Prof Lee - Singaporeans are gullible.

[smallaperture]

OT a bit, but after 'donating' $10 to some auntie who was selling some 'coupons' for some stoke patient charity stuff, I was told that $7 goes to the auntie???!!! Is that true? If it's true, maybe the next time I see her, I'll give her a tight slap and give her another $7!

So, the NKF saga is still fresh on our mind. We will definitely get less, much less donations. As a result, all these charitable organisation would suffer, or will they? Or, the have got enough reserves to last them 5 years or so to tide them over until we all feel comfortable to start donating again.

Or, the authorities come out with certain guidelines and certain transparency so that the chances of abuses would be kept to a minimum. Then, the public would be assured that the funds would be put to good use. Then, would there be too much control, too much red-tape and the entire mechanism becomes stiffling. So, which way should we go then?

 

[centuryegg]

We see "blind men" getting led by aunties in coffee shops, hawker centres selling tissue, we see hearing impaired selling handicrafts to pubs. Dont you ever wonder how come it seems so organised? Because it is organised..... they are all from syndicates that organise such operations.

I agree with Doc Lee that we Singaporeans are very gulliable, alittle edging from the press and we would be pouring our funds out like crazy. One good example would be the Huang Na case, we donated half a million to her mother and step father. Why did we do it? I mean maybe if we had paid for the funeral and that would have suffice. But half a million?? And so many people turning up at the funeral and all. For? To show that we are caring? To join in the crowd? Would you care that much even for your own relatives and friends?? Last we hear is that the family have built a three storey bungalow in China and is reaping their rewards of their "tears" and not even working anymore.

I am not saying not to donate but donate wisely.... know what you are donating for. Many a times at flag day, I ask the flag seller, what am I donating to? Where is the money going. They give me a blank "I dont know, I just know I have to get the tin filled look"

When we donate blindly, the money doesnt get to the intented reciepent and what happens is people who really need the money doesn't get it.

 

[dkw]

The rate of philantropic giving by Singaporeans, as a percentage of GDP, lags behind many other developed countries --> http://www1.nvpc.org.sg/sub_page.asp?pid=77&sid=77&aid=437 . In other words, Singaporeans can really afford to give more than what is going on at present. Why is this so? I suspect the government brainwashing of "meritocracy" (aka you get what you deserve) and "no welfare state" (aka if you can't afford it, too bad) re-inforces this mentality.

When one talks about making "wise choices", it begs the question of what is a "wise choice". It presupposes that the donor, somehow has an intimate knowledge of how charities should function, how each individual charity should divide its resources or conduct its fund-raising. For instance, using a simplistic formula, one may feel more inclined to donate to a charity that spends "90%" of proceeds for their charges than one that spends "80%" of their proceeds. But does this take into account the needs of the charity, specialised staff that may need to be recruited, specialised equipment, long-term planning, needs and finnacial background of the charges etc.? In a perfect world, one would be in possession of all this knowledge, otherwise one is making an imperfect "choice", and maybe an awfully wrong "choice" even, due to only seeing one part of the picture.

In reality, you can never know for sure. Yes, in theory, I would love to make the "wise choice" every time. Is it ever possible? I know that there is a lot I don't know, despite so many stories of fraud/abuse/syndicates etc., I DO know that there are genuine people out there who need some help. If I'm sitting on my hands waiting to make a "wise choice", the help may come too late.

Personally, I'd give the benefit of the doubt wherever I can. If I get fooled sometimes by people, so be it, its between him and God.

 

[centuryegg]

I guess each has his or her point. I just feel that depending on God is surmount to leaving things to circumstances and not taking control. Hence the mushrooming of syndicates that prey on gulliable Singaporeans.

