1.

THW ban plastic surgery

I will begin the debate by defining the motion, which is: "That we should ban cosmetic surgery,"
I define "we," in a global context, as is relating to every single democratic nation in the world that can be
assured of diplomatic aid by their worldly counterparts. I define ban as the removal of all practices of this
discipline, unless specified explicitly by a governing body. I define "cosmetic surgery" as plastic surgery that
modifies a person"s appearance.
I will now move on to presenting a model for my case:
I move that cosmetic surgery should be banned in all areas and practices except for those in which it is
medically acceptable and beneficial to a patient, in order to fix or repair the damage that had been inflicted on
the patient through any means of injury, examples being car accidents and facial burns.
I will now show that cosmetic surgery promotes negative role models and thus adversely affects fans of
common public figures and role models, who are commonly in the public spotlight. As a survey collected about
Hollywood actors and actresses shows, over 40% of actors and actresses have had some form of cosmetic
surgery, during their first 10 years of acting. This same group represents over young actors and actresses serve
as role models for over 60% of teenagers. This sends out a message that cosmetic surgery is the path to
achieving an ideal of physical beauty. It makes them insecure and conveys an idea that our natural bodies, as
determined by pro-creation, are not beautiful enough on their own, and must be artificially supplemented in
order to attain physical attraction.
In a world where publicity runs rampant more than it ever has before, we must be cautious about the message
that celebrities send out to their adoring fans. We must be cautious about the limits to which we encourage
artificial supplementation of what should be determined in a natural manner, and we must be most cautious,
about how much celebrities are able to modify themselves in order to suit the public ideals, for in truth, it
should be these celebrities who should modify the public ideals in order to suit themselves.
I hereby conclude my affirmative speech for the first round, and invite the negative speaker to present his case"
Thank you.
1. Cosmetic surgery can be psychologically damaging
Point
The compulsion to change one's body is often a symptom of a deeper mental instability. It should be treated as a
problem, not encouraged with surgery. Research indicating that breast augmentation patients are four times
more likely to commit suicide compared to other plastic surgery patients raises questions about the mental
health of women who choose implants1. It's only a plaster patched over a much deeper problem. There are also
studies that show negative psychological effects on patients after their surgery has been completed. For
example, a recent analysis 37 studies on patients' psychological and psychosocial functioning before and after
cosmetic surgery by social worker Roberta Honigman and psychiatrists Katherine Phillips, MD, and David
Castle, MD, found several predictors of poor outcomes, especially for those who hold unrealistic expectations
or have a history of depression and anxiety. The researchers found that patients who are dissatisfied with
surgery may request repeat procedures or experience depression and adjustment problems, social isolation,
family problems, self-destructive behaviours and anger towards the surgeon and his or her staff2.
2. The dangers involved in elective surgery are not worth the risk
Point
Sometimes we must accept those dangers, as they come in the course of necessary medical procedures. But with
elective surgery procedures people dont need, but rather merely want the risks cant be justified. These risks
apply both to the surgery itself, and to the long term. For example, leaking silicone breast implants have been a
widespread problem and can lead to death. Silicone gel can leak from the implant into healthy breast tissue and
go other parts of your body, such as the lungs and lymph nodes, where it could be impossible to remove. Studies
published in 2001 by scientists at the National Cancer Institute raised questions about the long-term safety of
breast implants. One study found that women who had breast implants for at least eight years were twice as
likely to die from brain cancer, three times as likely to die from lung cancer or other respiratory diseases, and
four times as likely to commit suicide, compared to other plastic surgery patients A second study found that
women with breast implants for at least eight years were 21% more likely to be diagnosed with cancer
compared to other women their age.[1] There is also the risk that the person having the surgery will be
dissatisfied with the results.

3. Cosmetic surgery is unfair, for only those who can afford it have access to it
Point
Only those that can pay for it get it. The most popular surgeries include breast augmentation, liposuction, nasal
surgery, eyelid surgery and abdominoplasty.[1] There surgeries cost between 3,000 and 5000, between 2,500
and 6,000, between 3,500 and 4,000 and between 2,000 to 6,000 respectively.[2] So if it has the

advantages the opposition claims, the rich will look good, and the poor will not.
4. An outright ban would be easier than the partial bans that have been enacted in some places.
Point
The state of Queensland in Australia has a ban on teenagers having plastic surgery. This prevents anyone under
18 having cosmetic surgery unless it is to correct deformities or disfiguring injuries, as well as allowing for
procedures to improve medical, psychological or social well-being. This potentially leaves difficulty drawing
the line for what is allowed1. A much more comprehensive ban would avoid this. Cosmetic surgery is already to
some extent regulated. In the UK it is regulated by the GMC and practising surgeons have to be enrolled on its
specialist register. At the same time all invasive cosmetic surgery and laser treatments are regulated. A
healthcare commission inspects all registered establishments and can revoke licences. As such it would not be
difficult to expand these regulating bodies to be making sure that cosmetic surgery is only performed when as in
Queensland it is to correct deformities and disfiguring injuries.
5. The availability of cosmetic surgery increases pressures on women that they must look beautiful.
Point
There is considerable evidence that women's attractiveness is judged more harshly than men's. For example, in a
study by Adams and Huston, 1975, participants were asked to rate the attractiveness of photographs of people of
varying ages. They found that although attractiveness ratings of both men and women declined with age, the
rate of decline for women was greater.[1] Researchers report that womens magazines have ten and onehalf times more ads and articles promoting weight loss than mens magazines do, and over three-quarters of the
covers of womens magazines include at least one message about how to change a womans bodily appearance
by diet, exercise or cosmetic surgery.[2] These views about appearance are damaging because it leads to
seriously unhealthy lifestyles that women think they need to look beautiful. For example, in 2003, Teen
magazine reported that 35 per cent of girls 6 to 12 years old have been on at least one diet, and that 50 to 70 per
cent of normal weight girls believe they are overweight.[3] Cosmetic surgery sends the message that the
prejudices some have about appearance are valid.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
5. Banned Because Surgery for Cosmetics Takes the Money Away from Life Saving Surgeries
I think these unneeded surgeries waste money for no good reason. If a person suffered from a deformity but
can still live , that may be a good reason for cosmetic surgery. However, people shouldn't need excessive
surgeries for cosmetic purposes, in my opinion. 1 . 15 . 2015 .

Ban it !
Cosmic surgeries lead to disorders like BDD or body dysmorphic disorder.
This is a chronic mental illness where an induvidual is over concerned about thier images and constantly
obsesed about thier image.This could lead to excess dieting and surgeries.And some times these
surgeries could turn fatal like the lady in japan who injected her face with oil over her obsession over
cosmic surgeries!

Only for accident, burn victims

First of all let me say that I think that people who have been disfigured by an accident, or disease should
be able to get surgery to restore how they looked before the accident, or disease. I know people that have
been in terrible accidents, that cannot afford to look how they use to, then we have people that look
perfectly "normal" that are just not happy with their natural looks that spend thousands to millions of
dollars fixing something that was not broken, that is vain, shallow, selfish, and frankly disgusting. Use
that money to help out people scared from cancer surgery, burn victims, wounded vets, and accident
victims to restore their natural looks, not to make yourself look like a cheap imitation of a Barbie doll. It
is people that use this miracle of medical science to look "better", when in fact I think that they all look
better before the surgery, rather than helping victims of accidents, etc., feeding the needy, donating to
charity that has made me lose hope for humanity. I wonder how much better the world would be if every
cent that was spent on unnecessary cosmetic surgery, was spent on something useful. We might have
cures for diseases, conditions that previously killed millions of people. People say that corporations are
greedy, no they at least donate money, even if just for good will with people, while these people just
think "oh I do not look perfect, let me waste a ton of money on making me look and feel better because
self esteem is all that matters." Get over your self important, I'm a special snowflake mentality already,
no you are just a waste of space, air, food, and life.

It's too dangerous and most people don't realize it

In my country, more than 30 people died because of cosmetic surgery in the last five years and more
people had even more severe side effects like an inflammation that would not stop producing pus. And
even when there are no effect to health, most people doses't get successful on cosmetic surgery. Even the
name 'cosmetic' shows that most people are unaware to the danger of it. Thus, I think at least law should
ban it.

People who feel embarrassed about their body, they should be given a decent mental theraphy

Should only be reserved for accident victims!

I had BDD growing up, teased for having a large Roman nose - now let me say, it fit my face - made me
look dominant, aggressive and attractive. People told me I look attractive and really good - I'd ignore
compliments and internalize rejection or people who said I look ugly. Now I never cared enough to get it
fixed; but one year I became obsessed with bodybuilding and self-image - I stupidly followed the advice
of others to get PS; this ruined my life. Because if you have BDD and get PS, it causes you anguish,
mental torment, etc. You start to lose your mind and think about suicide. And what really hurts is that I
know I was attractive in a badass/rockstar kind of way. Not a model, but alpha like Vin Diesel or the
Rock. So now I Iost my unique look and my nose looks deformed somewhat. I still go out and no one
looks at me weird. But deep down I'm ashamed, destroyed, outcast, etc. This especially hurts because I
was really attractive for my race and I could've gotten any woman I wanted in my natural form. But now
I sit alone, looking back at the life I ruined.

Plastic surgery should be banned

Plastic surgery hurts peoples feelings and it makes people forget who they really are and can kill people
because if the stuff leaks in your body it can kill you. Also people need to ban it because it will make
most people ugly instead of making them attractive! Help us ban it now

Yes it should be banned

Plastic Surgery does more harm than good. I personally know someone who underwent a plastic surgery,
when she really didn't need it. She now regrets the day she walked in into that hospital. She's obsessed
with the way she looks and sometimes she wakes up, totally hating what she sees in the mirror. It should
be banned

It should be banned for cosmetic purposes

I am speaking from personal experience and how it has ruined my life. I had no issues breathing and was
not bad to look at. And even though i wanted to have a small change the surgeon decided on what was
best for me and ended up ruining my face, my smile and my confidence. He didnt need to do the surgery
on me, he even said himself that i was an attractive woman. I have been left with so many deformities
now that im embarassed to even see my friends and go out in public. I live a life of isolation now. Unless
you have had a terrible accident and need a reconstruction it is not worth putting yourself through plastic
surgery. Everyone is beautiful as they are and surgery can lead to serious complications. There is not one
day that does by that i dont wish i could go back to the day in the hospital and just walk out.

Medical plastic surgery should be allowed but the Use of plastic

surgery for mere aesthetic purposes should be banned
Beauty can be seen as a trait, similar to being athletic or having a talent. It's often genetic although you
can always try to get better through practice, healthy eating, etc. If we were allowed to use plastic
surgery to fix the flaws we think we have, beauty would be worthless since everyone would have it.
Similarly, if in the future we could also develop surgeries to change our muscle structure or vocal chords
to make ourselves more athletically capable or better singers, talents would be bought and in this way,
the richer people who can afford the surgeries will be better than the others in every way. This would
lead way to a whole other problem in our society. I know this is a worst case scenario, but it is a realistic
continuation of cosmetic surgery. This is even before taking into consideration the risks and consequeces
of undergoing such a surgery

Yes! Ban it!

When people undergo plastic surgery, its because of low self esteem, which is a much deeper problem
than just not liking how you look. It's not someone's features that are the problem; If someone gets
surgery to fix what they feel is "wrong" with them and boost self esteem, even though after the surgery
they may look different, they are still the same person they were before they had the surgery. This
means, the person should be getting psychiatric help from a professional, not turning to a surgeon who
only cares if your insecurities fill his bank account. Someone who has low self confidence and self
esteem will always find something wrong with themselves, surgery or not. Cosmetic surgery is just a
way to cover up and mask real problems, and not go deep to the root of someone's reasons for insecurity.
Get real help.

i agree with people getting so obsessed with beauty and trying to become flawless and fabulous. it is very sad to
see how people depends on plastic surgery just too feel more confident about themselves, where they can
always make themselves feel better by trusting their own powers and their own inner value. i also like your
comments about plastic surgery itself. it's straight to the point yet i cannot fully agree with everything. i do think
plastic surgery is useless nonsense, but only to people who view it as a method to change because they do not
like who they are and they believe that by being beautiful, they can get things better and get better things from
their friends, family and the society. plastic surgery can also be used in some positive ways, such as face
reconstruction when your face is really injured after being crashed by a 10-tonne car or you wish to remove the
scars from your stomach after giving birth. i do get your point, but plastic surgery does not have to be
necessarily banned. maybe a new kind of system does need to be introduced to prevent people from overusing
plastic surgery, don't you think?

I agree with you. It is not reasonable that because of others you change your appearance, we are created like this
and instead of changing our appearance because of other people we must increase our self-confidence and make
other accept us as we are. If the current process of plastic surgery continues in the future we will not be able to
see the real appearance of people we meet. But sometimes plastic surgery is needed; for example when someone
has a terrible accident and his/her face is completely gone, plastic surgery is the only way. I am one those who
had plastic surgery because of an accident and i owe my face to a plastic surgery. What i meant from all of this
is that Plastic surgery is a good way to have get a new face or body. But it should be banned for youths and
people who just to do it for no good reason.
I agree with your statement that success is based on character and attitude sometimes people just have
different view with us. I think if plastic surgery should be banned; there will be a new entertainment industry or
different views from other people. I think plastic surgery should be banned for young adults only. Young adults
are still growing up and they may not experience any effects of plastic surgery.
I agree with your statement that success is based on character and attitude sometimes people just have
different view with us. I think if plastic surgery should be banned; there will be a new entertainment industry or
different views from other people. I think plastic surgery should be banned for young adults only. Young adults
are still growing up and they may not experience any effects of plastic surgery.
First, plastic surgery can bring poor outcomes to the patients. Based on an analysis by Roberta Honigman and
Katharine Phillips, plastic surgery may bring negative outcomes despite it can also bring high satisfaction rates
to their patients (Sarwer, 1998). These poor outcomes, such as social isolation, family problems, and selfdestructive behaviors, are mostly caused by the patients' dissatisfaction about the result. Why does this happen?
Most of the time, patients think of only the positive outcome they will get. However, if the procedure is already
done and the result is unexpected, the procedure can't be undone. Despite another surgery can be done for the
patients, but it will simply be costly and might make the result worse, instead. However, if plastic surgery is
banned, there is a big possibility that the government will be able to avoid overloading problems in the country.
Second, plastic surgery is one of the sources of which diseases or disorders come from. Cosmetic procedures
can solve the patients' problems. However, these procedures often inflict bigger problems on their health,
starting from diseases that shows physically to internal diseases. Common diseases caused by such procedures
include excessive bleeding, scarring, necrosis, nerve damage, loose skin, blurred vision, excessive tearing, even
cancer and death (Risks of Cosmetic Surgery, n/a). People are supposed to be scared of this fact. People should
consider this as a serious problem because any outcome of a cosmetic procedure, good or bad, is for a lifetime.
However, if severe and harmful diseases are the outcomes, then plastic surgery is not a good solution to achieve
perfection. Which is why, plastic surgery should be banned as it increases the number of diseases.
Lastly, plastic surgery may have influenced the youth too badly. Currently, plastic surgery is not just open for
adults or grown-ups, but it is also open to the youth. In Korea, for instance, a plastic surgery clinic reported
that 90% of their clients are under 30 years old, and half of them are under 18 years old (Francis,
2013). The wants and vanity of people have gone out of control as it trickles down the youth. Young people,
such as teenagers and young adults, are supposed to live normally and accept themselves just they way they are.
If their lives are influenced by a cosmetic procedure, most of their lives will not be the same emotionally. In
fact, young people are supposed to live without impacts from surgery because they are the generation that will
lead the country later on. Some will even be the future country leaders. For this reason, I think the government
should take action to save the normality of youth age by banning plastic surgery.
I know some people would say that plastic surgery benefits patient's emotional trauma of being teased by the
patients community. However, this statement is not true. As mentioned previously, plastic surgery brings
negative outcomes and is a lot of work. Plastic surgery is not a perfect answer to patient's emotional problems.
Other people may say the better a person looks, the more likely that person is to be successful. This is false
because what determines if a person is success or not is the person itself. Not every occupation needs beautiful

people. Success is based on character and attitude, instead of beauty and good looks. Any beautiful person can
be accepted, but if that person doesnt have strong character, it would not be worth it.
My conclusion is that plastic surgery is not good and should be banned. Plastic surgery brings poor outcomes to
the patients, diseases and disorders, and bad influences for the youth. Cosmetic procedures are not just a regular
surgery, but it is a serious problem. I think people should not just consider about the short-term outcomes of
plastic surgery, but also the long-term impacts. The reason is because the results of plastic surgery are not
temporary. So, I think it's best if plastic surgery is banned.
1. Cosmetic surgery can be psychologically damaging
However, the vast majority of people who have cosmetic surgery have one procedure and never look back.
They're made happier and more secure in themselves because of it. In fact, the same study by social worker
Roberta Honigman and psychiatrists Katherine Phillips, MD, and David Castle, MD, also suggested positive
outcomes in some patients, including improvements in body image and possibly a boost in their quality of life
as well1. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that cosmetic surgery can be psychologically damaging as a rule.
Many studies have shown that patients have higher self-esteem after surgery. For example, in a recent study by
Sarwer found that a year after receiving cosmetic surgery, 87 per cent of patients reported satisfaction following
their surgery, including improvements in their overall body image and the body feature altered. They also
experienced less negative body image emotions in social situations2.
2. The dangers involved in elective surgery are not worth the risk
Counterpoint
The risks of cosmetic surgery are negligible.In actual fact, the American Society of Plastic Surgery estimates
that there is 1 death in 57,000 procedures, while a study in the medical journal Plastic and Reconstructive
Surgery put the mortality rate slightly higher, at about one in 51,459 operations.[1] To put this in perspective,
your chances of being injured in a motor vehicle accident are about 1 in 1,000 in any given year and there is
about 1 maternal death for every 7692 live births.[2] Therefore cosmetic surgery is a lot safer than people
perceive. Furthermore, cosmetic surgery is becoming safer and safer. It is increasingly strictly policed and skyhigh legal pay-outs by bad surgeons have ensured that practitioners take more and more care.[3] Technology in
surgery and in implants and so forth is forever improving. For example, new non-invasive procedures are being
developed such as Liposonix and UltraShape Contour. These procedures use focused ultrasound devices which
aim to achieve targeted reduction of fat tissue by focusing ultrasound energy that causes permanent disruption
of fat cells without damage to the epidermis, dermis or underlying tissues and organs.[4] Procedures such as this
would decrease the risk of infection.

