This kind of bugs me for some reason...
Singapore tycoon gets kidney from hanged man
(Reuters) – An ailing Singapore tycoon jailed briefly last year for trying to buy a kidney has received one in a transplant from a hanged murderer, the Straits Times newspaper reported on Saturday.
The newspaper said Tang Wee Sung, of the landmark C.K. Tang department store on the city state's swish Orchard Road, was given a kidney donated by gangster Tan Jor Chin, who was hanged at Changi Prison on Friday morning.
The transplant took place later that day.
Tan, 42, known as "One-Eyed Dragon" because he was blind in his right eye, was found guilty in 2007 of shooting a business associate.
The newspaper quoted Tan's mistress as saying the gangster had wanted to donate his organs after his death.
Tang, 56, was jailed for a day and fined S$17,000 (about 7,800 pounds) for trying to buy a kidney from an Indonesian man last year. Organ trading is illegal in Singapore.
The Straits Times said Tang suffers from several ailments including asthma, diabetes and heart problems and had triple bypass surgery last year.
Elizabeths question has merit, I'll ask some more,
Would it bother you as much if recipient wasn't rich, just an ordinary Joe Blow?
Or if the donor wasn't a hanged criminal?
Seems there's some opportunity for corruption here.
Well, generally if you try do something illegally and get caught, you wouldn't expect any favours when trying to do it next time, would you? You might even expect to be sent to the back of the queue, eh?
I wonder if there were others on the waiting list who got bumped so this Mr Tang (his store is about the equivalent of Myers in Melbourne, if that even still exists) could get the kidney and continue his fine dining and driving lamborghinis around town or whatever he does, while some "ordinary" person suffers...
I guess the fact that it came from a hanged murderer is kind of nice in a way; a killer dies but gives life and all that...but they've just this week sentenced an African guy to hang for smuggling 5kg of marijuana...the guy is only 20, what a f***-up he has made of his short life. I wonder who (if anyone) is getting his kidney?
I do see where you are coming from, but who the kidney came from should be irrelevant in this case.
However, don't just take this Mr Tang for his surface wealth and assets. I assume he started out 'ordinary' too and manged to build a wealth or actually contribute a great deal towards the family business ; not every wealthy person is derived from a Hilton and born into money.
If it was what Myer is, then think of all the employees, manages and companies etc. behind this man, and imagine the economic loss if something was to happen to his compamy if he died (if he wasn't organised), let alone the families who would suffer financially.
*EDIT*
It appears his father founded the company after beginning as a door-to-door salesman. "Tang later became known as the "Tin Trunk Man" and the "Curio King" for his rags to riches legacy." In 1987 his son (the Mr Tang we are referring to) was corporate leader.
I agree with Willy
If this man committed an offence to try and get a kidney and was convicted then he should have no chance of receiving a free one / donor list one later. End of the line thanks, mate.
Trouble with the justice system is (even in .sg which is a better system than ours) the judge can impose a fine or jail... not a penalty such as "end of the queue" which is morally more appropriate.
(BTW I can hear people saying that, whilst illegal, Mr Tang did not hurt anyone or do anything morally wrong, blah blah blah, he just tried to buy a kidney from an Indo bloke. Well that Indo fella was probably poor and would have lost a kidney for a few bucks and the surgery or poor lifelstyle with 1 x kidney would have killed him later... so I think it is still rich taking advantage of the poor).
EDIT:
and further..... I think that donor organs should not come from prisoners who are executed. That system is just asking for the situation where rich or influential make sure their judge mate sentences people to death so that somebody they know can get the organ.
Same argument figures partly in my oppostion to euthanasia (oh sh!t this will go the same was as the Angulo boards thread hahahhaa ignore that one)
Mark, I completely agree with you, however, I'm just posing a different viewpoint to Willy; not taking a specific position.
What is more important though and why>?__ ....
Morals or Ethics?