When donor fatigue sets in from donating to too many such "fake" charities, people start to not want to donate anymore and what happens is people who are really in need suffer. Don't one notice how these "blind men" and hearing impaired no longer get the warm responses from the public but get shooed away? Now they have resorted to hardcore tactics such as standing in orchard road, looking pathetic and having a young girl stare at every passerby and haressing the public shouting "PLEASE DONATE TO BLIND MAN!! PLEASE BUY TISSUE" Tissue bought at what roughly 2 dollars for a pack of 10 but sold at 1 dollar for a pack of 3..... its three times the profit.

As the followup on the article in the Straits Times said, its when the press talk about cases, do cases get noticed. When no mention is made, they don't exists.

Call me cynical, call me practical. But isn't bettering the life of orphans, giving a poor family a chance at breaking out of the proverty trap than a high publicity stunt to prove that our medical teams are world class and able to seperate a pair of siamese twins..... which one will be a living vegetable for the rest of her life, the other needing constant medical attention. And now the case of the missing funds to the parents.

I always believe in this "You dont feed a person, you teach him how to feed himself"

 

[dkw]

I always believe in this "You dont feed a person, you teach him how to feed himself"

Absolutely and totally agree with this principle in general. However, it is the wrong analogy to use in this case. If a dialysis patient, making $1500 a month as a tradesman, requires a donation of $1000 a month NOW to help him survive, how does upgrading his work skills help him in the short term?

Call me cynical, call me practical. But isn't bettering the life of orphans, giving a poor family a chance at breaking out of the proverty trap than a high publicity stunt to prove that our medical teams are world class and able to seperate a pair of siamese twins..... which one will be a living vegetable for the rest of her life, the other needing constant medical attention. And now the case of the missing funds to the parents.

You have amply demonstrated exactly what I am trying to say. We DON'T KNOW the situation to ANY great detail, apart from what we read from the papers. Who is to say that the players involved do not have hidden agenda, or is presenting one side of the story. I don't buy Prof Lee's argument that just because one of the twins will be requiring attention for the rest of her life, that therefore the operation should not have proceeded. I don't buy that one bit. She is merely presenting HER POV, and we are merely bystanders, and may I add, grossly ignorant ones as well, especially pertaining to the details of the case.

Therefore, I say again (you can be cynical if you wish, that is your choice and its not for me or anybody else to judge or criticise) that I disagree that any lay person can ever make a "wise choice" with regards to charitable giving. It is simply too complex and subjective. The safest thing to do, IMO, is to give and not ask why/how/who/when. Just give.....

 

[centuryegg]

Sincere apologies.... Im not arguing about the matter. Just presenting an alternative viewpoint. I guess we are all entitled to ours right?

Having said that I still stick to my point in which the operation was a bad move. I am not supporting Dr Lee but speaking from a practical point of view. Why the money to keep alive a human in a vegetable state? What purpose does it serve?

As for just giving..... I too do not believe in that as when we do that... we indirectly encourage more charity frauds cos no one ever questions where the money goes. And sagas like NKF and missing funds start to surface..... and we have more syndicates mushrooming to all over.

The above is my own view and is not meant to be imposed on anyone. I must make it clear

 

[student]

On the whole, I rather be taken for a sucker than to back away from a true need.

It is obviously impossible to possess complete knowledge, and under this circumstance, I rather act on my conscience.

But in situation that do not require urgent responses, I will take a little more time to study before commiting myself.

For example, if "Association A" makes an appeal for monies. (in Singapore). I may actually approach this association what are their problems. If they say that they are in need of wheelchairs. Then I may get my friends together and get them 10 wheelchairs. More direct. Of course theymay sell off the wheelchairs! But there is only so much I can do to try to make sure my monies are spent in the best manner.

 

[dkw]

Sincere apologies.... Im not arguing about the matter. Just presenting an alternative viewpoint. I guess we are all entitled to ours right?

Please, no apologies needed. What you are stating is a prefectly legitimate POV, most people feel that they want to "know" where their money is going. I just feel that it is a very imperfect yardstick, something unreliable and hazardous to depend on, this assumption that we can actually make a "wise choice"

Having said that I still stick to my point in which the operation was a bad move. I am not supporting Dr Lee but speaking from a practical point of view. Why the money to keep alive a human in a vegetable state? What purpose does it serve?

