Tommy Koh vs Robert Solomon: Should S'poreans be given the right to die?

Witness this online debate between a diplomat and a former Methodist archbishop.

Martino Tan| September 15, 04:25 PM

Do Singaporeans have a right to die? Should euthanasia be allowed in Singapore? Is it a religious issue? Is there a secular take on it?

Well, if you always thought this sort of debate is really about philosophy, well, yes it is. But there is also a practical side to things as well because come one day, you will be old and in pain and you would think nothing about going quietly into the night.

Going head-to-head on this topic of euthanasia and the right to die is Professor Tommy Koh and Bishop Emeritus Robert Solomon, who explore the issue from diametrically opposite perspectives.

Debate question: IS IT TIME FOR SINGAPORE TO CONSIDER A RIGHT-TO-DIE BILL?

Here's the wheat without the chaff:

Tommy_Koh

Professor Tommy Koh

A former Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Singapore from 1971 to 1974, Prof Koh is a diplomat and author. He is Special Adviser at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and Chairman of the Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore. He is also the Rector of Tembusu College at the University Town of the National University of Singapore.

Robert_Solomon

Bishop Emeritus Robert Solomon

Bishop Emeritus Robert Solomon served as Bishop of The Methodist Church in Singapore from 2000-2012. He had served previously as a medical doctor, church pastor, principal of Trinity Theological College and president of the National Council of Churches of Singapore. Dr Solomon has degrees in medicine, theology, intercultural studies, and a PhD in pastoral theology from the University of Edinburgh.

Utilitarian argument: The escalating cost of healthcare in Singapore is due to the current practice in our hospitals and by our doctors to prolong a patient’s life, by heroic and very expensive interventions and medication, even for a few days, weeks or months, which in many cases, are futile and unnecessary interventions and treatment. It would be more merciful if the doctors were to allow the patients to die with dignity.

Palliative care: Palliative medicine is being significantly improved and offers dying patients relief of pain and compassionate care that enables them to travel the last stage of their lives in the company of caregivers. As a society, we should find ways to care for the dying, thus emphasising the dignity of persons and a society that takes responsibility to care not only for the living but also the dying.

Moral argument: A Singaporean should have the right to determine his destiny. If he is suffering from a terminal illness and his doctors have determined that he has less than six months to live or if he is suffering from an incurable illness and is in constant and intolerable pain, he should be empowered to decide that he would like to end his life.

Right to life does not extend to right to die: In assisted suicide, the patient is voluntarily taking his life. Hence the term “suicide” is used, as it was by Singapore’s Minister of Health in 2008. In many societies, including Singapore, suicide is an offence. While social values may be changing, suicide is still prohibited by the law, and for good reasons. The underlying logic, whether legally, socially or religiously expressed, is that the right to life cannot be extrapolated to the right to die. Life is sacred and one does not have the freedom to take one’s own life, no matter what the extenuating circumstances might be.

A secular state: Singapore is a secular state. In the private sphere, we can live our lives according to our religious principles. However, in the public sphere, our policies should be governed by secular and not religious principles.

Deteriorating palliative care: Legalising euthanasia would shape our society and affect the way we look at ourselves, and how we care for the vulnerable. For example, the hospices are not as well developed in the Netherlands (where euthanasia is legal) as in other European nations. A social mindset that has a “cure or kill” solution would not have adequate space to explore the responsibility to care for the dying and to help them to die with dignity.

Advance Medical Directive is insufficient: The ADM is a good thing but it is not enough. It is a legal document specifying that should I become terminally ill and unconscious, I do not want any medical intervention or treatment to prolong my life. The failure of senior citizens not doing so often creates a moral dilemma for our doctors.

Advanced Medical Directive is not speeding up death: The ADM allows people to express their wish that should they be terminally ill, that “heroic” but futile medicine be excluded in their treatment so that their lives are not artificially and needlessly prolonged. This is different from speeding up death through suicide or homicide. It is a decision that can be rationally and carefully taken before the storm of pain and suffering that may mark terminal illness and cloud judgement.

 

See the full debate pan out at http://www.ipscommons.sg/debate/

 

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.