Showing posts with label Common sense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Common sense. Show all posts

Monday, August 6, 2012

On the RH Bill

The proposed law defines reproductive health as “the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes”.

The proponents of the bill cite the following grounds for its enactment into law:
  1. Protect the health & lives of mothers;
  2. Save babies;
  3. Respond to the majority who want smaller families;
  4. Promote equity for poor families;
  5. Prevent induced abortions;
  6. Support and deploy more public midwives, nurses and doctors;
  7. Guarantee funding for & equal access to health facilities;
  8. Give accurate & positive sexuality education to young people;
  9. Reduce cancer deaths, and
  10. Save money that can be used for even more social spending.

Those who oppose the bill, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) in particular, argue that:
  1. It does not protect the health of the sacred human life that is being formed or born. The very name “contraceptive” already reveals the anti-life nature of the means that the RH bill promotes;
  2. Contraceptives are hazardous to a woman’s health;
  3. Many scientific analysts themselves wonder why prevalent contraceptive use sometimes raises the abortion rate;
  4. Contraceptives provide a false sense of security that takes away the inhibition to sexual activity;
  5. Condoms provide a false security that strongly entices individuals towards increased sexual activity, increasing likewise the incidence of HIV/AIDS;
  6. “Safe sex” to prevent HIV /AIDS is false propaganda;
  7. Conscience must certainly be enlightened and guided by religious and moral teachings provided by various religious and cultural traditions regarding the fundamental dignity and worth of human life;
  8. The causes of our poverty are: flawed philosophies of development, misguided economic policies, greed, corruption, social inequities, lack of access to education, poor economic and social services, poor infrastructures, etc.;
  9. Use of public funds for contraceptives and sterilization is objectionable, and
  10. Compulsory sex education that would effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of educating their own children, especially in an area of life – sexuality – which is a sacred gift of God is condemnable.

My personal stance regarding this issue is that the State has the responsibility to provide reproductive health services to the citizens, particularly the poor women. However, the State must not commit error by allowing its instrumentalities, particularly the government, to use products and techniques that will lead to a human act that endangers, per se, any human life. Abortifacients (substances that induce abortion) should not be allowed as a State policy.

Stakeholders must therefore come up with a consensus on the socially and morally acceptable birth control techniques and under what conditions should they be allowed. Those who advocate any type of contraceptives must do so within an atmosphere of free market of ideas. They may sell, give, or distribute any contraceptives, but they must ensure that the intended beneficiaries understand the nature and effects of such contraceptives.

On the issue of mandatory sex education, there must be an acceptable formula to make this possible. The State, through the government, should not dictate how this should be done at the classroom level. Parents, teachers, school administrators, and the children should have a say how to best handle this matter.

The health status of families, especially mothers and children, are horrible enough. We cannot solve these problems solely and primarily by birth control. We have to change the conditions that brought about the high maternal mortalities and infant deaths, among others. My humble suggestions on how these should be done include the following:
  1. Establish institutions to take good care of unwanted children by providing reproductive services to women who have unwanted pregnancies;
  2. Prescribe and maintain minimum standards for communities, especially residential areas, to discourage unplanned and informal settlements;
  3. Provide effective information, education and communication programs to change the behaviors of the target audience (spacing birth, breast feeding, etc.);
  4. Set up support mechanism for children who are neither sent to school nor treated well, and provide penalty regulatory approaches for irresponsible parents, and
  5. Design and implement interventions that will enhance the standard of living of the poor families.

Monday, January 16, 2012

On Rappler's Comments to UST


As a concerned citizen of this Republic, I am bothered by the statements of Rappler on UST’s granting of a doctorate to Mr. Chief Justice, Renato Corona. I am not an admirer of Corona, but I defend his right to earn his doctorate with honors, especially that he completed it despite the demands of his work and family.


Issue 1: Why did UST bend its rules and waive its dissertation requirements for Corona?


UST did not bend its rules and waive its dissertation requirements. Corona delivered a “scholarly treatise” in a public lecture. This is equivalent to a dissertation. Note that other universities in Japan and Europe, the equivalent of a dissertation can be “essays” or an article “published in a refereed journal”. In some PhD programs around the world, dissertation, as Ms. Vitug probably understands it, is no longer required.


If Rappler doubts that Corona’s lecture is not equivalent to a dissertation, I challenge Rappler to do a comparative study of related dissertations among Philippine universities.


Issue 2: Why was he given top honors, summa cum laude, when he had overstayed?


Corona spent an equivalent of seven years to complete his PhD. Seven years is the maximum residency requirement. The UST Graduate School Student’s handbook provides that “As a general rule, a PhD degree program may be completed in five (5) years, i.e., enrolled for at least ten (10) semesters or summer terms. The maximum residency for the PhD program is seven (7) years…Students who overstayed beyond the maximum residency must take reactivation courses.” Granting that Corona overstayed, he could take reactivation courses.


The top honors given to Corona was based on his grades. If he is that good academically, then let him earn what he deserves.


Comments to Rappler


Code 1 of the Journalist's Code of Ethics as adopted by the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines states that “I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis.” Why did Ms. Vitug failed to check the UST Student’s Handbook, which is available at the website of the University, to determine the veracity of the accusations contained in her write up?


Code 11 states that “When in doubt, decency should be my watchword”. Where is decency when Ms. Vitug’s write up was published by the Inquirer without getting the side of UST (see check Codes 1 and 4 of the Code of Ethics)? Why did she not interview the Dean and faculty members of the UST Graduate School to get their side of the story?


As a former journalist, I feel bad each time I watch reputations destroyed by practitioners of free press. Ms. Vitug is a recognized practitioner of free press, but I am disappointed that she committed conflict of interest and violated the Journalist's Code of Ethics in the pursuit of producing a “ripple” without “rap”, probably forgetting that what Rappler claims as the meaning of “rap” is similar to dissertātiō (Latin), meaning "discourse", which is the etymology for the word dissertation.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Post-election Thesis


“In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.”
- Charles de Gaulle

It is probable that many Filipinos hope that there will be good changes that will happen now that we almost have a new incoming administration. My thesis is simple: such changes will not happen in six years. At best, what the incoming administration can do is restore the public’s trust to government and regain the confidence of the business sector.


If the incoming administration can demonstrate that it understands the problems of the country and offers the appropriate responses, then it is possible that this country will see improving conditions in 2016. I doubt that this will happen given the motherhood statements in the political platform of the Liberal Party.