3. Cosmetic surgery is unfair, for only those who can afford it have access to it
Counterpoint
You can spend your money how you like. Why shouldn't people be allowed to make the personal choice to
change their appearance with their own cash? Furthermore, the appearance division the proposition seeks to
suggest between rich and poor is much more dependent on quality of diet. Diet is a universal factor that affects
complexion, height, etc.1, while cosmetic surgery is a relatively insignificant factor in statistical terms and one
that only affects the particular thing on which surgery is conducted.

4. An outright ban would be easier than the partial bans that have been enacted in some places.
Counterpoint
The desire for cosmetic surgery is driven not by external pressure to seek the acceptance of men, but the internal
desire to look and feel better about oneself. There are many who find that their appearance truly troubles them
and that improving it would greatly enhance their quality of life. Operation Smile, which fixes oral and facial
deformities found in poor children across the world, is doing "cosmetic surgery."[1] You can survive with a hare
lip or a cleft palate. But your quality of life your self-esteem, employability, acceptance in a traditional
society, etc is much better without one. Following this principle, breast reduction or augmentation or the
removal of acne scars can be just as important. For example, Carole Wrigglesworth's breasts shrank after
breastfeeding baby girls and as her breasts shrank so did her self-confidence. As a result she opted to have a
breast enlargement surgery and reflecting on the experience, Carole has absolutely no regrets I feel sexier,
more confident and extremely proud of my body.[2]

The availability of cosmetic surgery increases pressures on women that they must look beautiful.

It should not, due to some people actually needing it after an

accident.
Some people need surgery so that they can carry on with their lives after an accident. If you get into a car
accident or are in a fire and there is permanent damage to your face, in order to be treated somewhat normally,
plastic surgery should be an option for these people. However, it should not be an option for insecure
women/men.

It should not be banned!!!!

Becuase it helps a lot of people out there in the world. It gives hope to thoses who had been in terrible accident
or those who have deformed bodies. If you have no desire to get plastic surgery then don't but let others do what
they want to do with their life.

I had acne which led to low self-esteem

During my teens, I had acne vulgaris which left darkish colored deep pits on my cheeks. I felt embarrassed
when people asked 'oh, what is that on your face?' or 'how sad, your skin is become disfigured, why dont you do
something?'... I hated looking into mirror and meeting people out of fear that they might comment on my skin. I
remember the turmoil I went through.
If I could afford it, I would have gone for plastic surgery right away.
Now I am in my 40s but the marks are still visible. I would definitely like to go for skin resurfacing cosmetic
surgery. How can others decide that I must not have it by asking to ban cosmetic surgery?

No it should not banned !!!!

Only when needed we must use it like in case of fatal accidents or such cases like that what if people really
need it?? And it is banned??What if people really have unpresentable scars which they really really need to
hide?? So that is why don't use it to look beautiful /handsome use only when really need it

Its their right.

Cosmetic surgery should not be banned, it helps a lot of people. Yes there are risks, but everything in life has
risks. Maybe it should be a little more regulated to weed out the humans who would feel bad afterwards. You
know the risks going in, no one is forcing people to get it... But to feel a home in their skin, some people need
cosmetic surgery.

Undergoing plastic surgery for some people is acceptable,we have to

rights to comment on it.
Maybe some people would say that our appearance is given by our parents and we should respect
that.However,in 20th century,people have the rights to choose whatever they consider as necessary.We simply
have no rights to judge other 's values as every individual in this world is not the same.Therefore,we can not
force the other people to accept your values .

No it shouldnt
No,it shouldnt be banned .Many people out there might be lacking self esteem and confidence in front of their
peers and it's only right for us to allow them to do as they wish with their lives .If u dont want to do it DONT
DO IT but let others feel better with themselves

Does it effect you if they get plastic surgery? No it doesn't

Some people can be very self conscious and when they compare themselves to other people it makes them feel
even worse and they feel they need to meet society's expectations. Many people are bullied and criticized
because of their flaws .So what if they want to change the way they look to make themselves more appealing or
the way they want. It doesn't effect you if they get plastic surgery and it's a free country so let them do what
they want. It can help people who are scrutinized by things they otherwise could not change, for example if they
get Breast cancer and lose a Breast, they'd have to deal with that for the rest of their lives

Judging, something everyone has done

People are just fed up of being judged, of how they look and other things like that, but these days it's mostly
physical judging. I have been judge by the way I look, been laughed at, and I'm just 16 years old, imagine the
rest of the world being judged. No one wants that, yes there are risks, but people are aware, lets just stop the

judging part and maybe everyone will be happy.

Judging, something everyone has done

People are just fed up of being judged, of how they look and other things like that, but these days it's mostly
physical judging. I have been judge by the way I look, been laughed at, and I'm just 16 years old, imagine the
rest of the world being judged. No one wants that, yes there are risks, but people are aware, lets just stop the
judging part and maybe everyone will be happy.
Ok I saw this debate or whatever this is and I made an account just to say my opinion. THERE IS NOTHING
WRONG WITH PLASTIC SURGERY WHETHER ITS COSMETIC OR RECONSTRUCTIVE! Most people
don't approve of plastic surgery because 'God' made us one way and we should learn to love ourselves the way
we are. Excuse me if I'm wrong but isn't it the same thing when someone dyes their hair, or wears coloured
contact lenses? They are doing it to change their appearance?! And yet because it would only cost about 80euro
to dye your hair people don't look down upon it. If everyone was really concerned about the fact that people
shouldn't change the way they look, then everyone needs to stop dying their hair, getting spray tanned, wearing
coloured contact lenses etc. It's the individual's choice about what they do and it shouldn't be anyone elses
problem. And others are saying well oh, we can use the money spent on plastic surgery to help find a cure for
some disease. Well then DON'T GO OUT AND SPEND ABOUT 150EURO GETTING HIGH LIGHTS AND
LOW LIGHTS AND WHAT HAVE YOU. If you weren't blessed from 'God' to have platinum blonde hair then
that's too bad cause apparently we now live in a world where murderers and rapists roam the street free but
when someone decide's to improve the way they look by a small procedure which they do WITH THEIR OWN
MONEY( it's not as if they are going to rob 5 grand to pay for their surgery) people are outraged! And now my
rant is over, how refreshing!

2. THBT abortion is legal for the

underage girls
I say parental consent is not legally necessary to have a baby, and nor should it be. The ultimate authority over
whether to have a baby must be the babys mother, not its grandparents. It is absurd to say that someone is old
enough to have a baby, but not old enough to have an abortion. The parental consent required for surgery is a
legal sham in any case, since in serious cases a refusal can be overridden on medical advice with a court order.
In effect, parents can consent to surgery on their children, but cannot withhold their consent. This is not a good
example for the proposition.
And if needing parental consent became effective it could just lead to 'back street' abortions. Which are far more
dangerous to the mother and the baby than just being able to go to a clinic.
Para perempuan yang hamil akibat pemerkosaan, kata Linda, akan memiliki trauma berkepanjangan. Apalagi
jika korban itu masih di bawah umur. Mereka tidak siap mempunyai anak, kata Linda.
Masalah tak berhenti sampai di situ saja. Anak hasil pemerkosaan pun akan menjadi korban ketika lahir karena
sang Ibu tak menginginkan kehadirannya.
Pelegalan aborsi tersebut mengacu pada Undang-Undang Kesehatan Nomor 36/2009, khususnya pasal 75 ayat
(1) yang ditegaskan, bahwa setiap orang dilarang melakukan aborsi terkecuali berdasarkan indikasi
kedaruratan medis, dan kehamilan akibat perkosaan yang dapat menimbulkan trauma psikologis bagi korban
perkosaan
Pemberdayaan Perempuan dan Perlindungan Anak Linda Gumelar menyambut positif diperbolehkannya aborsi
bagi korban pemerkosaan sebagaimana yang diatur dalam PP nomor 61/2014 tentang Kesehatan Reproduksi.
Menurut Linda, korban pemerkosaan yang trauma berat dan di bawah umur berpeluang melakukan aborsi.
"Kalau dari sisi perempuan dan kesetaraan gender, saya kira ini adalah salah satu sikap pemerintah yang
memberikan peluang bagi para korban-korban pemerkosaan yang masih di bawah umur dan trauma cukup
berat," ujar Linda di Istana Negara, Jl Veteran, Jakarta Pusat, Rabu (13/8/2014).
Menurut Linda, pihaknya mendapat banyak sekali in
Sebelumnya, Presiden SBY meneken PP nomor 61/2014 tentang Kesehatan Reproduksi yang didalamnya berisi
pelegalan aborsi bagi korban pemerkosaan pada 21 Juli 2014 lalu. Di dalam PP tersebut, disebutkan persetujuan
aborsi diperoleh dari surat keterangan dokter dan keterangan penyidik, psikolog atau ahli lain mengenai dugaan
adanya perkosaan.

It's Her Life, Her Body, And She Should Be Able To Choose!
I understand where everyone's perspective as well as their perception of why a teen woman should not be able
to have an abortion without parental consent; however, it is her that has to live with and take care of that baby
for the rest of her life. Statists say that about 40% of all teen moms never graduate high school yet alone
college. How will she support this child if her parent(s) were to die and not be able to help her care for her
child? It is her body, she should be able to decide if having a child is the right thing for her, not her parents!
What is the teen was sexually abused, raped, or molested by a family member or her dad, then what? YOU
people expect this child to get parental consent from her abuser or the mom that allowed the abuse. From
experience, I was raped and had the baby because I thought it was wrong but now I regret ever having that child
because he now acts like the person who raped me. Why? OH WHY? Would you make a woman do something
that she may or may not regret but let her choose! Do Not force your teen daughters to keep a child that will be
unwanted, unloved, or uncared for!! Your teen daughters are supposed to be loved from their parents at all times
and be able to discuss everything but if you force them than I promise they will HATE you for it, maybe
forever!!

Anything that involves the life and death of a child should never be done
without a parent's consent.
Abortion is a dangerous procedure that is potentially life threatening, and should not be performed on an
underage minor, without the consent of a parent. Other factors that should be considered in this argument also
are the fact that parents have the right to know if their children are looking to obtain an abortion, because it
allows them to be aware of what is going on in their child's life. Abortion is not something to be taken lightly,
and an underage minor is hardly emotionally mature enough to make a decision like that, without parental
involvement!

1.)Parents have a right to know what their children are doing: they are legally responsible for their care, and as
parents they have a proper interest in any case. Any good parent would want to know if their daughter were
having an abortion; any good parent would want to help her daughter make a good decision on the matter, and
to prevent her from making a bad decision.
2.)The parents of teenagers have to live with the consequences of teenage motherhood: they often bear a
particularly large responsibility for looking after the children, because teenage mothers are usually 1) single; 2)
living at home; 3) unemployed; 4) in full-time education. They are economically dependent, and unable to give
all of their time to their children. If the mothers parents are going to have to look after their grandchild and to
live with it, they should have a say on whether it is born in the first place.
3.)The decision whether to have an abortion or continue the pregnancy often has a major long-term impact on a
woman's psychological and emotional well-being, her ability to continue formal education, and her future
financial status. The proposed measure helps ensure that pregnant teenagers get support and guidance from their
parents in this important decision. If parents are not informed, there is a risk that they and their daughters will
become permanently estranged at a time when parental support is most important.
I am going to make my argument assuming that it is already accepted that abortion should be legal in general
because that is a separate issue.
Here are some the reasons abortion is legal: Primarily people have a right to determine what happens to their
bodies. But also we know from history that many women will abort babies themselves if they do not have
access to legal abortions and we want to protect those women. Also it is detrimental to society to have unwanted
babies being born just because they could not be aborted as they are more likely to be in poverty and not raised
properly and will therefore be statistically more likely to gravitate toward crime.
Specifically regarding underage women the first point is debatable. As has been mentioned minors need consent
for surgical procedures. But I believe the circumstances unique to abortion override this. If parental consent is
required for abortions it logically follows that many underage girls and women will be prevented by their
parents from getting legal abortions. And you therefore face the two other reasons I gave for abortion being
legal in general. In this instance I think the illicit abortion reason is the most salient. Underage girls have very
strong reasons for not wanting to be pregnant. Please don't mention "they should have thought of that before
they had sex etc." because it is irrelevant. It is too late at this point. Understandably they may be very desperate
to terminate their pregnancies, and being young they are possibly even more likely to do something rash like
attempt a self-abortion. In my opinion the safety of underage pregnant women keeping in mind the strong

possibility they will try to abort their babies themselves, outweighs the rights of parents to make medical
decisions for their children. I think that almost all of the time parents will make better medical decisions for
their children and their children are not old enough to make such decisions. However I think almost everyone
old enough to get pregnant understands pregnancy and abortion well enough to make their own decision. There
is a bit of a difficult situation with very young girls like 12 years old, and I have difficulty with making a
decision on this. In general, however, I think underage pregnant women should not need parental consent to
have abortions.
Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) Nomor 61 Tahun 2014 tentang Kesehatan Reproduksi.
Pelegalan aborsi itu terdapat di Pasal 31 PP Kesehatan Reproduksi. Bunyinya:
(1) Tindakan aborsi hanya dapat dilakukan berdasarkan:
a. indikasi kedaruratan medis; atau
b. kehamilan akibat pemerkosaan
(2) Tindakan aborsi akibat pemerkosaan hanya dapat dilakukan apabila usia kehamilan paling lama berusia 40
hari, dihitung sejak hari pertama haid terakhir.
KPAI menilai harus ada mekanisme yang jelas. Sebab, dia menilai, tidak semua korban pemerkosaan boleh
aborsi. Harus ada persyaratan yang jelas. Jangan hanya karena tidak menerima calon bayi dan beban moral ibu
dan keluarganya, lalu boleh aborsi. Kami tidak setuju itu, kata Erlinda saat dihubungi VIVAnews, Jumat 15
Agustus 2014.
Selain itu, KPAI juga meminta agar pemerintah menimbang hak anak untuk hidup. Jangan sampai PP ini malah
bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 23 tahun 2002 tentang Perlindungan Anak.
Sebab, Pasal 4 UU Perlindungan Anak berbunyi: Setiap anak berhak untuk dapat hidup, tumbuh, berkembang,
dan berpartisipasi secara wajar sesuai
dengan harkat dan martabat kemanusiaan, serta mendapat perlindungan dari kekerasan dan diskriminasi.
Bahkan diketahui bahwa setiap tahunnya, ada 1 hingga 2 juta wanita setiap tahunnya yang melakukan praktik
aborsi (Detikhealth, 2011).62% dari pelaku aborsi adalah anak di bawah umur (Vivanews, 2011). Tentu saja
data-data tersebut adalah data kasus yang ketahuan, belum lagi ditambah dengan kasus-kasus aborsi yang
tidak muncul ke permukaan atau belum ketahuan. 2 juta nyawa tidak bersalah dibunuh setiap tahunnya, dan
62% ibu dari janin-janin tersebut masih di bawah umur. Itu baru data di Indonesia, belum lagi data-data di
negara lain yang mungkin membuat kita lebih merasa prihatin lagi.
Data mencengangkan muncul dari Sexual Behavior Survey pada tahun 2011 bahwa 64% anak muda di kotakota besar Indonesia mendapatkan informasi seks dari film-film porno (Lisasih, 2012). Hasil lain yang
mengkhawatirkan dari survey tersebut, 39% responden ABG yang berusia 15-19 tahun mengaku sudah pernah
melakukan hubungan seksual. Berdasarkan data dari Survei Kesehatan Reproduksi RemajaIndonesia, bentuk
penyimpangan seksualitas pada remaja mayoritas dilandasi oleh rasa penasaran. Jelas, mengingat pada usia
remaja memang terjadi peningkatan rasa penasaran tentang seks dan remaja enggan untuk bertanya pada orang
tua maupun guru sehingga mereka mendapatkan informasi dari sumber yang salah.
Dalam KUHP, tindakan abortus provocatus criminalis diatur dalam KUHP pasal 229, pasal 341, pasal 342,
pasal 343, pasal 346, pasal 347, dan pasal 348. Isi dari masing-masing pasal tersebut adalah:
Pasal 229
1.
Barang siapa dengan sengaja mengobati seorang wanita atau menyuruhnya supaya diobati, dengan
diberitahukan atau ditimbulkan harapan, bahwa karena pengobatan itu hamilnya dapat digugurkan, diancam
dengan pidana penjara paling lama empat tahun atau denda paling banyak tiga ribu rupiah.
2. Jika yang bersalah, berbuat demikian untuk mencari keuntungan, atau menjadikan perbuatan tersebut
sebagai pencarian atau kebiasaan, atau jika dia seorang tabib, bidan atau juru obat, pidananya dapat ditambah
sepertiga.
3. Jika yang bersalah, melakukan kejahatan tersebut, dalam menjalani pencarian maka dapat dicabut haknya
untuk melakukan pencarian itu.
Pasal 341
Seorang ibu yang, karena takut akan ketahuan melahirkan anak, pada saat anak dilahirkan atau tidak lama
kemudian, dengan sengaja merampas nyawa anaknya, diancam, karena membunuh anak sendiri, dengan pidana

penjara paling lama tujuh tahun.

