors and society.

Patients would want euthanasia if they thought that they would die without dignity, in pain and suffering and in total abandonment and there is no other way out. They would want euthanasia if they thought that this is what society wanted of them (if euthanasia is legalised).

It also has to do with what value we put on life. As it is now, suicide rates are rising - this is also a reflection on how we value life. We really have to teach our young important life skills and why life is so precious.

Many people requesting euthanasia do not realise the implications of this not only for themselves but also for their loved ones, the professional carers and society.

Euthanasia, in a way, is an expression of an individual's right to self-determination. This is patient autonomy and is another very important principle of medicine. However, many believe that autonomy is never absolute. My autonomy does not give me the right to take another person's life, neither does it give me the right to take away my own life. This is why suicides in Singapore are not allowed.'

Dr Tan Yew Seng, 42, medical director of Assisi Hospice

'I do not think that euthanasia should be legalised in Singapore. The legal and ethical issues can be complex and may be difficult for the general public to understand.

There are hospice patients who request the doctor to assist in ending their lives. This, however, tends to represent a 'cry for help', a distress call as a result of physical, emotional or spiritual suffering.

We know that for the majority of them, after we take steps to treat the suffering, such as by treating their pain, bodily distress or depression, the patients no longer express the need to hasten their death.

When patients are able to perceive that the only solution to their suffering is death, they will ask for it.

Therefore, instead of accepting the face value of the request for euthanasia as an individual right, as it is couched in many places, our approach should always be to offer other options to patients to help relieve their suffering.

With choice, almost all patients will choose life instead. Incidentally, enabling patients to live on by managing their suffering is a key tenet in palliative and hospice care.'

Dr Ang Peng Tiam, 50, senior oncologist and medical director of Parkway Cancer Centre

'I do not agree with active euthanasia. I think it is morally wrong. As a doctor, my duty is to save life and not to take life away. If indeed our society wants euthanasia, then let society decide how to carry it out. It should not be put in the doctor's hands.

Doctors can guide you on medical conditions, like for instance, declare that someone is terminally ill. But the act of killing someone is not for us to carry out.

To me, euthanasia is a cheap option. We should be able to relieve the pain of the dying to help them allow nature to take its course. The heart of the issue now is that we are not offering patients enough support as it is very costly and time-consuming.

Patients want love and care. People who want euthanasia are people who are in despair. They may not have family or community support. It is similar to people who commit suicide. They do it because they feel there is no hope.

I don't think the issue of euthanasia is adequately discussed in Singapore. It is certainly not an issue that the Government should decide, but rather, society should take the responsibility to decide.

I think we should go very, very slow with euthanasia and discuss it in a rational manner.'

Should Singapore allow euthanasia?

Say you are dying of an illness and your doctor pronounces that you have no more than three months to live. Worried that your last days will be racked with unbearable pain, you ask to die.
Two doctors certify that you are of sound mind and have made the request voluntarily. They administer you with a drug overdose. Several minutes later, you are dead.

Two weeks ago, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan raised the issue of whether euthanasia should be allowed in Singapore.

He had posed this question after reading about a debate on the topic that raged in the Chinese press.

One man even sent the minister a letter, written in red ink, asking that euthanasia be made legal.

Earlier, Mr Khaw had said that as Singapore comes to grips with an ageing population, it was time to talk about death and 'not sweep it under the carpet'.

Several MPs and doctors interviewed by The Sunday Times welcomed discussion on the highly controversial practice, even as they all said they were personally against euthanasia.

Jalan Besar GRC MP Lily Neo, a medical practitioner, said: 'By discussing it, we can understand how we can be more compassionate towards those who are suffering.'

But some were wary that the discussion would lead to more confusion about the procedure.

Dr Chin Jing Jih, executive director of the Singapore Medical Association's Centre for Medical Ethics and Professionalism, said there must be a consistent definition of euthanasia to ensure a good discussion.

He said this was especially relevant to discussion in the Chinese language, where euthanasia is known as an le si. Literally translated, the phrase means 'a peaceful and painless (or joyful) death'.

Unfortunately, this has led to confusion in the Chinese-speaking community as many tend to confuse euthanasia with palliative care, which involves the management of pain and suffering for terminally ill patients, he said.

As a result, many who merely advocate peaceful death end up on the record as saying they want euthanasia when they are actually not asking to be killed by their doctor, he said.

On the discussion of end-of-life issues, all interviewed said the focus should be on palliative care, which the Government is already looking into.

Dr Fatimah Lateef, an MP for Marine Parade GRC and a doctor for 18 years, said: 'I am more for counselling, proper pain control, and family and peer support in those with advanced disease.'

She added that she supported the Advance Medical Directive, which came into effect here in 1997 and allows an individual to say he does not want extraordinary life-sustaining treatment should he be terminally ill.

Dr Chin said the medical fraternity in Singapore has always been against the practice of euthanasia.

'We take the position that the solution to suffering in terminal illness is to continue to further develop and upgrade palliative care rather than legalise euthanasia,' he said. 'This is consistent with the role of the medical profession as healers and comfort providers, our professional values and underlying ethical tenets.'