*EDIT*
But Mark, if a prisoner who has been trialed and proven guilty (we acknowledge not completely successful always), why does he not have the choice to donate his organs!? Should he be withheld that right because he was a criminal?
Liz, yes I know you were just posing q's.
If this doesn't start out to be a sh!tfight I will start the euthanasia debate and see if we can break thread length records like the Angulo god loves you thread hahahaha
Sorry Mark, my *edits* just mean I added more info under the word 'edit' and left it at that.
Anyway. I see the direction you're coming from, but then we move from questioning if Mr Tang should receive a kidney due to him trying to buy one, to questioning the the merits of the whole judicial system there. !?
To add to the discussion, you are placed in organ donor 'lines' in order of the necessity of the organ, your age, your estimated life span if you received the organ and how successful the surgery would be/ take to the organ. It would, I hope, be uncommon to 'jump the line' because of your status. Then we begin to question the whole hospital and medical system of the entire country...
*edit* sorry!
I don't intend on this being anything bar a good stimulating discussion! I don't 'sh!t fight'. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, just some more than others are more ethically or morally accepted. =]
Yeeess...... errmmm... I see your point totally BUT it is a bit strange that a bloke who committed a crime to get a kidney (unsuccessfully) then later gets one easily / top of the list etc and it raises questions and doubts (unfounded perhaps, but questions nonetheless).
Morally speaking, should he get it? I think a lot of people would say no.
Morally, as another human being, capable of life, loving, caring and every human emotion, should he not get the kidney? Irrelevant of what he tried to do? It is only when considered what he did that it becomes questionable if he 'deserves' it.
What we don't know is where on the 'list' he was, and if he was able to be MOVED forward on the list, I doubt he would have bothered to have tried to get one illegally. Its all blood type and 'matches' that are needed for kidney transplants, not just any old kiney; so even if he was 50th on the list, he might be the only suitable match for the kidney.
Aaah, see you agree with me he may have been the only match in a country of 5 million (?) people ....... but how would we know that??
The potential for corruption is there, so maybe all prisoners sentenced to death should be off the donor list so we can be sure nothing shady is occurring???
Yes just under 5 million population, however you are making the assumption that everyone is on the list. Good attempt 
There are a mere 300,000 people diagnosed/ suffering kidney problems annually helped by The National Kidney Foundation of Singapore who take care of 2/3 of Singapore's kidney patient population. Therefore, 450 000 require assistance, dialysis or a kidney. Specifics I do not know.
However, you now suggest that all prisoners sentanced to death to not be allowed to donate!!!? That completely goes against a Utilitarianist, ethic of care and non-consequential viewpoints to say a few, where in general supports the viewpoint of the 'greater good for the greatest number'.
And ethic of care is completely supporting your moral basis viewpoint, but in regards to everyone who could possibly receive a kidney or other organ is denied the right by a LAW in which you suggest (in question)!
Mmmm, a lot of good valid points being made here, but what if you needed an organ transplant of some description ,wouldnt you do whatever needed to get it?
I know I certainly would do whatever, (legaly of course) to be with my wife and kids for as long as possible. .................... But then again if it cost 2 blocks and a bottle of bourban for a kidney from some desperado ,and that was the difference between being alive for a few more years or not, I may just be tempted , what about you?????
...
To think I was sleeping peacefully while you were typing all this...boy did I miss out!
That is good! I think when u offend in a serious manner you should give up all rights not just freedom...... but you'd have trouble selling that one to the general pop'n perhaps.
The same problem raises it's ugly head where a prisoner could be murdered inside the jail when somebody knows they are a match.
Sorry I needed to find his name as I have seen it in a commercial for Griffith Uni.
Look at Rubin Carter who was jailed for over 20 years for a crime he didn't commit... When could it, if ever, be deemed acceptable to take a persons rights away because they have been charged/ proven guilty? Is there ever an absolute truth and result!?http://www.griffith.edu.au/er/campaign/content_carter_tvc.html