Pasal 342
Seorang ibu yang, untuk melaksanakan niat yang ditentukan karena takut akan ketahuan bahwa akan
melahirkan anak, pada saat anak dilahirkan atau tidak lama kemudian merampas nyawa anaknya, diancam,
karena melakukan pembunuhan anak sendiri dengan rencana, dengan pidana penjara paling lama sembilan
tahun.
Pasal 343
Kejahatan yang diterangkan dalam pasal 341 dan 342 dipandang, bagi orang lain yang turut serta melakukan,
sebagai pembunuhan atau pembunuhan dengan rencana.
Pasal 346
Seorang wanita yang sengaja menggugurkan atau mematikan kandungannya atau menyuruh orang lain untuk
itu, diancam dengan pidana penjara paling lama empat tahun.
Pasal 347
1.
Barangsiapa dengan sengaja menggugurkan atau mematikan kandungan seorang wanita tanpa
persetujuannya, diancam dengan pidana penjara paling lama dua belas tahun.
2.
Jika perbuatan itu mengakibatkan matinya wanita tersebut, dikenakan pidana penjara paling lama lima
belas tahun.
Pasal 348
1.
Barangsiapa dengan sengaja menggugurkan atau mematikan kandungan seorang wanita dengan
persetujuannya, diancam dengan pidana penjara paling lama lima tahun enam bulan.
2. Jika perbuatan itu mengakibatkan matinya wanita tersebut, dikenakan pidana penjara paling lama tujuh
tahun.
Pasal 349
Jika seorang tabib, bidan atau juru obat membantu melakukan kejahatan yang tersebut pasal 346, ataupun
melakukan atau membantu melakukan salah satu kejahatan yang diterangkan dalam pasal 347 dan 348, maka
pidana yang ditentukan dalam pasal itu dapat ditambah dengan sepertiga dan dapat dicabut hak untuk
menjalankan pencarian dalam mana kejahatan dilakukan.
Dari pasal-pasal di atas, jelas sekali bahwa praktik aborsi yang tidak dilandasi atas indikasi-indikasi
medis yang jelas dapat dijebloskan dalam hukum pidana. Pihak-pihak yang dapat dikenai sangsi-sangsi di atas
adalah pihak dari ibu yang mengandung, pihak yang mendukung terjadinya aborsi tersebut, dan
dokter/bidan/praktisi yang melakukan aborsi tersebut.
(1) Bahaya aborsi secara fisik
Bahaya aborsi secara fisik sudah sering sekali diulas di berbagai media yang mengampanyekan antiaborsi. Bahaya-bahaya tersebut menurut yang dimuat dalam situs aborsi.org, sebuah situs mengenai aborsi,
adalah:
(a)

Kematian mendadak karena pendarahan hebat,

(b)

Kematian mendadak karena pembiusan yang gagal,

(c)

Kematian secara lambat akibat infeksi serius disekitar kandungan,

(d)

Rahim yang sobek (uterine perforation),

(e)

Kerusakan leher raphim (cervical lacerations) yang akan menyebabkan cacat pada anak berikutnya,

(f)
(g)

Kanker payudara (karena ketidakseimbangan hormon estrogen pada wanita),

Kanker indung telur (ovarian cancer),

(h)

Kanker leher rahim (cervical cancer),

(i)

Kanker hati (liver cancer),

(j)
Kelainan pada placenta/ari-ari (placenta previa) yang akan menyebabkan cacat pada anak berikutnya dan
pendarahan hebat pada saat kehamilan berikutnya,
(k)

Menjadi mandul/tidak mampu memiliki keturunan lagi (ectopic pregnancy),

(l)

Infeksi rongga panggul (pelvic inflammatory disease), dan

(m) Infeksi pada lapisan rahim (endometriosis),

Dalam situs berita VIVAnews (2011), tercatat bahwa terdapat 70.000 ibu yang meninggal dunia akibat praktik
aborsi yang ilegal. Data lainnya dipublikasikan dalam situs VOA Indonesia (2012), bahwa diperkirakan terjadi
lebih dari 45 juta kasus aborsi setiap tahunnya. Angka yang fantastis? Memang. Tetapi perlu ditekankan kembali
bahwa semua data di atas adalah data yang ketahuan
(2) Bahaya aborsi secara psikologis
Aborsi adalah tindakan pembunuhan terhadap nyawa tidak bersalah, melanggar norma, dan melanggar
hukum. Setelah melakukan praktik aborsi, sang mantan calon ibu alih-alih merasa lega dan tentram karena
masalahnya selesai, justru akan merasakan perasaan bersalah, berdosa, khawatir, takut ketahuan, malu dengan
diri sendiri, dan lain-lain. Bisa jadi setelah melakukan aborsi, sang mantan calon ibu tersebut justru akan
menjadi tertekan dan tertutup, dan akan menjauhi pembicaraan yang berkaitan dengan kehamilan dan kelahiran
anak.
Post-abortion syndrome (PAS) adalah trauma emosional, psikologis, fisik, dan spiritual yang
diakibatkan oleh aborsi, di mana kejadian tersebut berada di luar pengalaman manusia biasa (Rooyen & Smith,
2004). PAS merupakan salah satu dari bentuk post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) dengan ciri-ciri: (1)
terdapat stressor atau pemicu stres, yaitu aborsi; (2) kejadian tersebut dialami kembali dengan cara-cara tertentu
setelah aborsi; (3) terjadinya penghindaran dan/atau mati rasa dalam rasa tanggung jawab secara umum; dan (4)
gejala-gejala fisik seperti insomnia atau penyalahgunaan zat. Babbel (2010) mengungkapkan gejala-gejala dari
PAS, yaitu: (1) rasa bersalah, yang dialami karena membuat sebuah kesalahan atau melanggar moralitas; (2)
gelisah atau anxiety, yang mungkin muncul pada isu-isu kemandulan dan kemungkinan untuk hamil kembali;
(3) mati rasa atau depresi; (4) kilas balik atau flashback, aborsi dilakukan dengan operasi dan umumnya terjadi
saat pasien dalam keadaan sadar sehingga dapat menjadi sebuah pengalaman yang menjadi sumber stres; (5)
pemikiran untuk bunuh diri, terjadi dalam kasus-kasus ekstrim.
Akibat yang bisa ditimbulkan oleh PAS atau PTSD adalah terganggunya aktivitas sehari-hari karena
stres dan depresi yang berlebih. Bahkan bukan tidak mungkin bila penderita PAS akan memikirkan usaha-usaha
untuk bunuh diri karena rasa tertekan yang begitu dalam. Kasus PAS dan PTSD ini perlu ditangani oleh tenaga
profesional, salah satunya adalah psikolog.
Aborsi, Fenomena Gunung Es
Aborsi merupakan fenomena gunung es, yang terlihat di permukaan hanya sedikit namun jumlah kasus yang
sebenarnya sangat banyak. Data BKKBN menyebutkan bahwa kasus aborsi di Indonesia diperkirakan
mencapai 2,4 juta jiwa setiap tahunnya. Artinya 2,4 juta jumlah nyawa bayi tak berdosa dibunuh setiap tahun
di Indonesia.
Data di atas sangat mungkin akan membengkak ketika aborsi menjadi legal dengan ditandatanganinya
Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) nomor 61 tah
sekitar dilakukan 37 persen pelakunya adalah dengan cara kuret atau pembersihan rahim, 25 persen melalui
oral dengan meminum pil tertentu dan pijatan, 13 persen dengan cara suntik, dan 8 persen dengan cara
memasukkan benda asing ke dalam rahim.

3. Thbt legalize sex work in order to

make conntrol more feasible and
effective to combat HIV/AIDS

Prohibition Doesn't Work.

YES. Banning prostitution doesnt stop people from wanting sex, and plenty of people are still willing to pay
for it. This means that there is significant demand for prostitutes, even in places where AIDS is prevalent. In
fact, people with HIV and AIDS and Africa are less likely to be able to have sex in a regular setting, so are more
likely to turn to prostitutes. In addition, countries with high rates of AIDS and HIV are most often poor
countries with high unemployment and very low GDP [[http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/28/069.html]],
meaning there are a lot of women in desperate situations who need money, usually so desperate that obeying the
law (especially in places where law enforcement is often corrupt and under-funded) doesnt matter very much
compared to making a living. These two factors mean that prostitution is going to happen whether it is
nominally illegal or not. Evidence of this can be seen in the estimated 40,000 prostitutes who entered South
Africa for the Soccer World Cup [[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2010/0512/Prostitutes-flock-toSouth-Africa-ahead-of-World-Cup-2010]].
All prohibition actually does is prevent any effective regulation. If prostitution is legalised, Governments can
impose regulations such as compulsory use of condoms (which could also be provided by Government), regular
blood testing to see if prostitutes have HIV, and general enforcement of safe sex practices. If prostitution is
illegal, then there must be a denial of the existence of any brothels or prostitutes, as if they exist and are illegal
it becomes the Government's responsibility to get rid of them rather than ensure they are being safe.
Having these sorts of regulations also creates a type of self-regulation. The brothels and prostitutes that are
being safe will have a direct incentive to report ones that aren't, as this removes competition and will help build
their reputation as a safe option. If prostitution is illegal, then no-one will report anything.
NO. It is contradictory for prop to say on one hand, "especially in places where law enforcement is often corrupt
and under-funded" and simultaneously say that all the regulations they are putting in place will indeed work. If
it is true you cannot stop people from being prostitutes now, whatever their HIV status, how will you stop those
that refuse to comply with your regulations. If they are as poor and desperate as they say even the ones with
HIV will continue to want to work.
Prop correctly points out that, "countries with high rates of AIDS and HIV are most often poor countries with
high unemployment and very low GDP." The reason that they have such high rates of infection is not that some
how banning prostitution leads to higher HIV rates. If this where true, then all countries which ban prostitution
eg Sweden, Russia[1]) should have significantly higher prevalence rates than those who do as they propose eg.
Cte d'Ivoire & Senegal[1]. This is not the case.[2] What causes such high rates of infection is ignorance or miseducation about HIV and the way it is transmitted. This is more pervasive in countries with poor education
systems & high levels of illiteracy. Many people believe ridiculous things about HIV[3][4][5]. Like the belief
that the withdrawal method is effective in preventing HIV infection. Education is the only way to solve this, not
legitimizing a a crime which brutalizes women.
It is logical to believe that the instinct of self preservation (the one that drove her to prostitution over starving in
the first place) will lead to prostitutes using condoms. Many currently do. Those who do not are ignorant of the
dangers and how to protect themselves. This is what needs to change.

Everyone has AIDS. AIDS, AIDS, AIDS.

YES. As weve mentioned in our previous point, prostitution will take place whether it is legal or not. We
believe prostitution should be legal. By regulating brothels and the conditions for prostitution through regular
health checks, condoms et cetera, we can make sure prostitutes are safe from HIV.
In places where prostitution is illegal, it is merely driven underground; controlled by cartels and gangs. In this
situation prostitutes live under no rights[[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/515.full]] Moreover they
tend to be associated with drugs, they are hooked by dealers who force them into prostitution to fund thri habit,
through multiple sexual partners and needle sharing there is significant risks of HIV.
[[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_35/ai_53390350/]].
If a sex worker contracts AIDS, a man or woman client using them will be at risk of contracting the virus, they
then run the risk of not knowing that they have it, infecting other sexual partners and the cycle continues. Also
let us not forget future children who contract the disease while in the uterus.
So it is in countries where prostitution is illegal where we cant keep sex workers safe from AIDS. In these
countries prostitutes arent even allowed to be prostitutes. They tend to enter the profession because they have
no other way of earning money or they may be forced to do it.
On the other hand, if prostitution is legal and regulations are put in place, sex workers will be safer from STIs
and HIV/AIDS. Regular health checks will pick up any possible infections and there will be laws to protect the
well-being of sex workers. Whats more, these laws will not only protect sex workers, but their clients too.
Making prostitution legal will improve the work conditions of people who have to go into prostitution for one
reason or another and will protect society from a further spreading of HIV/AIDS. This is a signifcant benefit to
greater society and individual workers and cl
NO. Prop seem to believe that they have just invented "high class escorts", which is essentially what their
proposal seeks to do. In every country in the world one can always access disease free prostitutes who conduct

their business in a safe environment, and who are not abused by their employers. You just have to pay a lot for
these prostitutes, the same as props mechanism, if a brothel is gang run and does not wish to comply to props
expensive requirements, then they will employ the HIV+ prostitutes who are not protected by props model. The
people in status quo who visit the types of brothels prop is targeting, will not be able to afford the disease free
prostitutes (otherwise they would do so in status quo) so they will still go to the HIV+ prostitutes. And there
will probably be more prostitutes in the community because prop has declared the business legitimate, so poor
women who were deterred from prostitution by the law now consider it an option, and seeing as these are
countries where law enforcement is poor, this means more women being exposed to STD's. Why? Well, let's
consider that South Africa has the largest antiretroviral therapy programme in the world (1), the government
distributes free condoms at public toilets and clinics/hospitals across the nation. Yet there is still a problem with
people having unprotected sex, even with prostitutes, the reason is not a lack of condoms, it's a reluctance to use
them. Hence, prop does not fix the problem, but rather exacerbates it, under status quo cultural programming
makes people feel as if sex with a condom is unnatural, so people will pay more to have intercourse without a
condom. If this is already happening under status quo, it will only worsen once you create more prostitutes with
your endorsement of prostitution, and they will still have sex without condoms because they are still as
desperate for money, particularly those who are already HIV+.

Changing Social Stigma and flow on benefits.

YES. The social stigma towards AIDS means noone wants it, indeed Ban Ki Moon suggests that stigma is the
reason sex workers are reluctant to go and seek treatment [[http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-stigma.htm]]
This negative stigma needs to change to battle AIDS in the sex industry. Strategies like in Brazil and Kenya
introduced campaigns to reduce stigma and help sex workers feel good about their jobs to and to take care of
their sexual health, leading to positive benefits for AIDS checks and condom use; Thailands 100% condom
strategy led to a sharp decrease in HIV cases within the industry. [[http://www.avert.org/sex-workers.htm]]
Our model is similar and will benefit all stakeholders
There are many benefits to why we should adopt our policy and how changing the social stigma of AIDS will
effectively remove it from the legalised sex-industry.
Government:
Identifying AIDS victims early, through compulsory testing, this means quick reaction to the diagnoses, offering
treatment options swiftly and having the worker removed from the position which would lead to the infection of
more people.
Business:
A Business is not going to want to hire a worker who will contract HIV to their customers, this is just bad
business. A business needs to compete in a market and they need to supply a service of high quality. This
doesnt work if your company is branded as selling unsafe products which kill customers.
Customers:
They get the benefit of paying for a service which they want and are ready to pay for. With a much lower
chance of contracting a nasty STD and get all the pleasure they can pay for.
Sex-Workers: Not having AIDS, being able to be getting treatment swiftly and not feeling the social pressure to
not reveal profession to public.
Many Benefits, no harms, tried tested and successful, this policy is beneficial to all stakeholders.
NO. Again prop contradicts themselves. They say that there is a very strong social stigma against HIV & HIV
patients (which we agree happens, and in many cases sufferers are rejected by their families and have to fend
for themselves). This stigma leads to the prostitutes not wanting to be tested and seek treatment in SQ (status
quo) in fear that their status will become public. Then they turn around and tell us that these same prostitutes in
these stigmatic societies will accept govt mandated health checks? Many prostitutes will not accept this and
continue to operate underground.
To add insult to their self inflicted injury they cite the example of Kenya where they say, "Kenya introduced
campaigns to reduce stigma and help sex workers feel good about their jobs to and to take care of their sexual
health, leading to positive benefits for AIDS checks and condom use." They neglect that prostitution is totally
illegal in Kenya[1] and this "campaign" did not even attempt to legalize it but rather to change societal
misconceptions about HIV which is our counter model and they agree has been effective in helping solve the
problem cited in the motion.

Prostitutes will be safer under legalisation

YES. As we have shown, prostitution will always exist whether it is legal or not. Therefore, we need to look at
whether prostitutes will be safer with legalisation. They most definitely will be.