Here I will strongly disagree. What you are stating is a layman's opinion. It does not take into account the disability that would have been suffered by the twins had the op not proceeded, nor the possible benefits if it had gone brilliantly well. You do not have in your possession, knowledge of the anatomy of the disorder, data on the success rate of conjoint separation, quality and availability of post-op care etc. I'm sorry to say this, but you cannot hope to even make a intelligent guess as to whether or not the operation should have proceeded, and neither can 99.9% of the people who are reading that article and saying "Oh yah, they shouldn't have done it!" or "I disagree, it was a good choice." I do not claim that I know whether the op should have proceeded, because like you, I do not have possession of all the facts. I have only said I disagree with Dr Lee when she says that it should not have been done because now one of the twins is debilitated, a "burden" on the family. It is a subtle but important point. Hindsight is 20/20.

The case was reviewed by the hospital ethics committee, and they had deemed that on the balance of it, it could proceed. Often medical decisions are made on that basis, a risk/benefit decision. Sometimes it goes wrong, but that is how it is. It is easy on hindsight to say "I told you so".

Okay, nvm, not trying to impose, really. Just be a little circumspect in criticisms. As Benjamin Disraeli said, "Its easier to be critical than to be right."

Cheers

 

[student]

Here I will strongly disagree. What you are stating is a layman's opinion. It does not take into account the disability that would have been suffered by the twins had the op not proceeded, nor the possible benefits if it had gone brilliantly well. You do not have in your possession, knowledge of the anatomy of the disorder, data on the success rate of conjoint separation, quality and availability of post-op care etc. I'm sorry to say this, but you cannot hope to even make a intelligent guess as to whether or not the operation should have proceeded, and neither can 99.9% of the people who are reading that article and saying "Oh yah, they shouldn't have done it!" or "I disagree, it was a good choice." I do not claim that I know whether the op should have proceeded, because like you, I do not have possession of all the facts. I have only said I disagree with Dr Lee when she says that it should not have been done because now one of the twins is debilitated, a "burden" on the family. It is a subtle but important point. Hindsight is 20/20.

The case was reviewed by the hospital ethics committee, and they had deemed that on the balance of it, it could proceed. Often medical decisions are made on that basis, a risk/benefit decision. Sometimes it goes wrong, but that is how it is. It is easy on hindsight to say "I told you so".

Okay, nvm, not trying to impose, really. Just be a little circumspect in criticisms. As Benjamin Disraeli said, "Its easier to be critical than to be right."

Cheers

In my opinion, I think few medical professionals would disagree with Prof Lee. Many are in broad agreement with Prof Lee's comments. Before the surgery, the results of the operation were already a foregone conclusion.

But as you mentioned, hospitals "ethics" committee had given the green light. Of course, they had their reasons.

 

[centuryegg]

Actually I made the comment that the op shouldn't have gone ahead based on the findings that one of the two would become a vegetable. I didnt make the comment like the other 99.9 percent of people who said I told you so. The operation was labelled a great success and was publicised as a sign of our esteemed medical expertise leading to more siamese twins cases coming to Singapore. One of which was the ill fated Iranian case. The Iranian case was done with the twins both knowing that it was a big risk.

Anyway I feel that we are diverting from the topic which was in the first place about Singaporeans being more subjectable to suggestions and hence outpouring their noble and charitable efforts but in the wrong place.

 

[dkw]

In my opinion, I think few medical professionals would disagree with Prof Lee. Many are in broad agreement with Prof Lee's comments. Before the surgery, the results of the operation were already a foregone conclusion.

