Next, there are impediments. Singapore currently employs one contractionary: Lowering your goal for an instrument if you opt out of payment. Some have suggested expanding this to community members who disagree, giving them a lower priority if they need a graft. Although this considers justice and equality in tissue allocation, it furthermore raises ethical concerns. If a person’s choice about whether to get potentially life-saving treatment in the future been influenced by a choice they made during an already difficult period?
If people have the option to opt out of receiving donations and do so in culture, families really take that as their decision, according to the narrative surrounding donation.
Maybe our donation rates may increase if a convincing argument is made that giving is in our best objectives as a nation is made.
Ultimately, it’s difficult to see how force could be tolerated in Singapore due to the legal frameworks that apply to taking organs from people who have expressly consented, regardless of their family’s wishes.
Although it is difficult to fathom losing these literally life-saving resources, cultural beliefs ( such as burying or burning the body intact ) and religious beliefs ( although all the major religions in Singapore have no objection to deceased organ donation ) should be respected.
Singapore should do what? Someone. It’s obvious that we need to expand our selection of tissue sponsors. If not for Boon Heng, then for the remaining thousands of people on the waiting record.
Professor Julian Savulescu is Director, Centre for Biomedical Ethics ( CBmE ) at the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. Sumytra Menon is the Deputy Director of CBmE.