It is important that prostitutes and safe and free from harm. There are many reasons why women go into
prostitution. Often it is due to financial desperation and/or children commitments. These women are in a very
vulnerable position and it is very important that we ensure they are as safe and healthy as can be. Prostitutes are
subject to gangs, violence, drugs and rape. Prostitutes are often forced to take drugs by the gangs who employ
(or own) them so as to make them addicted. This means they have no way to escape.
[[http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1772e.htm]] There is also no regulation, which means prostitutes are subject to
unprotected sex and rape from countless people, which means they invariably become infected with AIDS and
other sexually transmitted diseases[[http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/pubs/FS/revsexworkers.php]].
When the market is legalised, it is no longer controlled by gangs. This is because legal businesses operate the
industry instead. This is better for prostitutes as they no longer suffer the horrific abuses that they face under a
system of illegal prostitution. This is because legal businesses face regulation. They are required by law to
ensure that contraception is used by their employees. They are also required to ensure that their employees are
healthy by directing them to appropriate medical treatment when it is necessary.
When legal its easier to monitor. This is because the government knows how many prostitutes there are, where
they are located, and what issues are affecting the industry. This is beneficial as the government can better plan
appropriate health and social policies.
Prostitutes are legitimate stakeholders that need protection. Under our model, we better protect prostitutes. They
are safer, they are healthier, and they are happier
NO. We agree with prop that women often turn to prostitution due to financial desperation and/or children
commitments. These incentives will still exist even if they are caught to be infected and banned from practicing.
As is the case now, they will have no choice but to break the law and continue prostituting. Because the
"legitimate" brothels will be subject to regulation and taxes - which means significantly higher costs - illicit
brothels can under price then in order to compete. This will be very effective in countries with low incomes. A
parallel example is how tobacco tax spurs and illicit market for duty free cigarettes[1]. This puts pressure on
non-infected prostitutes to relieve themselves of the burden of regulation and go underground so they can
continue making money.
Effectively regulation is a partial ban and will always result in an illicit market. Example: prescription drugs are
legal and regulated (need for prescription) yet we still have an illicit market for prescription pain killers. The
black market and it's harms are not mutually exclusive to either side in this debate unless prop wants absolute
legalization with zero restrictions.

The Market solves all:

YES. Simple concept, allowing competition fixes the gang/abuse problem for two reasons. One, there are
Government regulations, they have to be above board, if they are then even if gangs are running brothels they
are doing nothing illegal. Two, there will be competition, a brothel will want to sell a quality service, generally
meaning drug/bruise and AIDS free, these are all things good.
Basically with the legal market sex workers will need to compete within the rules set by the Government, this
means that they will need to be STD free, there will be protection of their rights as people, the prices wont be
exorbitant because of competition, the price can only be as high a a consumer is willing to pay so the businesses
can reach maximum profit, again this demand will be increased by lack of Government sanctions against the
business for being abusive. They will not employ people with AIDS or keep them working because this is not
good for customers.
The social stigma of AIDS means no one wants it so no one will sell it.
[[http://www.mcwdn.org/ECONOMICS/SupDemand.html]] Businesses, because of this stigma are also likely to
develop their own restrictions on workers, they are going to want AIDS in their industry less than the
Government because of the profit they will lose.
Businesses will dob in unregistered workers because they are not going to want people having some of their
market share.
The demand for sex workers is great, this is undisputed. Therefore because AIDS is a problem it better that the
Govt can regulate and watch its transgression rather than ignore it. It us better to set the private sector against
the virus because frankly it is currently out of control and if people are going to loose profit over it this is sadly
a greater incentive to get rid of it.
NO. Prop is ignoring that there is a demand for having sex without condoms due to ignorance about the
dangers. If they prohibit this a black market for it will develop and all the harms they point out for us apply to
them. Secondly, they premise this argument on the claim that the government has the capacity to enforce all
these new regulations. If the government does have such power then our paradigm of prohibition will work.
What they have failed to address is what would happen is their regulations did not work. Their entire case is
based on a best case scenario of perfect regulation which is unlikely in these poor nations. Also these
regulations (like having condoms regular testing) are in the best interests of the prostitutes and brothels even
with prohibition. They have not yet engaged with the idea that demand for unsafe sex will still exist.

Legalisation Can Be A Part of a Wider Education Program

YES. The problem with the opposition proposal is that it is not mutually exclusive to legalising prostitution. It is
perfectly possible for a Government to provide an education program and legalise prostitution at the same time,
in fact that is what is done in places like New Zealand where prostitution is legal and we provide sex education
in schools.
In fact, legalising prostitution actually helps a wider education program. If the opp wants people to be properly
educated about AIDS, then they should not want to exclude and stigmatise sex workers. If you continue to ban
prostitution, then it actually entrenches the idea that prostitutes are somehow lesser people whose welfare we
shouldn't care about when it comes to HIV. As it is, countries that ban prostitution make no effort to protect
prostitutes at all.
To have a free and open discussion, it is necessary to allow a free discussion about prostitution, which can only
happen if it is legal. If it is not, it is much more difficult to acquire information about prostitutes and about the
conditions in which they work, because they are less willing to come forward and admit to what they are doing.
The opp has conceded that there is a problem of people having unsafe sex with prostitutes, and yet it seems like
the only group of people they want to exclude from their education program are the prostitutes themselves. If
we can identify who the prostitutes are, then we can educate them. If prostitution is illegal and forced
underground, we can't provide them with info. In addition, we can't provide information with people who use
prostitutes, both because they won't admit to committing an illegal act and because banning prostitution
increases the stigma on these people. The prop has missed the point entirely when they say we will be unable to
enforce regulation, because it will be in the interests of the prostitutes and brothels to abide by regulations and
report those who don't.

Proposition Summary
At the beginning of this debate we showed that prostitution (and demand for unsafe sex) will still exist whether
it is illegal or not, the question is whether or not making it legal will allow for better protection of prostitutes
and better help to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. The opp has never disputed that there will be prostitution
either way, so it was up to them to show harms of legalising prostitution, which they never did.
3 questions: 1) What best allows for the Government to protect people and regulate? 2) Will regulations be
effective? 3) Are there any real harms to legalising prostitution?
On the first point, we showed you that if prostitution is illegal it is an underground affair, unsafe and controlled
by gangs. It creates a stigma around the desperate women in prostitution, causing people to care about them
even less, and stops anyone involved in the industry seeking any protection or help. The opp tried to say that we
were contradicting ourselves, missing the point entirely: the way to lift the stigma is to legalise, then prostitutes
will come forward. Stigma around prostitution doesn't just exist inherently, it is promoted by banning it. The
opp tried to propose a counter-model providing education about HIV, however this model is not mutually
exclusive and as we showed you, will actually work better if prostitution is legalised. It is contradictory to not
allow education for prostitutes.
On the second point, the opposition tried to say that illegal, unsafe and unregistered prostitution would still
exist. We had three responses: 1) Because it is in the interests of legal prostitutes and brothels to report illegal
practice, the industry will self-regulate. 2) It is actually no more expensive to provide the legal services, because
most of the expenses will fall on the Government, which is providing the condoms etc. 3) Even if some illegal
practice still exists, if there is any increase in safe practice and the use of safe methods, then that is a good thing.
Finally, the opp tried to say an increase in prostitution would be bad. Firstly we told you that as long as the
prostitution involves safe methods, that would be fine, and then that essentially means that the other team thinks
people having sex is a bad thing. It is not a bad thing if people are having more sex with prostitutes, if it is safe.
They then tried to say we would be placing more people in danger. They never showed how this would happen
under our model, which insists upon safe practices. We are certainly not forcing any women into prostitution,
who are not currently doing it. The opp's final point was to say that we would be sending a message that this is a
legitimate way to make a living. Unfortunately they seemed to have missed posting some of the point, but
basically we do think that prostitution is a legitimate way to make a living. It is the poor treatment and health
risks that prostitutes face that is illegitimate. Our model helps with this.

Legalizing prostitution would reduce HIV/AIDS.

Legalizing prostitution would reduce HIV/AIDS.The government could require health checks for
prostitutes so they would not spread the disease to their various clients.In turn they would not spread the
disease to their various partners so in the end the rate of HIV/AIDS would be reduced making the
country a better place to live.

Evidence points to yes

The workers would be tested periodically. As simple as that. In Nevada, women who test positive for
AIDS are literally not allowed to work at all. If they do, there are harsh legal implications (both for the
brothel owner adn the worker). Illegal prostitutes (whether in brothels or on the streets) do not have to
get tested and are not required to wear a condom

Legaizing means regulating, regulating means health codes.

HIV/AIDS is spread by reckless sexual practice. This aspect of transmission of disease is able to be
controlled with establishments that can be held accountable for their quality of service. The clients, the
call girls, and the girls handlers, all share the responsibility of health and safety. Examples of this can
presently be seen in Amsterdam with window girls, and Nevada at the Bunny Ranch. Pornographic
cinema also share strict regulation and professional level safety concerns.
Cleanliness, STD screening, drug testing, prophylactic use, visual genital inspection, pre and post
pleasure hygiene, regular doctor checkups, are all measures that can be taken to prevent the spread of
disease in these legal pleasure houses. This goes for the working girls and the clients themselves.
Insuring the girls are clean creates rapport and quality in service, but clients have to be held to the same
level of cleanliness. Legalization is the way to hold clients to a new light. Instead of stigmas of shame,
and clients abusing the girls they visit, regulations make these service transactions respectable and
therefore safer.

Definitely.
It gives prostitutes legal backing to insist clients use condoms, or be subjected to prior examination for
STDs if they don't want to use condoms. In addition, prostitutes would be able to go to clinics to get
themselves checked out for STDs.
That being said, while I support the right of willing prostitutes to ply their trade, I definitely don't
support abusive and controlling pimps, and other people who force women/girls/boys/men into sexual
slavery and prostitution. I find adultery/infidelity and cheating absolutely vile, but only the customer is
to blame.

There is no regulation or enforcement of safe practices in the sex industry. We propose that all nations
with AIDS concerns legalise the sex industry and introduce regulations to make sure that sex workers
use safe practices, provide a registration system for sex workers and provide condoms for registered
establishments, we further propose that these states look at ways to reduce the social stigma around this
work as a way to battle the spread of HIV/AIDS

Proposal will exacerbate the HIV problem

YES. The only NEW workers in the industry under our model will be safe ones, because our model only
allows regulated workers. Even if all the old workers remained unsafe, these new workers would attract
some people to use them, meaning more safe and less unsafe sex, so this point actually falls to our side.
Opp admits that prohibition does not work, this reinforces why it should be legal, to keep track of these
sex workers. Saying that the Govt has a harder job detecting legal sex workers is ridiculous, it is much
harder to find ones who are undeclared and hidden. It is silly to suppose a gang would provide
underground brothels, which would be much harder to run and much more expensive when there is a
legal profitable option, considering most of the expenses such as condoms will be paid for by the
Government. If the Government is providing free health checks, condoms and education programs then
why wouldn't a business accept them? It is a benefit with no cost.
Stating that brothels can avoid penalties under the status quo just reinforces how fruitless it is to ban the
sex industry.
The Opp has failed to address the reasoning we put forward over how competition would mean that
there is a business and Government agenda to keep AIDS carriers out of the industry, businesses are
incentivised to dob in unregistered sex workers to the Government to be tested.
They have not addressed the rights of the sex-worker, how they are not the problem and need support, if

as the OPP suggests there is going to be this large black market under the status quo.
We proposed that because prohibition does not work, because their is no support for the worker and
because their is an AIDS problem in the industry that we should fix this under our model. Our benefits
have not been attacked, they have been ignored, this does not make them go away. There are clear
benefits to the worker/government and consumer there are no harms except for under the status quo as
the opp states there are.
NO. Despite the prohibition of prostitution many people still end up being sex workers. However, many
more are deterred by the penalties imposed by the government as a result of its illegality. As a result of
the proposal, many people would enter into the sex industry. Also many more people would start using
sex workers. This larger pool of sex workers and consumers will make the spread of HIV & other STDs
more likely.
Secondly, legalization makes detection of illegal sex workers harder. These gangs that prop says
currently run prostitution can have a few legal workers in order to window dress their business with
legitimacy while having other illegal workers. The incentive for this is that regulations on the legal
workers make them less profitable but also offers an opportunity for them to cloak themselves with
legitimacy. Hence, brothels can avoid the penalties under status quo, and at same time provide
unregulated/unsafe services to the less informed members of society. As it is these countries are facing
difficulties in terms of regulations. Not directly engaging with the lack sex education will incentivize
brothels to continue running legally with unsafe sex workers as there is a demand for such services. The
financial incentive of having unregulated or partially regulated brothels only makes it worse.

Costs of the proposal outweigh the benefits

YES. Making a job legal and telling people not to give other people AIDS is hardly a 'stringent criteria.
Through this debate the Opp has agreed with us on several points we made. They agreed that there was
high demand for prostitutes which currently make a black market; we showed how this would be
beneficial when legalised. They agreed that sex workers are a cause of the spread of AIDS, they agreed
that abuse was a problem, we showed how under our model these harms would deminish. They have
agreed that using condoms and practising safe sex is for the best, under our model this would become
the new status quo. They even agreed that there wil be recourse for abused workers. We have proposed a
model which makes a better life for sex-workers, customers and society as a whole.
The Opp asserts that the costs will outweigh the benefits. What costs are they specifically targeting?
Their entire case started by saying we needed more education, we proved this as not mutually exclusive
and showed how education would be a flow on effect of our model.
The Opp then attacked our model on the harms it will cause, the only harms being stated by the Opp are
that more people will become sex workers and this increases the danger.
These harms ignore our substantive arguments on how our model wants to see sex workers accepted, we
see this as a legitimate job and business, we explained how our model would increase the safety of the
workers by making their job stigma free and encouraging quality service through legislation and
competition, this hasnt been addressed. We also discussed how the customers would be safe, because
they would be paying for such a quality (and AIDS free) service. Workers with AIDS would be able to
be found and treated by the Government as businesses would feel obliged to dob them in.
The Opp has failed to show any harms at all, clearly this does not outweigh the benefits.
NO. Prop says that once prostitution operates in a legal framework there will be recourse for sex
workers who are abused. This may be true but we have to remember that assuming the stringent
regulations they say they will impose will work, an illicit market will still exist. More importantly
though this recourse comes at the cost of having more people being exposed to the dangers of
prostitution to begin with. Because the govt would have removed deterrence to prostitution many people
would now view it as a viable option. The higher probability of making reports comes at the cost of
having more people in danger in the first place. It is wrong for the govt to take actions that intentionally
place people in danger.

Detrimental to womens rights

YES. Why isnt prostitution a legitimate way to earn a living? It is one of the oldest and most
widespread professions in the world. People do practise this en mass voluntarily, under our model it
would simply allow current workers to do this without the social stigma meaning that gangs who do run
the show and the social and legal pressure which means sex workers do not to go and get checkups on
their sexual health because of the social and legislative deterrent would disappear.
I can only assume from this points title that the Opp is attempting to label prostitution as a strike against
women.
Well how is it that prostitution breaks womens rights but when a Government takes a moral high

ground and refuses to give aid and support to a woman who works as a prostitute who has a severe risk
of contracting a deadly virus and is likely to undergo significant abuse in an underground black market
run by criminals is not anti-women?
How is it that our model is detrimental to womens rights when what we propose is to allow sex workers
to be liberated from Governmental and societal discrimination?
Under the status quo where prostitution is illegal there is no support, women find themselves trapped in
a cycle where they need to do this job to earn a living while at the same time cannot complain if they are
taken advantage of by gangs, cartels or even their customers because to do so would be admitting to
being guilty of a crime.
This is not pro women, this is not moral or right, we propose that this is a status quo which cannot be
allowed to continue abusing the women who practise the profession of sex.
NO. When the govt legalizes prostitution and is actively involved in it's operation through regulation. It
sends the message that this is a legitimate way to earn a living. This combined with the poverty in these
countries can lead to many poor families pressuring (which is harder to detect and not really illegal than

Summary
The first basic claim made by prop was that the prostitution industry is only abusive because of its
illegality; the abuses highlighted were drugs, assault, and STIs. But in order to demonstrate that their
proposal is effective, they would need to show that there would be no more people desperate enough to
subject themselves to atrocious conditions, there would be no more demand for these prostitutes, or that
this new law enforcement would somehow be more effective than current law enforcement which they
spent their entire first argument discrediting. But prop failed to do that, all they did was give a list of
requirements legal brothels must abide by with no explanation as to how they would enforce them. Their
self-regulation model does not work either because if these brothels are gang run as prop asserts, then
they also told us that these gangs are involved in other illegal businesses as well, so even if one gang
knew of another that wasnt following the regulations, they would not report for fear of being reported
as well for something else they did was illegal. So if regulation cannot work, then are prop reducing the
drugs violence and STIs at least? NO! The assumption made on STIs was that prostitutes either do not
have access to or are ignorant about facilities that could help them preserve their health. On ignorance
we explained how THAT is the major problem, and that status quo is dealing with it, Prop needed to
show how they are going to educate people better than now which they failed to do. As for the
accessibility, we explained how South Africa (which seemed to be their prominent example) is
extremely advanced in dealing with HIV; they have education programs, free ARVs, free condom
dispensers at convenient locations, so obviously if a prostitute wanted a condom they could get one. If
they need to get tested (which the government already encourages) they can do so for free, so seeing as
they cannot enforce their regulations and all the precautions they are taking already exist in status quo, it
is clear that the proposal will have none of its alleged benefits

No it wouldn't
Even if prostitution got legalized people would still feel the need to do it underground or without the
legal process going on making it just as easy to continue to spread diseases such as HIV/AIDS. I think
people in the company would still spread it as well as not everyone shows signs

This Wouldn't Reduce HIV/AIDS

HIV/AIDS is passed through bodily fluids, blood, open wounds and the like. Legalizing prostitution
would more than likely make some people more likely to utilize the service, so that would lead to an
increase in sex, to a degree. Since the rate of encounters go up, I would say the chances of contracting an
STD, or namely HIV is probably more likely, than less likely

Legalizing Prostitution Spreads Disease

Legalizing prostitution only spreads diseases even more than before! It puts young women at risk for
pregnancy and if they have even more unprotected sex then HIV/AIDS will only get worse. Legalizing
prostitution is not an option in the United States as the blackmarket sex trade will get even worse than it
already is now.

NO!
Within 4-6 weeks an HIV/AIDS tests will come back negative. Until the HIV/AIDS test comes back
positive the infected will continue to spread. With the continuous spreading the demand for a cure will
increase; however, a cure has not been found yet. How will we eliminate HIV/AIDS if it becomes a
world wide epidemic?