Hi student, I would categorically state that MOST medical professionals will not have an educated opinion on the matter. I can also tell you that of the medical professionals I know and have spoken to on this, that NONE of them are in agreement with Prof Lee. I am also not aware that Prof Lee's opinion is the majority one amongst medical professionals, I suspect strongly that it is not.
From what I have heard, amongst those that are intimate with the case, that opinion is divided. It was not the case of 1 maverick surgeon pushing ahead, it was a team of neurosurgeons from a few institutions, with anaesthetic, neurology, ICU support, together with administrative and financial support. Do you think the surgeon would have dared to proceed if not everybody had been on board? It was most definitely a corporate (meaning collective) decision.

Last point, in a case as complex as this, the results of the surgery can never be a "foregone conclusion". One of the twins is doing reasonably ok. Granted, her life will never be totally normal, but she is intellectually capable, and there is hope that her quality of life would be better than had she been permanently attached to her fellow twin.

Cheers

 

[student]

Hi student, I would categorically state that MOST medical professionals will not have an educated opinion on the matter. I can also tell you that of the medical professionals I know and have spoken to on this, that NONE of them are in agreement with Prof Lee. I am also not aware that Prof Lee's opinion is the majority one amongst medical professionals, I suspect strongly that it is not.
From what I have heard, amongst those that are intimate with the case, that opinion is divided. It was not the case of 1 maverick surgeon pushing ahead, it was a team of neurosurgeons from a few institutions, with anaesthetic, neurology, ICU support, together with administrative and financial support. Do you think the surgeon would have dared to proceed if not everybody had been on board? It was most definitely a corporate (meaning collective) decision.

Last point, in a case as complex as this, the results of the surgery can never be a "foregone conclusion". One of the twins is doing reasonably ok. Granted, her life will never be totally normal, but she is intellectually capable, and there is hope that her quality of life would be better than had she been permanently attached to her fellow twin.

Cheers

Dr Chompon Chinchit, the chief neurosurgeon, was my classmate, and a good friend.

 

[Isaiahfortythirtyone]

u actually submitted a letter to the st forum in reply to dr lee. im going to summarise my argument that i wrote in the letter that was not published.

1) there is no suhc thing as a foregone conclusion.

2) even if there were, surgery gave the family hope of a better life for their twins

3) the medical profession is based on hope and chance.

4) and even if all else fails, the fact that people give is noteworthy. if eveyrone is pragmatic, and choose not to give just because it seems a little dubiuos, this world will be devoid of giving. a world devoid of giving and generosity would be a very sad place to live in.

 

[reachme2003]

since we are on 'medical' issues, pls allow me to digress.

lately, two verdict of 'misadventure' were recorded on two unfortunate cases. one was a young mother who died after suffering from allergy from some medicines. another was a young ns man. i am wondering what does 'misadventure' means? does it mean 'suay, suay'? what impact has a recorded misadventure on the outcome of a civil case instituted by the next of kin against the doctor/s concerned?

 

[hanz170]

since we are 'medical' issues, pls allow me to digress.

lately, two verdict of 'misadventure' were recorded on two unfortunate cases. one was a young mother who died after suffering from allergy from some medicines. another was a young ns man. i am wondering what does 'misadventure' means? what impact has a recorded misadventure on the outcome of a civil case instituted by the next of kin against the doctor/s concerned?

Yeah I wonder about this the other day. Good that you brought this up, since there could be medical doctors in this forum, would like to know who gives out these verdicts anyway?

What process do they go thru to make sure it is not malpractice or neglience on the part of the doctor?

TIA.

 

[reachme2003]

there is avenue for one with 'medical' grievances to go to Singapore Medical Assoc. within the assoc, they have sort of a 'disciplinary' committee which looks into complaints. i feel that, in singapore, civil suits against medical doctors are not encouraged.

Yeah I wonder about this the other day. Good that you brought this up, since there could be medical doctors in this forum, would like to know who gives out these verdicts anyway?

What process do they go thru to make sure it is not malpractice or neglience on the part of the doctor?

TIA.