Euthanasia is what a scary-name was, now has a new softened name in Singapore, which has been debated hardly by several people, groups, organization in any kind of media, but still it is released and introduced as Advance Medical Directive… it is to direct on how one will be ‘killed’ on by the day that one is declared as terminally-ill.

Unlimited Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

And here are several news on which Singapore government is trying to convince their people that AMD is NOT euthanasia:

Experts call for clearer difference between euthanasia and AMD
By Imelda Saad/Julia Ng, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 10 November 2008 1956 hrs

SINGAPORE : Doctors, caregivers and religious groups in Singapore have said there is a distinct difference between euthanasia and the Advanced Medical Directive (AMD) which the Health Ministry wants to simplify.

While the AMD extends a person’s autonomy on how he would like to die, euthanasia is seen as an act of killing.

As Singapore’s population ages, the country is in the midst of a debate on how one can die with dignity. At the centre of it is the Advanced Medical Directive.

The Health Ministry is studying how to make it easier for people to sign up for the AMD – a document, where you can explicitly state how you want your final days to be, if you are terminally ill.

The issue now is a confusion between what is AMD and what is euthanasia.

Singapore’s Health Ministry has stressed there has been no proposal to legalise euthanasia.

Experts said it is all in the definition. They said signing the AMD to say you would rather have the plug pulled – than be kept alive by machines if you are terminally ill – is not euthanasia.

Dr Chin Jing Jih, Executive Director, Centre for Medical Ethics and Professionalism, Singapore Medical Association, explained: “A lot of times, people think that when doctors switch off these life support systems, it is as if it is that act of stopping that kills the patient.

“But in actual fact, it is not. It is the underlying disease that has killed the patient. We are merely removing an intervention that is no longer effective on the patient. Emotionally, it looks as if that act has ended the patient’s life but it is actually the underlying illness.

“We know that if we do not remove the life support, the patient will perish too in a matter of days. That is not euthanasia because if we remove these cumbersome machines and the patient is still alive, we accept that and we palliate the patient.

“But if it is euthanasia, I remove the machine and the patient is still alive, then I would say… what else do I have to do to make sure the patient dies. So the intent is very clear. When doctors remove these machines, death is foreseeable, but it is not intended, so we make that ethical decision and intent is central to euthanasia.”


Mercy-Killing Debate
By Lin Yanqin, TODAY | Posted: 06 November 2008 1259 hrs

The proposed changes to encourage more Singaporeans to make an Advanced Medical Directive (AMD) have been seen, by some, as condoning euthanasia — even though the AMD Act clearly states it does not “condone, authorise or approve abetment of suicide, mercy killing or euthanasia”.

The NCCS said euthanasia, which it described as “societal killing”, would “open the door to serious abuses that would threaten the rights and dignity of persons and society”.

Like the Archbishop’s letter, its statement likened euthanasia to suicide, both — as acts of terminating human life — prohibited by their teachings that consider life sacred. “Human beings do not have the right to die,” the NCCS maintained.

Euthanasia also went against the Hippocratic oath taken by doctors. “The duty of the physician is not merely to ‘minimise suffering’ but always to ‘maximise care’.”

Similarly, society should “care for those who are suffering and those who are dying”, given that “there is strong evidence to suggest that patients whose symptom and pain control has been inadequate often request for euthanasia” — and that such requests usually cease after proper care is administered.

“More funds should therefore be directed at the establishment of hospices, the training of physicians and nurses, and research in palliative medicine and symptom relief techniques,” said the NCCS.


And here is the ACT of this Advance Medical Directive

URL-Advance Medical Directive – Statutory Board ACT:

Short title
(1) This Act may be cited as the Advance Medical Directive Act.
(2) This Act shall not apply to any act done or any directive or instrument made or executed before 1st July 1997.

2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

“extraordinary life-sustaining treatment” means any medical procedure or measure which, when administered to a terminally ill patient, will only prolong the process of dying when death is imminent, but excludes palliative care;

“patient” means any person (whether or not he is undergoing any medical treatment, care or therapy) of sound mind who has attained the age of 21 years and who has made or desires to make a directive in accordance with this Act;

“recovery” , in relation to a terminal illness, includes a remission of symptoms or effects of the illness;

“terminal illness” means an incurable condition caused by injury or disease from which there is no reasonable prospect of a temporary or permanent recovery where:

(a) death would, within reasonable medical judgment, be imminent regardless of the application of extraordinary life-sustaining treatment; and
(b) the application of extraordinary life-sustaining treatment would only serve to postpone the moment of death of the patient.

Certification of terminal illness
(1) Where a medical practitioner, who is responsible for the treatment of any person, has reason to believe that the person —
(a) is suffering from a terminal illness;
(b) requires extraordinary life-sustaining treatment; and
(c) is unconscious or incapable of exercising rational judgment,

Protection of medical practitioners and other persons acting in good faith and without negligence
(1) A medical practitioner shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or discipline for professional misconduct for a decision made by him in good faith and without negligence as to whether —
(a) a patient is, or is not, suffering from a terminal illness;
(b) a patient has revoked, or intended to revoke, a directive;
(c) a patient was, or was not, at the time of making a directive, capable of understanding the nature and consequences of the directive; or
(d) a directive was valid.

(2) A person acting under the instructions of a medical practitioner shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or discipline for professional misconduct for giving effect to a directive in the absence of knowledge of revocation or intended revocation of the directive.


Again! It is decided by that person him/herself on how he/she will be ‘killed’ on the day that person declared as terminally-ill, and rather then “requires extraordinary life-sustaining treatment” – so that person can decide NOW to direct the medical personnel on what to do with that person.

Isn’t that the same as committing suicide by a plan-ahead power document, and make it legalized!

While committing suicide is considered a crime in Singapore, like jump-down to MRT (aka. train in Singapore) track which was a very big news as it was ‘accidentally’ released to public and internet… So it was considered a covered up story then ya? Why it was covered, while a plan-ahead to commit suicide (aka. AMD in softened name) is NOT considered as future-crime?

Do we need a precog here? – As “Minority Report”, committing a future crime is a crime well-planned ahead.