I don't think so.

To me it doesn't seem like that would affect the spread of HIV and AIDS at all. There would be
guidelines and rules but there would still be people out doing it illegally to escape those rules. Plus who
wants to go to a legal prostitute? Most of the people who go to prostitutes are in relationships and they
would be more likely to get caught if they went to a legal institution. This question is kind of irrelevant
anyway though. Prostitution will never be legalized. It is just wrong

OF COURSE NOT.
If prostitution was legalised then it would encourage more people to do it. If more people are having sex
than the risk of HIV/AIDS is increased. Also, what happens if teenagers start doing it?

Sekilas mungkin memang kebijakan lokalisasi tempat protistusi sebagai jalan keluar atas permasalahan
sosial ini, karena dengan adanya lokalisasi maka terpusatlah semua kegiatan protistusi di satu titik atau
di satu tempat sehingga Pemerintah dapat mengontrol dengan baik dan juga dapat melakukan
pengawasan terhadap kegiatan tersebut. Tapi apakah ini suatu solusi ??
Jika melihat lebih kedalam lagi, permasalahan protistuti ini tidak semudah yang di ucapkan Ahok.
Apalagi dengan wacananya untuk melegalisasi dan memberikan sertifkat untuk para PSK tersebut
dengan melokalisasinya. Seharusnya pemda dalam hal ini Ahok selaku Gubernur untuk mencari solusi
lain daripada sekedar melegalkan protistusi ini. Permasalahan protistusi ini harus di lihat dari hulu
hingga hilir nya agar bisa melihat lebih dalam permasalahan ini, bagaimana para psk bisa masuk ke
dalam dunia ini dan juga bagaimana bisnis ini dijalankan. Dahulu mungkin para psk ini terjun dalam
dunia protistusi karena faktor ekonomi tapi faktor tersebut bukan satu-satunya ada banyak faktor bisa
human trafficking dll, bahkan saat ini banyak psk yang terjun ke dunia ini karena faktor life style atau
gaya hidup. Life style yang berkembang saat ini yang mengagungkan materi dan penampilan, memaksa
para psk untuk mengikutinya dengan melakukan jalan pintas dengan cara menjual diri mereka. Life style
ini banyak di pengaruhi oleh perkembangan zaman, arus informasi yang begitu cepat, tayangantayangan di televisi yang mempertontonkan sikap hedonisme dan juga perubahan sikap dan perilaku
masyarakat yang egoistik dan tidak memperdulikan lingkungan sekitar. Dan juga bisnis protistusi ini
yang mempunyai omset yang sangat menggiurkan dan juga becking dari aparat serta pejabat dalam
melindungi bisnis ini dan juga jaringan internasional dari bisnis ini. Ini seharusnya yang di carikan
solusinya oleh Pemda dan juga peran serta dari masyarakat karena ini menyangkut kesadaran dan
kepedulian dari masyarakat akan lingkungan sekitarnya.
Belum lagi wacana Pemda untuk memberikan sertifikat kepada PSK seperti di Negara lain. Mungkin ini
wacana yang sangat menggelikan, bagaimana bisa dilakukan sertifikasi untuk psk jika banyak bidang
profesi lain dan malah lebih penting untuk sertifikasi malah tidak di lakukan. Gubernur bilang ini
mengikuti cara Negara lain, mengapa tidak mengikuti hal-hal lain daripada mengikuti hal semacam ini.
Banyak hal-hal positif dari Negara lain yang patut di contoh dan di aplikasikan disini tapi bukan
sertifikasi psk ini yang harus di contoh, disitu kadang saya merasa sedih.
Begitu kompleksnya permasalahan ini maka solusinya bukan dengan melegalisasi serta sertifikasi PSK
dan dengan melokasisasikannya. Tapi dengan edukasi, peningkatan kesejahteraan dan ketegasan para
penegak hokum serta yang lebih penting lagi adalah pemahaman agama kepada masyarakat.
Jadi legalisasi dan sertifikasi PSK adalah kemunduran moral maka dari itu harus dilawan
Prostitusi adalah perbuatan yang melanggar hukum, jadi harus ditindak sesuai dengan hukum yang
berlaku, ujarnya.
Dalam pasal 296 KUHP, kata dia, jelas disebutkan adanya sanksi bagi siapa saja yang dengan sengaja
menyebabkan atau memudahkan perbuatan cabul oleh orang lain dengan orang lain, serta
menjadikannya sebagai pencarian atau kebiasaan.
Menurut lembaga pejuang hak-hak perempuan Women's Justice Center, kebijakan ini membuat
prostitusi di Swedia, khususnya di ibukota Stockholm berkurang hingga dua pertiga dalam waktu hanya
lima tahun. Jumlah pria hidung belang yang menyewa jasa PSK berkurang hingga 80 persen.Pengguna
jasa pekerja seks melakukan tindak kriminal, dan penjaja seks bukan tindakan kriminal. Tidak berhenti
sampai di situ. UU ini juga mengatur soal bantuan dana sosial untuk membantu para pekerja seks yang
ingin berhenti menjajakan tubuhnya. Selain itu, tersedia juga dana bagi sosialisasi dan pendidikan bagi
masyarakat soal undang-undang ini.
Sebuah studi yang dilakukan University of London di Inggris pada 2013 menunjukkan bahwa cara
kriminalisasi pengguna jasa PSK yang diterapkan Swedia lebih manjur mengurangi penyakit masyarakat

ketimbang melegalisasi prostitusi seperti yang dilakukan Australia, Belanda dan Irlandia.
ebuah studi yang dilakukan University of London di Inggris pada 2013 menunjukkan bahwa cara
kriminalisasi pengguna jasa PSK yang diterapkan Swedia lebih manjur mengurangi penyakit masyarakat
ketimbang melegalisasi prostitusi seperti yang dilakukan Australia, Belanda dan Irlandia.
Dalam studi tersebut, legalisasi prostitusi malah justru menyuburkan praktik ini dan memicu berbagai
masalah baru.
Ambil contoh negara bagian Victoria di Australia yang melegakan rumah bordil. Hukum ini memicu
semakin banyaknya rumah bordil di Victoria sehingga tidak bisa lagi dikendalikan. Berbagai masalah
baru muncul, seperti kejahatan terorganisir, korupsi dan berbagai tindak kriminal lainnya.
Survei dalam studi juga menunjukkan bahwa legalisasi prostitusi juga membuat para pekerja seks
merasa tidak aman dan dipaksa melakukan pekerjaan ini.
Sebanyak 79 persen PSK di Belanda mengaku ingin meninggalkan pekerjaan ini. Namun program
rehabilitasi yang dijanjikan Belanda terbukti tidak terealisasi. Sementara di Swedia, 60 persen PSK yang
bertaubat telah difasilitasi melalui program yang didanai pemerintah dan berhasil mengeluarkan mereka
dari bisnis hitam tersebut.
Namun Women's Justice Center menggarisbawahi bahwa tidak semua negara yang menerapkan
peraturan serupa bisa sesukses Swedia.
"Agar para penjaja seks bisa diposisikan sebagai korban kekerasan pria, maka pemerintah harus lebih
dulu mengubah sudut pandang prostitusi dari sudut pandang pria ke sudut pandang wanita," ujar
lembaga pelindung wanita dari Amerika Latin ini. (den)

4. THBT lethal injection is the best

solution for the poor prognoses
patient
If we assume that every human being born into this world has a "right to life," then it logically follows that
every human being has a right to end their life (or a "right to die"). Because death is a part of life, a person's
right to life logically assumes a right to not have that life. Thus, any law upholding a person's right to life has
inherent within that same law a person's right to die, otherwise it would not be a right to life in the true sense of
the term. But there is a legal battle going on in America right now over whether or not a person has a right to die
(i.e., a right to life). In the case of Terri Schiavo, a woman who has been kept alive artificially for the past 13
years even though she is in a "persistent vegetative state" (i.e., a condition in which a person is technically alive
but brain dead), the government stepped in to deny Terri the "death with dignity" sought by her husband in
accordance with Terri's wishes. Does the government have the right to prolong your life by artificial means
whether you desire it or not?
Terri Schiavo has spent the past 13 years in a hospital bed, the tragic victim of massive cardiac arrest at age 26.
When her husband Michael looks at her, he sees his wife being kept alive artificially in what doctors call a
"persistent vegetative state," against her wishes and with no hope for recovery. By contrast, when her parents,
Bob and Mary Schindler, look at her, they see their daughter lying motionless but aware, silent but emotionally
responsive, a testament to the endurance and sanctity of human life.
"Our biggest concern is that in a case like this, it needs to be 100 percent clear that there is no hope for recovery
and that this is what the patient would have wanted. There's just too much uncertainty here." But doctors
appointed by the courts and by Bush have found no possibility that Terri's condition will improve and question
the credibility of the doctors hired by Terri's parents,
In the 1997 case of Washington v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court ruled that the terminally ill do not have a
constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide and that states can craft their own physician-assisted suicide
laws. Oregon has taken the lead in doing so, its citizens voting in 1994 and again in 1997 to approve the Death
with Dignity Act, which allows physicians to prescribe lethal drugs to terminally ill patients. More than 70
terminally ill Oregonians have made use of the law, which has survived numerous legal challenges
Nevertheless, life is a personal responsibility and we know some people are so tormented that they cannot bear
to live. In such circumstances, understanding is called for.

it is generally taken nowadays to mean taking action to achieve a good death. Suicide, self-deliverance, autoeuthanasia, aid-in-dying, assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, physician-assisted dying - call it what you
like - can be justified by the average supporter of the right to die movement for the following reasons:
a. Advanced terminal illness that is causing unbearable suffering - combined physical and psychic -- to the
individual despite good medical care. This is the most common reason to seek an early end. (And as Oregon
research has shown, being a burden to others is an additional factor.)
b. Total loss of quality of life due to protracted, incurable medical conditions.
c. Grave physical handicap which is so restricting that the individual cannot, even after due consideration,
counseling and re-training, tolerate such a limited existence. This is a fairly rare reason for suicide -- most
impaired people cope remarkably well with their afflictions -- but there are some disabled who would, at a
certain point, rather die.
The Ethical Parameters for Voluntary Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide
a. The person is a mature adult. This is essential. The exact age will depend on the individual but the person
should not be a minor, who comes under quite different laws.
b. The person has clearly made a considered and informed decision. An individual has the ability nowadays to
indicate this with a "Living Will" (which applies only to disconnection of life supports) and can also, in today's
more open and tolerant climate about such actions, discuss the option of a hastened death with health
professionals, family, lawyers, etc. But they may not demand it.
c. The euthanasia has not been carried out at the first knowledge of a life-threatening illness, and reasonable
medical help has been sought to try to cure or at least slow down the disease. The pro-choice movement does
not believe in giving up on life the minute a person is informed of a terminal illness, a common misconception
spread by our critics. Life is precious, you only pass this way once, and is worth a fight. It is when the fight is
clearly hopeless and the agony - physical and mental - is unbearable that a final exit is an option.
d. The treating physician has been informed, asked to be involved, and the response taken into account. What
the physician's response will be depends on the circumstances, of course, but we advise people that as rational
suicide is not a crime, there is nothing a doctor can do about it. But it is best to inform the doctor and listen to
the response. For example, the patient might be mistaken - perhaps the diagnosis has been misheard or
misunderstood. In the last century, patients raising this subject were usually met with a discreet silence, or
meaningless remarks, but in this century's more accepting climate of personal freedoms most physicians will
discuss potential end of life actions, however cautiously.
e. The person has made a Will disposing of worldly possessions and money. This shows evidence of a tidy
mind, an orderly life, and forethought -- all something which is paramount to an acceptance of rational suicide.
f. The person has made plans to exit that do not involve others in criminal liability or leave them with guilt
feelings. As I have mentioned earlier, assistance in suicide is a crime in most places, although the application of
the law is growing more tolerant. Few cases actually come to court. But care must still be taken and discretion
is the watchword.
g. The person leaves a note saying exactly why he or she is taking their life. This statement in writing obviates
the chance of subsequent misunderstandings or blame. It also demonstrates that the departing person is taking
full responsibility for the action. If the aim is to attempt to allow the death to be seen as 'natural' and not suicide,
this note should be kept in a private, secure place and only shown later if necessary
Lethal injection introduces a few particular complications. The drugs chosen for their lethality are not
often used on human beings, and application is somewhat poorly understood. (Stephanie Mencimer of Mother
Jones detailed some of these difficulties in a prescient piece published just before Oklahoma tried to execute
Lockett last week.) States have had special trouble with condemned men who are obese, or heroin addicts or
others on whom it is tricky to find a vein. Executions have been extremely prolonged because prison staff tied
an arm strap too tightly, cutting off circulation and keeping drugs from moving throughout the body, or because
it took an hour to find a vein; in 2009, the state of Ohio tried to execute a man named Romell Broom, and over
the course of two hours officials stuck him 18 times in the legs and arms, unsuccessfully. At several points,
Broom tried to help them, though that didn't work either. After two hours, the prison officials decided to
regroup, and phoned the governor to ask him to delay the execution by a few days. He agreed. Then there were
legal challenges about the ethics of condemning someone to a second execution after the state had failed to
carry out the first. More than four years later, Broom is still on death row
Dr. Jack Kevorkian was guilty in law but morally innocent (in my view) of helping a terminal man to die by
lethal injection. A Michigan jury found him guilty of second-degree murder and he was jailed for 10-25 years.

In recent years two spouses in New York State have been imprisoned for assisting their sick wives to die.
Euthanasia is the deliberate advancement of a person's death for the benefit of that person. In most cases
euthanasia is carried out because the person asks to die, but there are cases where a person can't make such a
request.
A person who undergoes euthanasia is usually terminally ill.Euthanasia can be carried out either by doing
something, such as administering a lethal injection, or by not doing something necessary to keep the person
alive (for example failing to keep their feeding tube going).

5. THW ban surrogate mother in the

case of in vitro fertilization
The ever-rising prevalence of infertility world over has lead to advancement of assisted reproductive
techniques (ART). Herein, surrogacy comes as an alternative when the infertile woman or couple is
not able to reproduce. Surrogacy is an arrangement where a surrogate mother bears and delivers a
child for another couple or person. In gestational surrogacy, an embryo, which is fertilized by in
vitro fertilization, is implanted into the uterus of the surrogate mother who carries and delivers the
baby. In traditional surrogacy, the surrogate mother is impregnated with the sperms of the intended
father artificially, thus making her both genetic and gestational mother. Surrogacy may be
commercial or altruistic, depending upon whether the surrogate receives financial reward for her
pregnancy.
Commercial surrogacy is legal in India,(1) Ukraine, and California while it is illegal in England,
many states of United States, and in Australia, which recognize only altruistic surrogacy. In contrast,
countries like Germany, Sweden, Norway, and Italy do not recognize any surrogacy agreements.
India has become a favorite destination of fertility tourism. Each year, couples from abroad are
attracted to India by so-called surrogacy agencies because cost of the whole procedure in India is as
less as one third of what it is in United States and United Kingdom (10-20 lakhs)
Surrogate motherhood is one of many currently available forms of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs)
that have developed in response to the increasing number of individuals/couples who find themselves unable to
conceive a child on their own. Surrogate motherhood involves the services of a woman who agrees to
carry/gestate a child for the express purpose of surrendering that child to the intending/commissioning couple
upon the birth of the child. The demand for surrogate motherhood is created by a diagnosis of female infertility,
although a woman need not be infertile in order to employ the services of a surrogate. Factors that have
contributed to the popularization of surrogate motherhood and other reproductive technologies are both medical
and social in nature. In the United States there are reportedly two to three million infertile couples (Office of
Technology Assessment 1988). A diagnosis of infertility is defined as the inability of a heterosexual couple to
produce a pregnancy after one year of regular intercourse, that is, unprotected intercourse (Stangel 1979). The
social factors that have contributed to the rise in the rates of infertility and that have resulted in an increase in
the demand for reproductive technologies are the trend toward later marriages and the tendency for growing
numbers of women to delay having children until later in their reproductive years. With advances in
reproductive medicine, couples who would not have been able to reproduce in the past are now able to have
children who are completely or partially genetically related to them.
Approximately 35 percent of couples who choose surrogacy have either attempted or considered adoption
(Ragon 1994). The majority of those who eventually choose surrogacy view the adoption process as one that is
riddled with problems and that has been, in most cases, unable to provide them with a suitable child (Ragon
2000). For example, in 1983, 50,000 adoptions were completed in the United States, but an estimated two
million couples were still seeking to adopt (Office of Technology Assessment 1988).

Some of the features of proposed bill are that an authority at

national and state level should be constituted to register and
regulate the I.V.F. clinics and A.R.T centers, and a forum should be
created to file complaints for grievances against clinics and ART
centers. The age of the surrogate mother should be 21-35 years,
and she should not have delivered more than 5 times including her
own children. Surrogate mother would not be allowed to undergo
embryo transfer more than 3 times for the same couple. If the
surrogate is a married woman, the consent of her spouse would be
required before she may act as surrogate to prevent any legal or
marital dispute. A surrogate should be screened for STD,
communicable diseases and should not have received blood
transfusion in last 6 month as these may have an adverse bearing
on the pregnancy outcome. All the expenses including insurance of
surrogate medical bill and other reasonable expenses related to
pregnancy and childbirth should be borne by intended parents. A
surrogacy contract should include life insurance cover for surrogate
mother. The surrogate mother may also receive monetary
compensation from the couple or individual as the case may be for
agreeing to act as such surrogate. It is felt that to save poor
surrogate mothers from exploitation, banks should directly deal
with surrogate mother, and minimal remuneration to be paid to the
surrogate mother should be fixed by law.
The surrogacy arrangement should also provide for financial support for the surrogate child in case the
commissioning couple dies before delivery of the child, or divorce between the intended parents and
subsequent willingness of none to take delivery of the child so as to avoid injustice to the child. A
surrogate mother should not have any parental rights over the child, and the birth certificate of the baby
should bear the names of intended parents as parents in order to avoid any legal complications.
Guidelines dealing with legitimacy of the child born through ART state that the child shall be presumed
to be the legitimate child of the married/unmarried couple/single parent with all the attendant rights of
parentage, support, and inheritance.

