Hmmm.
Is this really out of compassion for those with organ failures, or is there something more sinister than meets the eye? I'm reading this and I honestly get the sinister feeling that it's not just a passionate plea to help those who donate organs to loved ones here...
SINGAPORE wants more people to come forward to donate an organ to their loved ones who are suffering from either liver or kidney failure.
To encourage this, the laws are going to be amended to allow recipients to reimburse living organ donors.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) is hoping that this will increase the number of transplants so more lives can be saved.
Kidney failure patients enjoy a better quality of life after a transplant. As for liver failure patients, no transplant spells a death sentence.
But the recent case of a loving brother giving up part of his liver to save his rapidly failing sister has thrown up other things that also should be changed if Singapore wants a robust living-donor transplant system in place.
Because Mr Timothy Chua 'volunteered' for the operation, he was not entitled to paid medical leave from his employers, as this is given only to employees who fall sick.
But most liver transplant donors need from one to three months to recover fully from the operation and the loss of part of the liver.
In Mr Chua's case, his company's senior management appreciated his act of sacrifice and gave him one month of paid leave followed by up to six months at half pay.
A less enlightened employer could have acted differently. It could have refused him paid leave to recover, or even terminated his employment if he took unpaid medical leave for the long period of recovery he needs.
Even after his recovery, some companies might feel that his health would always be at risk and might not want to keep him on.
Mr Chua, at 42, is relatively young. Should he wish to change careers, his sacrifice might be held against him.
This is where government help would be greatly appreciated.
Donors should not need to worry about their jobs during the period of convalescence or have to rush back to work before they are fully fit.
Women are given legislated paid leave when they give birth. Men do not need to tap intotheir own leave when called up for reservist duty.
In both cases, what they do is seen to be in the national interest, and companies provide them with mandated time off without penalty.
So too should donors be treated, since what they do saves a life, and is certainly in line with the national good.
Giving organ donors three months paid leave - the same that women get for childbirth - would be only fair.
Even the strongest critics against compensating donors would not see this as inducement.
The ministry would also encourage more people to step forward by educating the public - and therefore corporations - to realise that someone who has willingly donated a kidney or part of a liver is not going to be sickly and on the verge of death.
In fact, data from the Scandinavian countries show that such donors tend to be healthier than the average Joe.
This is probably due to the greater care they take of their health following the donation. The regular check-ups for the rest of their lives also help in keeping them in tip-top shape.
Another shortcoming thrown up by the recent case is insurance. Madam Chua Hwee Sian, whose liver failed, had fairly comprehensive insurance coverage that included liver transplant.
However, the coverage was only for cadaveric transplants - where the organ comes from a dead person.
For cadaveric transplants, the only cost is incurred by the recipient.
But Madam Chua did not receive a cadaveric liver. Her brother gave her part of his. So he also needed to undergo surgery and be hospitalised for some time to recover from it.
While her insurance company was quick to pay her bills which came to over $200,000, it would not cover the $30,000 bill incurred by her brother.
His insurance company, of course, would have nothing to do with the bill, since the entire episode was 'voluntary'.
Medisave could be claimed for only about 20 per cent of the bill - although with the changes in surgical limits in June, the amount covered would be higher now.
Fortunately, Madam Chua was able to pick up the tab. Others might not be as well off.
All that the Act says on this matter is that the person getting the organ can pay the medical costs of the donor.
If the recipient cannot afford the fees, community groups may help raise funds, but these would be means-tested and go only to the very poor.
Since MOH is pushing for more organ donations from living donors - which are significantly better for the recipients than cadaveric organs - insurance companies should re-look how they insure for such cases.
It is reasonable for the donor's insurer to refuse payment since the procedure is voluntary and the donor is not sick. However, the recipient is sick and would die without the transplant. Receiving the transplant is part of the treatment, so there is a case to be made that the cost should be covered as part of the recipient's medical bill, subject to the usual limits.
This change is unlikely to push premiums up by much, since the number of living donors each year is small.
Great Eastern, which insured Madam Chua, has told The Straits Times that it will change its Supremehealth plan next month to provide up to $50,000 in medical expenses to policy holders who donate their organs.
Changing the law to allow for financial reimbursement is just one step.
