My seventy-one year old grandmother has recently been diagnosed with an advanced case of lung cancer, a result of more than 50 years spent incessantly chain-smoking. As her close family, this has been a most compelling time, especially after our countless warnings to her of the dangers of smoking. And yet, not once has any member of my family had the smallest desire to say to her
"Well . . . we did tell you . . ." Of course not.
Nor does our government choose to say, "Ok, well, you decided to partake in this harmful habit, fully aware of the risks involved, therefore you don't have the right to our medicines." Imagine the outrage at such responses.
However, isn't this somewhat similar to the response given to van Nguyen? Don't misunderstand me, I'm not attempting to parallel smoking to such a crime as drug trafficking, but I do believe the responses to both actions need to be compared.
Nguyen took an extremely large, and well advertised risk in attempting to smuggle drugs into Australia - take a look at the protruding notices on cigarette packets, warning of the proven consequences linked to smoking, or how about the disturbingly graphic ads on t.v at the moment? I know, I know; smoking is only an ugly habit whilst drug smuggling is an extreme crime, right? But don't both have a frightful number of cases resulting in death? Don't both have harmful and blatantly obvious risks?
Let's take a look at the affect capital punishment may have on have on terminally ill patients. With the burdening knowledge of the limitation put on their own life, how would it feel to know that a single government has the authority to do what cancer has done to them? Perhaps the Singapore Government need...