I think it is not the right thing to do

There is way to have a baby by IVF; with tube (e.G Louise Brown) apart of surrogate process. Surrogate
is not the right thing to do because vulnerable, poor, people have been used as a commodity for the
wealthy. The reasons why host mother agreed to do this process is poverty. Selling/giving birth to a body
for money doesn't sound right at all no matter if the baby is genetically linked to the host mother. In the
end, how the host mother lives, eats, behaves are all link to a child which they develop linkage between
mom and child. I think surrogate should not be legal

It would not be legal.

I am convinced that a surrogacy is really very controversial issue. On the one hand, it could bring new
faith and hope for the people who can not have children the biological way. On the other hand, it is a
matter of morality. Moreover, there are many question available. Although, there could be an legal
agreement between both sides, you never know the reaction of surrogate mother after the birth of baby
Thai surrogate mother Pattaramon Chanbua holds her baby Gammy, born with Down
Syndrome, in hospital on Aug 4. The Australian biological parents have been accused of
abandoning the baby after learning of its condition
Thai government moves to ban commercial surrogacy in the Southeast Asian countryWhile commercial
surrogacy is illegal in Australia
In Western and South Australia, altruistic surrogacy is legal only for heterosexual couples but illegal for
single people and same-sex couples
The Northern Territory has no law on surrogacy while New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian
Capital Territory have made it an offense for residents to go overseas in search of a commercial
surrogate, with penalties of up to two years in jail.
Under the ethical guidelines laid down by the National Health and Medical Research Council, a
surrogate or donor cannot be paid.
Chapman says most surrogates in Australia tend to be close friends or family members.
He admits that one of the problems with surrogacy is that there is always the possibility of the surrogate

not wanting to hand over the baby once it is born.

As the biological mother, she does have that right unless that right is signed away under a surrogacy
agreement, he says.
While there has been no case in Australia where the surrogate has not given up the child, he adds, it does
happen quite a bit in those states in the United States where surrogacy is legal.
These have ended up in very expensive court cases with the genetic parents the winners, Chapman
says.
But there is a valid case for surrogacy.
There are many women who cannot have babies for one reason or another, he says. Some are either
born without a uterus or have had it removed due to cancer, and there are couples for whom IVF
treatment has not worked, he explains.
Surrogacy then becomes an option, but here in Australia it is fraught with difficulties so people turn
towards Asia or those states in the US where it is legal, says Chapman.
Around 350 Australians have surrogate babies annually and that demand is growing, he adds.
Because state laws have made it difficult, especially for same-sex couples, to have babies through
surrogates, most go overseas.
The Jean Hailes Research Unit at Monash University and Surrogacy Australia found that only 8 percent
of the 259 respondents used surrogacy in Australia.
India and the US were the most common destinations for those who traveled overseas to access
surrogacy.
Study co-author Karin Hammarberg, senior research fellow in the Jean Hailes Research Unit, said there
were multiple reasons Australians were going overseas for surrogacy.
These reasons included not being able to find a surrogate in Australia, concerns that asking a surrogate
to carry a child for no reward is unfair, and concern that the surrogate might keep the child, she said.
Pattaramon was promised 300,000 baht ($9,300) by a surrogacy agency in Bangkok, Thailands capital,
to be a surrogate for the Australian couple, but she has not been fully paid since the children were born
last December.
She said the agency knew about Gammys condition four to five months after she became pregnant but
did not tell her. It wasnt until the seventh month of her pregnancy when the doctors and the agency told
her that one of the twin babies had Down syndrome and suggested that she have an abortion just for
him.
Anti-Surrogacy
Womens reproductive rights have enjoyed a half-century or so of well-defined proponents and
opponents, but the recently flourishing fertility industry, from egg harvesting to surrogacy, has produced
fresh and surprising alliances among former foes.
Feminists, traditionalists, Catholics, evangelicals, ethicists and atheists alike have united to combat what
many convincingly view as the exploitation and commodification of women and the violation of human
rights even as perfect babies and happy families are formed.
Speaking of quagmires.
Latest to the arena is Louisiana, where a pro-surrogacy bill creating a regulatory structure for surrogate
parenting passed both legislative houses with few dissenting votes and now faces a possible veto by
Gov. Bobby Jindal (R). A thumbs-down from Jindal would constitute an act of principled courage, given
widespread public support and lobbying efforts that have included the prominent display of two
beautiful, surrogate-produced children born of the bills chief author, state Sen. Gary Smith.
During his push for the bill, Smith brought his children to the statehouse and circulated photographs of
the two.

Whatever one may feel about Smiths happy family, feel being the operative term, one should also be
aware that not all surrogacy stories are so pretty. There is a dark underbelly to the surrogacy industry
and it is a business including a burgeoning industry that preys on vulnerable women, commodifying
them as ovens, a term Smith himself used. Never mind repercussions for the children themselves, who
may have as many as five parents, from the egg and sperm donors, to the woman who carries them to
the couple or single parent who adopts them.
It isnt necessary to demonize anyone here. It is only fair to assume that people who want a child this
much are good people with the wherewithal to make dreams come true. The women who carry others
babies to term may be acting out of a sense of service or altruism, but the financial incentive cant be
ignored. Surrogacy brokers are wise to their marketplace and specifically target populations that are
likely to be attracted to surrogacy. Almost half the surrogates in this country are military wives,
according to Kathy Sloan, a National Organization for Women board member and surrogacy opponent.
Though laws, where they exist, vary from state to state, advertising in military periodicals and elsewhere
lists requirements that the woman must already be a mom and thus know the ropes, as well as be a
proven breeder. She must be willing to stay in place until the baby is born and, of course, surrender
rights to the child. Although the woman is paid between $25,000 and $50,000 for her surrogacy, the
language of most legislation speaks only to living expenses and coverage of medical bills. Most allow
for termination of pregnancy should some abnormality be discovered pre-term.
In one such case in Connecticut where a fetus was shown to have abnormalities, the surrogate was
offered $10,000 to abort. She declined. Because state law clearly identified the purchasers as the
parents, the surrogate moved to another state, had the baby and placed her in an adoptive home.
The simplicity of the human desire for children notwithstanding, theres nothing simple about the
surrogacy business and we havent scraped the surface of the metaphysical, spiritual, emotional and
psychological issues with which a brief flirtation evokes mind-twisting complexities. Physical concerns,
meanwhile, are plentiful.
This obviously is rich territory for pro-life crusaders for whom compromise on embryos is impossible,
but NOWs Sloan, a pro-choice activist, shares no such concerns. She sees surrogacy only as the
exploitation of vulnerable women. She also sees a variety of class and race issues at play. The rich take
advantage of the poor for designer babies, Caucasian features for carrier preferred.
The United States is second only to India in providing surrogates, according to Sloan, who also works
with the United Nations on human rights. But even India, where some women are warehoused for nine
months and forbidden to leave during the pregnancy, recently has set limits on surrogacy. Here in
America, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) recently vetoed a bill similar to Louisianas upon learning
the darker details behind the family portraits.
While no one wishes to cause pain to people who, for whatever reason, cant have a child on their own,
there are more compelling principles and consequences in play. Human babies are not things; their
mothers are not ovens. But bartering and selling babies-to-order sure make them seem that way. By
turning the miracle of life into a profit-driven, state-regulated industry, the stork begins to resemble a
vulture.

Is Surrogacy Profitable for All?

If we look upon the problem of surrogate mothers, things are even
worse and unethical. The poor, illiterate women of rural background
are often persuaded in such deals by their spouse or middlemen for
earning easy money. These women have no right on decision
regarding their own body and life. In India, there is no provision of
psychological screening or legal counseling, which is mandatory in
USA. After recruitment by commercial agencies, these women are
shifted into hostels for the whole duration of pregnancy on the
pretext of taking antenatal care. The real motive is to guard them
and to avoid any social stigma of being outcast by their community.
These women spend the whole tenure of pregnancy worrying about
their household and children. They are allowed to go out only for
antenatal visits and are allowed to meet their family only on
Sundays. The worst part is that in case of unfavorable outcome of
pregnancy, they are unlikely to be paid, and there is no provision of

insurance or post-pregnancy medical and psychiatric support for

them. Rich career women who do not want to take the trouble of
carrying their own pregnancy are resorting to hiring surrogate
mothers. There are a number of moral and ethical issues regarding
surrogacy, which has become more of a commercial racket, and
there is an urgent need for framing and implementation of laws for
the parents and the surrogate mother.(4)
Surrogacy refers to a contract in which a woman carries a
pregnancy for another couple
Surrogacy leads to a entire minefield of issues
Firstly, surrogacy affirms the argument that children are made commodities by artificial means. No one
can deny the pains of infertility, but surrogacy makes having a child seem as like picking a product. By
bearing a child, one develops obvious emotional connection to it, and this early love for a child cannot
be easily substituted. I believe that if one is to take into account the child's well being, surrogacy can
ensure a lack of early intimacy between mother and child. Legally also surrogacy complicates rights
over the child, which also affirms the view of child commodification. A child is not something that
should ever be fought over, but brought up in a loving and nurturing environment. I don't deny however
the reality that one does not have to give birth to or show any relation to a child to be a great parent. It is
the room for complication that steers me from surrogacy

The reason is Love

If I was the child of a surrogate mother, I would feel sad that my life began as a result of my mother
accepting money rather than a loving act between committed partners. Life should begin as an act of
love not greed or need for money.
I support adopting, through adoption a loving couple can give love to a child who may have otherwise
never experienced that in their childhood.

It is bad emotionally.
The surrogate mother will be attracted to the baby, so she would not in many cases want to give the baby
back to the real mother. Also it costs a lot. It will be bad for the babies of the surrogate mother because
they will be jealous and she won't have enough time to take care of them.

Pro-Surrogacy
I was dismayed by the paternalistic assumptions Kathleen Parker presented in her May 26 op-ed
column, Wombs for rent. It was disappointing to see the women are being exploited arguments
surfacing again, decades after they were first used by anti-surrogacy groups against developments in
assisted-reproduction technology.
Contained in that misconception is the notion that women are too ignorant, ill-informed or otherwise
unable to make rational decisions to be surrogates and to use their minds and bodies to help those who
cannot carry a fetus to term, such as, for example, women who have been struck by cancer or other
disease. The truth is that the vast majority of women who choose to serve as surrogates are intelligent,
well-educated and financially secure; they are caring individuals who want to help others in a unique
and meaningful way.
Most surrogacy arrangements conclude happily with the birth of a healthy child and with all the
participants feeling satisfied with the process and the outcome. Ms. Parkers implication is nonsensical
surrogacy should not be banned; it should be regulated with reasonable medical and legal oversight.
Judith Sperling-Newton, Washington
The writer is director of the American Academy of Assisted Reproductive Technology Attorneys.

Surrogate Mothers
Yes because... No because...

Surrogacy is a way to bring the happiness of parenthood to a

couple who would otherwise not have bee...

Surrogacy is a way to bring the happiness of parenthood to a couple who would otherwise not have been
able to enjoy it, either due to biological circumstances ( for example infertile or same-sex couples ), or
the unavailability of a child for adoption. The joy of parenthood is something that every couple should
be able to experience.
Contrary to the assumptions that underlie the proposition case, parenthood is not a fundamental human
right. Besides, surrogacy is so controversial, and so traumatic for all concerned, that more conventional
methods such as adoption should be used instead. Parents should not put their own desire to be parents
over the possible damage it might cause to the baby.

Surrogate Mothers
Yes because... No because...

There is no need for money payments to ever enter the equation.

Even if commercialisation does occur...
There is no need for money payments to ever enter the equation. Even if commercialisation does occur,
it would be controlled by strict laws and regulated by independent bodies, as is currently the case in the
US. If standard charges were fixed there would simply be no room for a market to develop, thus
ensuring that all had access to a surrogate if they wanted.
Surrogacy will eventually and inevitably become commercialised, with mothers hiring out their wombs
to the highest bidder. Even if charges are standardised, the high level of such a fee will still ena that the
rich are more likely to benefit than the poor, as they are more likely to be able to afford the cost. No case
of parenthood should simply be decided by financial factors.

Surrogate Mothers
Yes because... No because...

However, surrogacy arrangements could easily be made nonfinancial by allowing a friend of the famil...
However, surrogacy arrangements could easily be made non-financial by allowing a friend of the family
to be the surrogate, hence avoiding any legal wrangling after the birth, which can often happen when
strangers are involved. It would also avoid the situation where a child has a stranger as their natural
mother, which has been known to cause them problems.
This arrangement would in fact create more problems than it solved, as such an unofficial arrangement
would be a legal nightmare if the surrogate decided ( as has often happened ) to keep the baby, as she
would of course be the childs legal mother. Important links are formed between mother and baby in the
first nine months, and to forcibly sever these links would be devastating for all concerned. Also, it would
be far more confusing and damaging for the child if their biological mother was someone who from an
early age they had known as a friend of their parents.

Surrogate Mothers
Yes because... No because...

On a practical note, no law against surrogacy could be enforced

properly, but would merely lead to t...
On a practical note, no law against surrogacy could be enforced properly, but would merely lead to the
physical impregnation of the surrogate by the would-be father, rather than a clean surgical procedure
that avoided the emotional problems caused by an actual sexual act between the surrogate and the
would-be father.
Even if there would be problems in enforcing a ban, we should still lay down the law; such an argument
used against, say, growing cannabis at home would not invalidate a ban on drugs. Surrogacy is bad for
both the mother and the child, and is beset by emotional problems for all concerned. Parents should not
put their own interests above their childs.

Surrogate motherhood is a valuable option for parents who cannot

bear children, and a good source of income.
The world is full of couples who want desperately to be parents, but cannot, for physical health reasons,
as well as women who are healthy and capable of childbearing, but in need of some extra income.
Surrogate motherhood is a great way to solve both problems at once. Especially in a time of high
unemployment, it could be a life-saver for some people

6. THW carry on HIV/AIDS test to all of

the foreign tourists
AIDS (Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome) adalah kumpulan gejala penyakit yang timbul akibat
menurunnya kekebalan tubuh. Berkurangnya kekebalan tubuh itu sendiri disebabkan virus HIV (Human
Immunodeficiency Virus). Pada dasarnya, HIV adalah jenis parasit obligat yaitu virus yang hanya dapat
hidup dalam sel atau media hidup. Virus ini "senang" hidup dan berkembang biak pada sel darah putih
manusia. HIV akan ada pada cairan tubuh yang mengandung sel darah putih, seperti darah, cairan
plasenta, air mani atau cairan sperma, cairan sumsum tulang, cairan vagina, air susu ibu dan cairan otak.
Dengan melihat tempat hidup HIV, tentunya bisa diketahui, penularan HIV terjadi kalau ada pencampuran
cairan tubuh yang mengandung HIV, seperti hubungan seks dengan pasangan yang mengidap HIV, jarum
suntik dan alat-alat penusuk (tato, tindik dan cukur) yang tercemar HIV, transfusi darah atau produk
darah yang mengandung HIV dan ibu hamil yang mengidap HIV kepada janin atau bayinya.
Dalam masa sekitar tiga bulan setelah tertular, tubuh penderita belum membentuk antibodi secara
sempurna, sehingga tes darah tidak memperlihatkan orang itu telah tertular HIV. Masa tiga bulan itu
sering disebut dengan masa jendela. Jika tes darah sudah menunjukkan adanya anti bodi HIV dalam
darah, artinya positif HIV, penderita memasuki masa tanpa gejala (5-7 tahun). Tapi, pada masa ini tidak
timbul gejala yang menunjukkan orang itu menderita AIDS, atau dia tetap tampak sehat. Hingga
kemudian, penderita memasuki masa dengan gejala yang sering disebut masa sebagai penderita AIDS.
Gejala AIDS sudah timbul dan biasanya penderita dapat bertahan enam bulan sampai dua tahun dan
kemudian meninggal.]
-biasanya dilakukan dengan cara Elisa Reaktif sebanyak dua kali. Bila hasilnya positif, diperlukan
pemeriksaan lebih lanjut dengan Western Blot atau Immunofluorensensi untuk memastikan adanya HIV di
dalam tubuh.
15 April 1987: Kasus AIDS di Indonesia pertama kali ditemukan. Seorang wisatawan berusia 44 tahun asal
Belanda, Edward Hop, meninggal di Rumah Sakit Sanglah, Bali. Kematian lelaki asing itu disebabkan
AIDS. Hingga akhir 1987, ada enam orang yang didiagnosis HIV positif, dua di antara mereka mengidap
AIDS.

