Salma Khalik, Health Correspondent Sun, Aug 26, 2007
The Straits Times
BRINGING Muslims under the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota) can lead to as many as 10 lives saved a year, said the Ministry of Health (MOH) yesterday.
The legislative process to amend the Act will start in November and is expected to be wrapped up by early next year.
Muslims are now not covered by Hota, introduced in 1987, as it was deemed contrary to their beliefs. They had to opt in if they wanted to be donors.
An edict from Muslim leaders in July changed all that, as it declared organ donation a life-saving gesture in line with Islamic teachings.
Last year, 15 people were taken off the liver waiting list and four off the heart list because they could not get the organs in time and had either died, become too old or too sick for a transplant.
'Every life saved is important,' said Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, speaking to reporters yesterday at the WaterFest by the Bay.
For the 555 people whose kidneys have failed, the change will mean a shorter wait than the nine years facing them today.
It will have a bigger impact on Muslims, now that the effects of the opt-in process have become clear for all to see. Of the 300,000 eligible Muslims, only 16,000 have pledged their organs.
As priority for organs is given to those who agreed to be donors, the backlog of Muslims awaiting transplants started growing longer. Those who signed on when their organs started failing had to sit out two years before getting on the wait list.
Last year, Muslims made up 21 per cent of patients waiting for a kidney, but only 16 per cent of those who received one. Madam Halimah Yacob, head of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Health, called the move a 'logical development and a necessity'.
'Judging by the long queue of those seeking donors, our experience with the opting-in route has failed,' she said.
She will be holding forums to explain Hota to Muslims who want to know, for example, the definition of 'brain dead''. MOH defines this as someone who 'will never wake up nor regain consciousness' and whose heart will stop once he is taken off artificial support.
Mr Khaw wants six weeks of public consultation to get support for Hota. He also wants feedback on proposals to give more power to MOH to investigate possible organ trading, which is illegal here. Now, only the police can do so.
The Sunday Times understands that someone had tried to sell a kidney on the Net in 2004. The person was identified and issued a letter of warning.
Mr Khaw also indicated that he might make changes to rules regarding living wills or Advance Medical Directive next year, to make it easier for people to declare that they do not want their lives prolonged by artificial means if they fall terminally ill.
The Straits Times reported yesterday that so far, more than 6,000 people have signed living wills, with 3,486 in the last two years alone - a figure which 'pleasantly surprised'' Mr Khaw.
'It's better to let your family know your preference, instead of letting them decide and maybe getting into a quarrel,' he said.
__
This issue on whether Muslims should donate their organs by law has been debated on many times. Previously, Muslims were allowed to follow their religious beliefs and they were not required by law to donate their organs. However, the Ministry of Health recently changed the system, to automatically require all Muslims to donate their organs, unless they opt out of it. It is now said to be in line with the teachings of Islam.
The question is how does one decide whether it is ethical to pass a law if it coincides with a religious belief or practice. The first problem arises because there are “universal” ethics that basically apply to all mankind and there are religious ethics. While the believers in a religion say it is unethical to perform a certain act because it goes against their beliefs, others feel it is unethical to not save a person’s life. The act of saving a person’s life is a humanitarian issue. It is an ethical issue that many say is a basic human right. As for the believers in a religion, they have their own set of rules and ethics. The difference between the religious ethics and the human ethics is that these religious ethics only apply to the believers of a religion.
From this, the second problem arises. Which ethic, the basic human ethics or religious ethics, should the government follow? On one hand, the government should follow the basic human ethics because the government should not believe in a single religion. On the other hand, however, it cannot discount the rights of its people, in this case the religious ethics that its people choose to follow.
Fortunately for the government, religious groups are willing to re-look their take on an issue. As the government today has more power over the religious groups, they are willing to accept that their religious ethics come second to basic human ethics. This is further made possible because the line between human ethics and religious ethics have begun to fade. For one, these so called basic human ethics are partly decided by religious beliefs. In the past, people look to religion for moral support and they realize that such a teaching is in fact a basic right as a human. Hence, religious followers believe that these basic human ethics are actually in line with their religion’s ethics. It helps that the religious writings are open for interpretation. Hence, it allows religious leaders to interpret their teachings in a different way. Where previously, something was thought to be against their teachings, from a different angle, it may not be so. They can hence have a different take on their religious ethics.
With these factors, religious groups have begun to first follow the basic human ethics and then their personal religious believes. This is the case when Muslim leaders agreed that donating their organs would be a life-saving act that is in line with their teachings.
No comments:
Post a Comment