Removing other obstacles, such as giving paid medical leave to donors, and covering donors' medical expenses through insurance, would go a long way to make more living organ donations a reality.
SINGAPORE wants more people to come forward to donate an organ to their loved ones who are suffering from either liver or kidney failure.
To encourage this, the laws are going to be amended to allow recipients to reimburse living organ donors.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) is hoping that this will increase the number of transplants so more lives can be saved.
Kidney failure patients enjoy a better quality of life after a transplant. As for liver failure patients, no transplant spells a death sentence.
But the recent case of a loving brother giving up part of his liver to save his rapidly failing sister has thrown up other things that also should be changed if Singapore wants a robust living-donor transplant system in place.
Because Mr Timothy Chua 'volunteered' for the operation, he was not entitled to paid medical leave from his employers, as this is given only to employees who fall sick.
But most liver transplant donors need from one to three months to recover fully from the operation and the loss of part of the liver.
In Mr Chua's case, his company's senior management appreciated his act of sacrifice and gave him one month of paid leave followed by up to six months at half pay.
A less enlightened employer could have acted differently. It could have refused him paid leave to recover, or even terminated his employment if he took unpaid medical leave for the long period of recovery he needs.
Even after his recovery, some companies might feel that his health would always be at risk and might not want to keep him on.
Mr Chua, at 42, is relatively young. Should he wish to change careers, his sacrifice might be held against him.
This is where government help would be greatly appreciated.
Donors should not need to worry about their jobs during the period of convalescence or have to rush back to work before they are fully fit.
Women are given legislated paid leave when they give birth. Men do not need to tap intotheir own leave when called up for reservist duty.
In both cases, what they do is seen to be in the national interest, and companies provide them with mandated time off without penalty.
So too should donors be treated, since what they do saves a life, and is certainly in line with the national good.
Giving organ donors three months paid leave - the same that women get for childbirth - would be only fair.
Even the strongest critics against compensating donors would not see this as inducement.
The ministry would also encourage more people to step forward by educating the public - and therefore corporations - to realise that someone who has willingly donated a kidney or part of a liver is not going to be sickly and on the verge of death.
In fact, data from the Scandinavian countries show that such donors tend to be healthier than the average Joe.
This is probably due to the greater care they take of their health following the donation. The regular check-ups for the rest of their lives also help in keeping them in tip-top shape.
Another shortcoming thrown up by the recent case is insurance. Madam Chua Hwee Sian, whose liver failed, had fairly comprehensive insurance coverage that included liver transplant.
However, the coverage was only for cadaveric transplants - where the organ comes from a dead person.
For cadaveric transplants, the only cost is incurred by the recipient.
But Madam Chua did not receive a cadaveric liver. Her brother gave her part of his. So he also needed to undergo surgery and be hospitalised for some time to recover from it.
While her insurance company was quick to pay her bills which came to over $200,000, it would not cover the $30,000 bill incurred by her brother.
His insurance company, of course, would have nothing to do with the bill, since the entire episode was 'voluntary'.
Medisave could be claimed for only about 20 per cent of the bill - although with the changes in surgical limits in June, the amount covered would be higher now.
Fortunately, Madam Chua was able to pick up the tab. Others might not be as well off.
All that the Act says on this matter is that the person getting the organ can pay the medical costs of the donor.
If the recipient cannot afford the fees, community groups may help raise funds, but these would be means-tested and go only to the very poor.
Since MOH is pushing for more organ donations from living donors - which are significantly better for the recipients than cadaveric organs - insurance companies should re-look how they insure for such cases.
It is reasonable for the donor's insurer to refuse payment since the procedure is voluntary and the donor is not sick. However, the recipient is sick and would die without the transplant. Receiving the transplant is part of the treatment, so there is a case to be made that the cost should be covered as part of the recipient's medical bill, subject to the usual limits.
This change is unlikely to push premiums up by much, since the number of living donors each year is small.
Great Eastern, which insured Madam Chua, has told The Straits Times that it will change its Supremehealth plan next month to provide up to $50,000 in medical expenses to policy holders who donate their organs.
Changing the law to allow for financial reimbursement is just one step.
Removing other obstacles, such as giving paid medical leave to donors, and covering donors' medical expenses through insurance, would go a long way to make more living organ donations a reality.