President Obama on Friday announced the end of a 22-year ban on travel to the United States by people who
had tested positive for the virus that causes AIDS, fulfilling a promise he made to gay advocates and acting to
eliminate a restriction he said was rooted in fear rather than fact.Under immigration law, most foreigners with
such a disease cannot travel to the United States. The ban covered both visiting tourists and foreigners seeking
to live in this country.
tiga, banyak sekali muncul pernyataan bahwa HIV/AIDS merupakan penyakit orang bule. Apalagi di Bali
cukup banyak wisatawan asing. Sehingga HIV/AIDS dianggap sebagai akibat dari pengaruh budaya barat yang
dibawa para wisatawan tersebut. Padahal di Amerika saja HIV/AIDS awalnya ditularkan dari Afrika.
Sebernarnya tidak ada hubungannya antara HIV/AIDS dengan orang-orang atau kebudayaan tertentu.
HIV/AIDS juga sering dikaitkan dengan tingginya laju perkembangan di lokasi wisata dan di daerah-daerah
perbatasan. Kalau pun itu benar, harusnya negara lain yang berbatasan juga merasa rentan
tertular HIV/AIDS dari Indonesia. Menurut Danny Yatim, Media and Communications Adviser HIV
cooperation Program for Indonesia (HCPI), kenyataannya justru wisatawan asing sangat aman jika
dibandingkan dengan wisatawan domestik. Karena di negara asalnya sosialisasi tentang HIV/AIDS sudah
sangat baik. Sehingga mereka selalu membekali dirinya dengan kondom
Ia mencontohkan di Arab Saudi yang menjadikan Alquran sebagai UUD sudah dilaporkan lebih dari 15.000
kasus AIDS. Padahal, di Arab Saudi tak ada pelacuran dan hiburan malam. Laki-laki Arab Saudi tertular HIV di
luar negerinya. Nah, ketika mereka pulang ke negaranya tanpa mereka sadari mereka menularkan HIV kepada
istrinya. Hal yang sama terjadi di Aceh, yang sampai hari ini diduga sudah 1000 orang lebih terjangkit virus ini.
alaupun penduduk Provinsi Bali hanya sekitar 3,2 juta jiwa, namun jumlah penderita HIV/AIDS yang terdata hingga akhir September
2008 mencapai 2.323 kasus, menempati posisi kelima terbanyak secara nasional. Jumlah penderita HIV/AIDS di daerah tujuan wisata
internasional ini menempati urutan kelima setelah Jakarta, Jawa Barat, Papua dan Jawa Timur. Gubernur Bali Made Mangku Pastika
di Denpasar, Senin mengatakan, penderita hilangnya kekebalan daya tubuh itu terdiri 1.248 kasus HIV dan 1.075 orang positif AIDS.
59,75 persen akibat melakukan hubungan seks berisiko, yakni berganti-ganti pasangan lawan jenis. Kemudian akibat penggunaan
jarum suntik di kalangan pemakai narkoba 29,19 persen, hubungan seks sesama jenis 5,9 persen, prenatal atau bawaan sejak lahir 1,46
persen dan tidak diketahui 3,75 persen.

In practice, the ban particularly affected tourists and gay men. Waivers were available, but the procedure for
tourists and other short-term visitors who were H.I.V. positive was so complicated that many concluded it was
not worth it.
testing would only help to spread the disease.
Khusus Banda Aceh yang sedang menjalankan Visit Banda Aceh Year 2011, Syaiful bilang, ini tidak ada
pengaruhnya. Turis dari Eropa Barat, Australia dan Amerika Serikat sudah mengetahui cara-cara mencegah
penularan HIV sehingga mereka tidak akan sembarangan melakukan hubungan seksual. Yang menjadi persoalan
adalah penduduk Aceh sendiri, apakah semua orang di Aceh sudah mengetahui cara-cara melindungi diri agar

tidak tertular HIV? Kalau jawabannya belum, maka itu yang menjadi persoalan besar karena akan banyak
penduduk Aceh yang berisiko tertular HIV, jelas Syaiful, mantap.
Violation of human rights: With mandatory testing strategy we are ignoring the basic human rights including
ethical aspects like privacy, confidentiality and ignoring the informed consent. Moreover when the HIV status
of a person becomes public, there is a clear violation of his privacy & confidentiality which he is entitled by the
universal human rights declaration which also includes right to marry & right to find a family.
Hence its not possible at all to prevent transmission of HIV if a person is tested during a phase which falls
under the window period as a positive person will be tested negative.

7. THW ban adoption by unmarried

woman

Are children raised by same-sex couples predisposed to homosexuality?

Are such children more prone to develop psychiatric problems?

Will there be a lack of appropriate role models?

Are the children of same-sex couples subject to stigma and harassment by peers?
Every state in the country currently allows single adults to adopt children. This may be less surprising than the
fact that singles have been legally eligible to adopt since the first adoption laws were passed in the midnineteenth century. Indeed, the spinster who took in children was a staple of Victorian moral fiction and a
recurrent figure in adoption narratives. A fair number of unmarried women (Jessie Taft was one) adopted
children in the early decades of the twentieth century. They often raised children in pairs as well as alone,
illustrating that the vast majority of adoptions by lesbians and gay men have been arranged as single parent
adoptions, whether they actually were or not. But formal legal eligibility did not imply tolerance, let alone
acceptance. Singles were viewed as less desirable parents than married couples. Men were considered far less
desirable than women, if they were considered at all.
To be normal, households had to headed by heterosexual, married, couples who were comfortable with a
division of labor between non-working wives and bread-winning husbands. This ideal made single applicants
for adoption abnormal by definition. If they wanted children so badly, why werent they married? Who would
take care of children whose single mothers worked for a living? What would become of children, especially
boys, who grew up without fathers? In 1958, the adoption standards issued by the Child Welfare League of
America stated simply that adoptive families should include both a mother and a father. No mention was made
of single parents at all.
British career women are increasingly willing to copy American celebrities such as Calista Flockhart and
Michelle Pfeiffer and adopt children to become single mothers, according to research published today.
The survey, for National Adoption Week, also found that married people are no longer the group most likely to
consider adopting. People who cohabit with a partner of the same or the opposite sex are more likely to consider
adopting, as are single people.
There are 5,000 children in care waiting for adoptive parents. The survey showed that nine per cent of
cohabiting couples would consider adopting in future, but only three per cent of married couples. However, five
per cent of all single people would consider adopting. The figure rose to seven per cent among single 25- to 34year-olds.
"The note of warning I would sound from seeing single female celebrities adopt is that a lifestyle which
involves a lot of travelling will mean a lot of upheaval and separation. Most adopted children have come from
the insecurity of the care system and what they need is stability."
The criteria are based on various aspects of the prospective adopting parents: age, fertility status, previous
children, financial status, employment, religion, background, and marital status. All of these are important
issues to consider when placing a child in a new family, however, marital status seems to be the primary focus
of some debate. Concerns over single parent adoptions should be laid to rest by the many benefits singles have
to offer children in need of a home.
One argument against single parent adoptions is that it deprives children of a traditional two-parent family.
Missing a father or a mother would result in emotional and physical problems for the children. One example is a

study recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology was performed by Vanderbilt
University claiming to show that daughters without fathers experience puberty earlier than girls with close,
supportive relationships with two parents (Fox). Supporters of single parent adoption believe that an unstable or
broken home can cause more damage to a child than the lack of an additional parent.
here have been no studies performed to date that show that children adopted by married opposite-sex couples
fare any better than those adopted by any other type of couples. Therefore, based on this, I do support the rights
of unmarried and gay/lesbian couples to be able to adopt children.
Adoption offers a wonderful opportunity for a child in need of a family. This is the focus of the adoption
philosophy.
For parentless children, adoption provides the nurturing, love, and security that all children deserve. More than
just providing a loving and safe environment like fostering children, adoption is a lifetime commitment to the
health and welfare of another human being.
ingle parents adopt for many of the same reasons as married couples. Single parents have the urge to nurture
and raise a child. They seek to have a family unit and share their life with another, just as married couples do.
According to an article from the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, "Because many women have
pursued careers and put off marriage and having children until they are older, they find that they have reached
their thirties, without a husband, but with a compelling desire for a child" (1). The number one reason single
parents want to adopt is the fact that their own childhood was fulfilling and happy and they are ready to share
that experience (Curto 7). Single parents approach adoption with the same commitment and devotion as a married
couple.
With the high divorce rate in this country, single parent adoption provides a much more solid environment: a
home free from the issues of an unstable, broken home and its effects on the child. Single parents are usually of
higher education and have higher incomes in comparison to the country's average. They have concentrated on
their careers and have established a stable home that would benefit a child. Divorced parents are dealing with
emotional and financial stress, which can negatively affect a child. A New York Times article reports that out of
one-fifth of the nation's 51.1 million Caucasian children, over half of the 9.8 million African-American children,
and almost one-third of the 7 million Hispanic children live with one parent due to divorce and unwed mothers
(17)
. With these types of statistics, there is no reason to discriminate against a single person for adopting a child
when she/he is quite capable of providing a stable and nurturing environment.
A single parent can provide a loving and nurturing home for a child. Adoptive singles use family and friends for
extended support. As our former first lady, Hillary Clinton, said, "It takes a village to raise a child." They give
the child their sole attention and all of their love. Financially, they have planned for the future and the majority
of single adoptive parents are settled in their careers. With a large percentage of the population's children living
in a broken home, single parents can provide the emotional, financial and physical support without the damage
of divorce. If a single parent has met all other qualifications other than marriage, then there is not a valid reason
to deny adoption and many reasons to approve.

8. THBT sex education should be

taught at school
Menurut Calderone, pendidikan seks adalah pelajaran untuk menguatkan kehidupan keluarga, untuk
menumbuhkan pemahaman diri dan hormat terhadap diri, untuk mengembangkan kemampuan-kemampuan
bersosialisasi dengan orang lain secara sehat, dan untuk membangun tanggung jawab seksual dan sosial.
b.

Menurut Dr. J. L. Ch. Abineno, pendidikan seks merupakan pendidikan yang diberikan kepada anak

tentang pengetahuan seks dan bagaimana menggunakan seks dalam hidupnya.

c.

Menurut Syamsudin, pendidikan seks adalah sebagai usaha untuk membimbing seseorang agar dapat

mengerti benar-benar tentang arti dan fungsi kehidupan seksnya, sehingga dapat mempergunakannya
dengan baik selama hidupnya.
Adapun kesimpulan dari beberapa definisi di atas, bahwa yang dimaksud dengan pendidikan seks adalah
suatu usaha sadar untuk menyiapkan dan membentuk manusia-manusia dewasa yang dapat menjalankan
kehidupan yang bahagia, dapat mempergunakan fungsi seksnya serta bertanggung jawab baik dari segi
individu, sosial maupun agama.
Kebahagiaan yang dimaksud adalah kemampuan seseorang untuk menyesuaikan dirinya dengan partnernya,
dengan masyarakatnya, dan dengan lingkungannya. Tanggung jawab diartikan sebagai hubungan yang tidak

mempunyai efek yang merugikan bagi dirinya, partnernya, masyarakatnya serta kesadaran mengatur
dorongan seksualnya dengan nilai-nilai moralitas yang berlaku.

Of the states addressing sex education in schools, topics may include:

HIV/AIDS STD-related information

Abstinence

Reproduction, including description of the male and female genitalia

Contraception, including the instruction on the proper use of a condom and diaphragm

Pregnancy and the financial responsibilities of raising a child

Adoption

Sexual orientation
There are several arguments for and against the teaching of sex education in schools. Supporters claim that
exposure to such information, including STDs and the proper use of contraceptives, lowers teen pregnancy and
STD infection rates. In addition, they argue that most teenagers are either already sexually active or are curious
and that many of them are not receiving such information from their parents, claiming public schools are a
proper venue for sex education. As such, these supporters typically favor a more comprehensive approach that
includes detailed description of a female and mail genitals, for example.
Much of the debate today is centered on whether schools should teach abstinence-only or comprehensive sex
education.
taught properly about sex and contraceptives to prevent pregnancy and diseases.
In today's society, there are plenty of students out there that either don't have parents to teach them or could
careless about teaching them, therefore these kids will never learn the ins and outs of being sexually active. The
fact is they have to be taught so why not teach them at school, they're there for eight hours anyways.
If a school doesn't teach about sexual education to their students, who will? Their friends? The media? Some
parents don't even do it because they have no clue on how to do it. Speaking as a teen, it is better that the kids
learn it from a trustworthy institution in a familiar environment like school it.
Do the conservative parents really think that by not talking to their kids about sex will make everything good?
No these kids need educated, mature talks where it can also work as a type of talk that can be leading to
maturity, they need this type of information to be aware of the things they need to wait for and in their most
wreak less behavior, be at least do it safely . Think of the many young women that can be helped out by being
educated in a safe, professional place that can result in them being more educated in this topic to do the right
choices and continue their future without doing very wrong decisions to be weighting them down
Sex ed. Is not only about how to put on a condom it's about teaching the students of today of what kind of forms
of std's and aids their are out there. Looking at some statistics most people under 24 have std's and even most
gynecologist say female teenagers have it so teens today would need sex ed to show them about everyday life
things such std's and aids.
Teaching sex education would have many positive effects. It's not like the educators are promoting sex, they're
informing us about the risks and precautions. It's better to know than be ignorant. There's nothing wrong with
learning about contraceptives and diseases. Nobody wants a STD but yet we as in teenagers don't know because
people think it's wrong for us to know this important information.
Sex education provides Immunization against sexually transmitted diseases and prevents unwanted pregnancy
Point
It was said at the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic that the only vaccination against the virus was
knowledge. Knowledge about what is out there is essential to guarding the self. There are a several of ways in
which this knowledge is essential; finding out about the risks of sex is just one, having accurate information

about the pleasures as well as the risks is another.[1] Knowledge also prevents misinformation.
Young people must be informed about sex, how it works and what the risks associated with it are, and how to
access the risks and the pleasures. When sex is not talked about and kept behind closed doors, young people are
forced often to grope around in the dark, so to speak. This can result in unwanted pregnancies, and even STDs,
some of which can be permanent, a threat to fertility or even life threatening. IT leaves young people confused.
[2]
The state thus owes an obligation to its citizens to prepare them adequately for their interactions in society,
including those of a sexual nature.
A mandatory sex education regime serves as a defence against misinformation about sex. Religious
organizations, most notably in the United States, promote abstinence by lying about the effectiveness of
contraception and about the transmission of STDs.[3] When such activity is not countered by a scientific
explanation of sex and sexual practices a culture of ignorance develops that can have serious negative social and
health effects on those who are misinformed. An example of the benefits of sex education is highlighted in the
case of the United States. In primarily liberal states where sex education is mandatory, young people are
statistically more likely to be sexually active. At the same time in states where sex education is banned or
deliberately misleading, teen pregnancy rates are much higher.[4] Clearly the trade-off between high promiscuity
rates on the one hand and much higher rates of teen pregnancy and STDs on the other stands in the favour of
sex education.
Young people live now in a society which is very sexualised[5] it has been described as a carnal jungle. Adults
need to offer guidance about negotiating a way through the messages about sex which proliferate in the mass
media and consumer culture.[6] Underlying this discussion is controversy about what sex education should be.
Sex education has become a shorthand term for the broader subject of personal relationships , sexual health and
education about sexuality[7] it is clear that views about what sex education should be and what it should contain
has changed significantly over time.[8]
High quality sex education should not only contain factual information about the physiological issues of sexual
development and reproduction. It should also offer safe spaces for young people to consider the social and
emotional aspects of sexuality and the social and peer pressures that arise in youth cultures.
Counterpoint
Sex education is not necessary to protect children from disease and unwanted pregnancy. Young people can be
informed of the dangers of sex without sex education. Besides, if enough people are versed extensively in sex
education they should provide sufficient herd immunity that the minority who object on ethical grounds can
abstain from sex education without negatively effecting the overall amount of safe sexual practices in a society.
A safe framework for understanding sexuality and sexual identity are essential to human existence
Point
Sex and sexual identity is fundamental part of human life. Sexual desire, for both procreation and recreation,
forms one of the core human drives that shapes behaviour.[1] Young people want to explore their own, and one
anothers, bodies from quite an early age, long before they would be likely to settle down and get married. Sex
for almost everyone in Western countries is not something exclusive to marriage, and most people have multiple
sexual partners in their lifetimes. In order to face this reality, young people must be armed with the knowledge
of what sexual intercourse entails and the pleasures and the risks inherent in it.[2] Sexual identity itself can be
very confusing, especially for young homosexual or transgender people who may not understand their sexuality.
A safe, objective environment in which the objective physical facts and the emotional aspects of sexual
involvement and activity is provided is essential to facilitate young people to come to grips with sexual
identity as it is essential for full development as a person
Counterpoint
Sexual identity is confusing in any situation. It becomes even more confusing when one is exposed to sex
education and the broad spectrum of sexual preference and practice before one is emotionally equipped to
understand and appreciate it. Understanding ones sexual identity is an exploration that must be pursued at ones
own pace, not at the rate mandated from the state or school. Children mature physically and emotionally at very
different rates and mandatory sex education which offers the information and the emotional guidance at the
same rate to everyone is not well tailored to the different development rates.[1]
Parents cannot be guaranteed to provide a suitable amount of sex education
Point
Parents have a great deal of responsibility in raising children, but they are unsuited to teaching about sexuality
as the resulting education will not be consistent, be biased and in some cases may not be carried out at all.
Parents tend to view their children as less sexualized; they want them to be innocent. Thus it is often the case
that parents seek to shield their children from the realities of sex, and themselves from the young persons

developing sexuality maintaining their innocence through enforced ignorance. This tends to be particularly
harmful to young women, as culturally boys are often expected to be more sexually active than girls, and such
activity is usually considered appropriate for boys, while not so for girls. A double standard undoubtedly
continues to exist.[1] It is in the interest of the state, however, to produce well-rounded individuals who can
interact with society effectively on all levels, including the sexual level. When parents do not provide adequate
sex education, it is the state that is forced to pick up the tab to pay for STD treatment and teen mothers. People
dropping out of school due to pregnancy, and individuals who are unable to work due to debilitating venereal
disease impose a steep cost on society. It is thus the states duty to provide what parents often cannot for the
sake of society as a whole.[2]
Leaving sex education in the hands of parents has the further negative impact of normalizing incorrect or
bigoted views regarding sexuality. Homophobic families, for example, will not be able to provide the necessary
information to homosexual children, who will suffer not only from lack of education, but also from a lack of
sexual self-worth.[3] Mandatory sex education can right the wrongs of such
Counterpoint
Parents know their children better than anyone. They know what s/he is like, and in what environment s/he will
grow up and often live. The state is not infallible and its decisions are not purely objective. When children are
not adequately mature for sex education, parents must have the ability to make the decision on their behalf to
withhold information that could be potentially damaging to their future development. As to homophobic or
bigoted families, such views are considered to be socially acceptable insofar as people have the right to express
such views. This does not, however, give parents license to abuse their children if they have alternative sexual
preferences. Sex education is not necessary to ensure against abuse, that is the purview of law enforcement.