Their concern is not only about the ethics involved but also about preventing abuse.

Madam Halimah Yacob, who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for Health, also felt the ground was not ready for the legalisation of euthanasia.

She said the feedback from her grassroots is that Singaporeans do not want euthanasia.

'I'm not quite sure if this is an area that we want to lead in,' she said.

jamieee@sph.com.sg

Do you think euthanasia should be legalised in Singapore? Have your say on straitstimes.com or send your views to suntimes@sph.com.sg

some comments by others
Euthanasia affords a person to die with dignity if he so wishes. It is the ultimate human right in a modern world where the fortunate already enjoy many other rights.

Not meant for the spineless, obviously, who believe that their life does not belong to them.

But has to be approached with some care, lest the right to die becomes the pressure to die. The proper safeguards will have to be in place.
Posted by: witness at Sun Oct 26 08:05:18 SGT 2008


Rebirth, karma, god -- quite a bunch of superstitions contained in a mighty short note. Impressive!
Posted by: witness at Sun Oct 26 08:02:10 SGT 2008


Today's sufferings is the cause of of last life's bad karma. Be brave and the only way is to seek God's forgiveness. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Posted by: xiao_hong at Sun Oct 26 06:40:33 SGT 2008

what is advanced medical directive

What is the advance medical directive?
An Advance Medical Directive (AMD), often called a living will, is a document that tells doctors that a person does not want his life to be artificially prolonged if he has a terminal illness and is unable to express his wishes.
Under the Advance Medical Directive Act, an AMD can be executed only when a patient is certified with a terminal illness, needs extraordinary life-sustaining treatment, and is incapable of making rational judgment.

After the AMD has taken effect, a patient with terminal illness will still receive palliative care and medication.

Anyone who is aged 21 years and above and of a sound mind can make an AMD. A person who wishes to make an AMD can do so by completing a prescribed form, signed in the presence of two witnesses, and return it to the Registrar of AMD.

It is a voluntary decision and no one can make an AMD on behalf of another person. An AMD can be revoked at any time in the presence of at least one witness.

The Ministry of Health promotes AMD largely through doctors at clinics, nursing homes and hospitals, and through an information booklet available at health-care institutions which contains an AMD form. It is also available online.

Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan has said it is important to 'actively' encourage people to sign up for the AMD so that their wishes are known ahead of time.

One way to make it easier is to remove the need for a doctor to witness its signing, now a requirement.

Before any amendment to the law is made, public consultations will be held.

AMD is not euthanasia. The AMD Act does not encourage euthanasia. On the contrary, the Act is explicitly and categorically against euthanasia.

To clear up the misconception that an AMD equates euthanasia, Mr Khaw proposed that the explanations of AMD be made in a plainer and clearer form, and in different languages.

what is euthanasia

What is euthanasia?
Euthanasia is the deliberate, intentional termination of a person's life for the benefit of that person.
In general, euthanasia involves medical doctors making decisions which result in shortening a patient's life, and these decisions are based on the belief that the patient would be better off dead.

The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the American state of Oregon are the only four jurisdictions in the world where laws specifically permit euthanasia or assisted suicide. In February this year, Luxembourg became the third European country to legalise euthanasia. The law, however, has not come into effect.

In 2002, the Netherlands became the first country to legalise euthanasia. According to the BBC, euthanasia now accounts for between 4,000 and 5,000 deaths a year in the country.

The practice is tightly regulated and it is estimated that doctors - the only people allowed to perform euthanasia - turn down two-thirds of requests.

Under the law, euthanasia will be administered only to patients who are in continuous, unbearable and incurable suffering. A second opinion will be required, the patient must be judged to be of sound mind, and his or her request to die must be made voluntarily, independently and persistently.

Doctors carrying out euthanasia generally administer a lethal injection to their patients, and those assisting in suicides prescribe drug overdoses. Euthanasia is also allowed for babies with incurable conditions including severe spina bifida and a painful skin condition called epidermolysis bullosa.

Belgium also legalised euthanasia in 2002. Patients there must consciously make the demand and be under 'constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain' resulting from an accident or incurable illness. Two doctors must be involved, as well as a psychologist if the patient's competency is in doubt. The doctor and patient negotiate whether death is to be by lethal injection or prescribed overdose.

In the United States, Oregon is the first state to allow lethal prescriptions. Doctors can prescribe lethal drugs to help patients commit suicide but cannot administer them.

This is also the case in Switzerland - you have to be able to physically carry out that final act yourself.


What it is not

There is no euthanasia unless the death is intentionally caused by what was done or not done. Thus, some medical actions that are often labelled 'passive euthanasia' are not forms of euthanasia, since the intention to take life is lacking.

These acts include not commencing treatment that would not provide a benefit to the patient, withdrawing treatment that has been shown to be ineffective, too burdensome or is unwanted, as well as the giving of high doses of painkillers that may endanger life, when they have been shown to be necessary.

All these are part of good medical practice, endorsed by law, when they are properly carried out.