Even religious and conservative communities will benefit from mandatory sex education
Point
Communities and organizations that oppose sex education can actually benefit from it. Unfortunately this is
often not appreciated by the communities involved. One argument is that shielding children from knowledge of
sex and sexual practice is disrespectful to religion. Religious and moral abstinence is defined by the decision
not to have sex, not by the absence of knowledge of the existence of sex itself. Sex education can even be
beneficial to understanding the religious and ethical perspective toward sexuality when it provides necessary
discussion of the emotional aspects of sexuality.[1] Information simply allows people to make fuller, informed
decisions.[2] Sex education does not serve to normalize sexual activity and lewd behavior, as religious groups
fear, because everything in life is already sexualized. One need only watch a typical perfume ad on television to
know that sexuality inculcates popular culture already. Sex education would not lift the scales from the eyes of
children entirely; they already have some idea of what is going on. The danger is when they know something
about sex, but not enough to be safe. That is why mandatory sex education is essential to peoples wellbeing.
The research evidence from across the world is clear that sex education holds back the age of first intercourse
and most certainly does not foster early promiscuity.[3] The abstinence programmes that have been developed in
the united states in particular have been spectacularly unsuccessful in reducing rates of sexual exploration and
STD and unwanted pregnancy rates.[4] Research has made it clear which kinds of sex education are most
effective.[5]
Counterpoint
Sex education does not benefit conservative communities as sex education is not simply a provider of
information. Rather, it entails at best an acknowledgement that kids will have sex regardless of what they are
told, and at worst a positive endorsement of sexual activity. It is a shameful abrogation of responsibility on the
part of adults to essentially allow children to make bad decisions. Sex education encourages students to make a
choice, meaning more will make the wrong one.[1] Teaching children about sex will necessarily make them more
prone to experimentation, and will likely cause them to view their peers in school in a sexualized context,
leading to less focus in the classroom on study, and more on sex. Conservative and religious households have
every reason to fear such developments.
dakan laki-laki dan perempuan secara biologis. Sementara, seksualitas menyangkut beberapa hal antara lain :

Dimensi biologis yaitu berkaitan dengan organ reproduksi, cara merawat kebersihan dan kesehatan.

Dimensi psikologis seksualitas berkaitan dengan identitas peran jenis, perasaan terhadap seksualitas
dan bagaimana menjalankan fungsinya sebagai makhluk seksual.

Dimensi sosial berkaitan dengan bagaimana seksualitas muncul dalam relasi antar-manusia serta
bagaimana lingkungan berpengaruh dalam pembentukan pandangan mengenai seksualitas dan pilihan
perilaku seks.

Dimensi kultural menunjukkan bahwa perilaku seks itu merupakan bagian dari budaya yang ada di
masyarakat.
BEBERAPA FAKTA YANG MENGKHAWATIRKAN !

Dewasa ini, kehidupan seks bebas telah merebak ke kalangan kehidupan remaja dan anak. Hal ini dapat kita
simak melalui penuturan yang disampaikan oleh Mestika (1996) yang merangkum hasil penelitian para
pengamat masalah sosial remaja di beberapa kota besar. Hasil penelitian tersebut antara lain: Sarwono (1970)
meneliti 117 remaja di Jakarta dan menemukan bahwa 4,1% pernah melakukan hubungan seks. Beberapa tahun
kemudian, Eko (1983) meneliti 461 remaja, dan dari penelitian ini diperoleh data bahwa 8,2% di antaranya
pernah melakukan hubungan seks dan 10% di antaranya menganggap bahwa hubungan seks pranikah adalah
wajar.
Di Semarang, Satoto (1992) mengadakan penelitian terhadap 1086 responden pelajar SMP-SMU dan
menemukan data bahwa 4,1% remaja putra dan 5,1% remaja putri pernah melakukan hubungan seks. Pada
tahun yang sama Tjitarra mensurvei 205 remaja yang hamil tanpa dikehendaki. Survei yang dilakukan Tjitarra
juga memaparkan bahwa mayoritas dari mereka berpendidikan SMA ke atas, 23% di antaranya berusia 15 20
tahun, dan 77% berusia 20 25 tahun.
Selain kehidupan seks bebas, kejahatan seks terhadap anak-anak saat ini ternyata tidak saja dilakukan oleh
orang-orang yang tidak dikenal oleh korbannya. Dalam beberapa kasus yang terjadi, kejahatan seks justru
dilakukan oleh orang-orang yang dekat dengan kehidupan anak.
Data yang ada mengenai kejahatan seks, selama tahun 1995 terjadi 12 kasus kejahatan seks yang dilakukan oleh
orang tua kandung maupun tiri, 7 kasus dilakukan oleh saudaranya, 4 kasus oleh guru dan oleh teman atau
kenalan sebanyak 49 kasus. Keadaan seperti itu jelas sangat memperhatikan.
Kehidupan seks bebas dan kejahatan yang terjadi belakangan ini adalah hal-hal yang perlu diketahui oleh
remaja agar mereka dapat mengantisipasi dan mengatasi masalah tersebut. Remaja masa kini perlu disadarkan
akan perlunya sikap menghargai dan bertanggung jawab terhadap diri mereka sendiri dan lingkungannya demi
masa depan yang cerah.
Remaja juga perlu ditumbuhkan kesadaran akan perlunya suatu sikap menghargai dan tanggung jawab terhadap
dirinya dan lingkungan melalui informasi tentang hakikat seksualitas pada diri mereka dan pada diri manusia
pada umumnya secara benar. Informasi yang benar tersebut dapat diberikan melalui pendidikan seks.
Pendidikan seks ini dapat diberikan oleh orang tua ataupun oleh pihak sekolah.

PENDIDIKAN SEKS = VULGAR = TABU ???

Pendidikan seks atau pendidikan mengenai kesehatan reproduksi (kespro) atau istilah kerennya sex education
sudah seharusnya diberikan kepada anak-anak yang sudah beranjak dewasa atau remaja, baik melalui
pendidikan formal maupun informal. Ini penting untuk mencegah biasnya pendidikan seks maupun pengetahuan
tentang kesehatan reproduksi di kalangan remaja. Materi pendidikan seks bagi para remaja ini terutama
ditekankan tentang upaya untuk mengusahakan dan merumuskan perawatan kesehatan seksual dan reproduksi
serta menyediakan informasi yang komprehensif termasuk bagi para remaja.
Meninjau berbagai fenomena yang terjadi di Indonesia, agaknya masih timbul pro-kontra di masyarakat,
lantaran adanya anggapan bahwa membicarakan seks adalah hal yang tabu dan pendidikan seks akan
mendorong remaja untuk berhubungan seks. Sebagian besar masyarakat masih memandang pendidikan seks
seolah sebagai suatu hal yang vulgar.
Berdasarkan sudut pandang psikologis, pendidikan seksual sangat diperlukan bagi perkembangan remaja,
dengan harapan agar remaja tidak memiliki kesalahan persepsi terhadap seksualitas dan tidak terjebak pada
perilaku-perilaku yang kurang bertanggungjawab baik dari segi kesehatan maupun psikologis.
Pendidikan seks yang dilakukan sejak dini dapat menekan laju angka penderita penyakit kelamin, AIDS dan
aborsi yang dilakukan kalangan remaja. Bahkan juga bisa mencegah terjadinya perilaku penyimpangan seks.
Materi pendidikan seks tidak perlu ditutup-tutupi, karena akan menjadikan siswa bertambah penasaran dan
ingin mencobanya. Namun, perlu juga disertai penjelasan akibat seks itu sendiri.
PENTING KAH PENDIDIKAN SEKS ??
Ada dua faktor mengapa sex education sangat penting bagi remaja. Faktor pertama adalah di mana anak-anak

tumbuh menjadi remaja, mereka belum paham dengan sex education, sebab orang tua masih menganggap
bahwa membicarakan mengenai seks adalah hal yang tabu. Sehingga dari ketidakpahaman tersebut para remaja
merasa tidak bertanggungjawab dengan seks atau kesehatan anatomi reproduksinya.
Faktor kedua, dari ketidakpahaman remaja tentang seks dan kesehatan anatomi reproduksi mereka, di
lingkungan sosial masyarakat, banyak yang menawarkan hanya sebatas komoditi, seperti media-media yang
menyajikan hal-hal yang bersifat pornografi, antara lain DVD, majalah, internet, bahkan tayangan televisi pun
saat ini sudah mengarah kepada hal yang seperti itu. Dampak dari ketidakpahaman remaja tentang sex
education ini, banyak hal-hal negatif terjadi, seperti tingginya hubungan seks di luar nikah, kehamilan yang
tidak diinginkan, penularan virus HIV/AIDS dan sebagainya.
Dengan belajar tentang sex education, diharapkan remaja dapat menjaga organ-organ reproduksi pada tubuh
mereka dan orang lain tidak boleh menyentuh organ reproduksinya khususnya bagi remaja putri.
BAGAIMANA CARA PENYAMPAIAN PENDIDIKAN SEKS YANG TEPAT ?
Belajar tentang seks berbeda dengan kita belajar tentang keterampilan yang lain. Misalnya kita belajar renang
agar mengetahui tentang teknik berenang yang baik, namun belajar tentang seks bukanlah belajar bagaimana
aktivitas seks yang baik, melainkan apa yang akan timbul atau dampak dari aktivitas seks tersebut.
Pembekalan tentang seks ini penting dan perlu sekali. Pengenalan atau pendidikan tentang seks, bisa dimulai
dengan berdiskusi langsung tentang kesehatan reproduksi. Dengan cara yang lebih akrab atau curhat, mungkin
siswa pun tidak perlu malu-malu lagi. Bisa juga dengan seringnya membuat sebuah seminar tentang seks
dengan mengundang pakar yang bisa menjelaskan lebih detil lagi. Misalnya dokter atau psikolog, yang cakap
dan paham dalam urusan gaya hidup remaja dan kesehatan reproduksi.
Ada beberapa sekolah yang sudah memberikan pelajaran tentang sex education yang disisipkan ke dalam
pelajaran Biologi, Agama dan Bimbingan Konseling. Namun hanya mendapat bekal dari sekolah tentu tidak
cukup. Komunikasi dari orang tua dan anak pun juga diperlukan. Dapat dikatakan bahwa tidak banyak remaja
yang berani cerita tentang first kiss-nya ke ibu mereka. Kalau kita tanya di mana mereka bisa tahu tentang Love,
Sex, and Dating, banyak yang menjawab bahwa mereka memperolehnya dari teman.
Sepertinya tidak hanya remaja saja yang berhak mendapatkan pengetahuan tentang seks dan gaya hidup remaja
saat ini. Orangtua pun mesti mendapatkan pengetahuan tentang gaya hidup remaja saat ini, hal-hal apa saja
yang sedang trend di kalangan remaja, sehingga dapat terjalin komunikasi yang terbuka antara orangtua dan
anak. Karena bukan tidak mungkin, mereka yang tidak dekat atau jauh dari kontrol orang tualah yang lebih
sering terjerumus ke hal-hal yang negatif.

Berikut ini adalah beberapa POIN-POIN topik/materi penting yang secara umum perlu diketahui anak, yang
perlu disampaikan dalam sex education : (diunduh dari Edukasi Seks Sejak Dini)
1. MENGENALKAN PERBEDAANLAWAN JENIS
Jelaskan bahwa Tuhan menciptakan laki-laki dan perempuan yang memiliki perbedaan jenis kelamin. Hal ini
yang menyebabkan beberapa hal menjadi berbeda, seperti cara berpakaian, gaya rambut, cara buang air kecil.
Terangkan bahwa anak laki-laki jika sudah besar akan jadi ayah dan anak perempuan akan menjadi ibu. Tugas
utama ayah adalah mencari nafkah, walaupun harus tetap memperhatikan keluarga. Adapun tugas utama ibu
adalah mengatur rumah tangga dan keluarga. Namun, tidak menutup kemungkinan seorang ibu membantu ayah
dalam mencukupi kebutuhan. Dengan demikian, anak bisa memahami peran jenis kelamin dengan baik dan
benar.
2. MEMPERKENALKAN ORGAN SEKS
Caranya cukup mudah, misalnya dengan menggunakan boneka ataupun ketika mandi. Perkenalkan anak secara
singkat organ tubuh yang dimiliki, seperti rambut, kepala, tangan, kaki, perut, serta jangan lupa penis dan vagina. Terangkan juga fungsi dari anggota tubuh dan cara pemeliharaannya agar terhindar dari kuman penyakit.
3. MENGHINDARI ANAK DARI KEMUNGKINAN PELECEHAN SEKSUAL
Tegaskan pada anak bahwa alat kelamin tidak boleh dipertontonkan secara sembarangan. Tumbuhkan rasa malu
pada anak, misalnya ketiika keluar dari kamar mandi hendaknya mengenakan pakaian atau handuk penutup.
Selain itu, jika ada yang menyentuhnya, segera laporkan pada orang tua atau guru di sekolah. Anak boleh teriak

sekeras-kerasnya dalam hal ini untuk melindungi dirinya.

4. INFORMASIKAN TENTANG ASAL-USUL ANAK
Untuk anak usia prasekolah, bisa diterangkan bahwa anak berasal dari perut ibu, misalnya sambil menunjuk
perut ibu atau pada ibu yang sedang hamil. Sejalan dengan usia, anak boleh diterangkan bahwa seorang anak
berasal dari sel telur ibu yang dibuahi oleh sperma yang berasal dari ayah. Tekankan bahwa pembuahan boleh
atau bisa dilakukan setelah wanita dan pria menikah.
5.PERSIAPAN MENGHADAPI MASA PUBERTAS
Informasikan bahwa seiring bertambahnya usia, anak akan mengalami perubahan dan perkembangan.
Perubahan yang jelas terlihat adalah ketika memasuki masa pubertas. Anak perempuan akan mengalami
menstruasi/haid, sedangkan anak laki-laki mengalami mimpi basah. Hal ini menandai juga perubahan pada
bentuk tubuh dan kualitas, misalnya bagian dada yang membesar pada wanita dan suara yang memberat pada
seorang pria.
Penjelasan yang diberikan tentu menggunakan istilah tepat namun tetap dapat dipahami anak.
Orang tua dapat memberikan anak buku dengan topik pendidikan tentang seks. Bacalah bersama anak dan
diskusikan apa yang telah dibaca. Hati-hati menonton acara televisi yang mungkin tidak sengaja berisi kasuskasus perkosaan dan kekerasan seksual lainnya.
Oleh karena itu, orang tua harus peka untuk langsung mendiskusikannya dan menjelaskan secara baik, sebab
akibat dari kasus tersebut. Yang terpenting di sini adalah meluangkan waktu, untuk menyampaikan pendidikan
seks dengan santai dan cukup waktu. Perhatikan juga karakter anak dan rentang atensi yang dimiliki anak,
sehingga anak tidak bosan atau jenuh. Gunakan media seperti gambar, buku, dan benda lain yang menarik minat
anak dan buat semenarik mungkin.

Tujuan dari pendidikan seks juga disesuaikan dengan perkembangan usia, yaitu sebagai berikut : (diunduh
dari Mengapa Pendidikan Seks Dianggap Tabu?)
1. Usia balita (1-5 tahun)
Memperkenalkan organ seks yang dimiliki seperti menjelaskan anggota tubuh lainnya, termasuk menjelaskan
fungsi serta cara melindunginya.
2. Usia sekolah (6-10 tahun)
Memahami perbedaan jenis kelamin (laki-laki dan perempuan), menginformasikan asal-usul manusia,
membersihkan
alat
genital
dengan
benar
agar
terhindar
dari
kuman
dan penyakit.
3. Usia menjelang remaja
Menerangkan masa pubertas dan karakteristiknya, serta menerima perubahan dari bentuk tubuhnya.
4. Usia remaja
Memberi penjelasan mengenai perilaku seks yang merugikan (seperti seks bebas), menanamkan moral dan
prinsip say no untuk seks pra nikah serta membangun penerimaan terhadap diri sendiri.
5. Usia pranikah
Pembekalan pada pasangan yang ingin menikah tentang hubungan seks yang sehat dan tepat.
6. Usia setelah menikah
Memelihara pernikahan melalui hubungan seks yang berkualitas dan berguna untuk melepaskan ketegangan dan
stres.

PENDIDIKAN SEKS DI SEKOLAH

Pada dasarnya, pendidikan seks yang terbaik adalah yang diberikan oleh orangtua sendiri. Diwujudkan melalui

cara hidup orangtua dalam keluarga sebagai suami-istri yang bersatu dalam pernikahan. Pendidikan seks ini
sebaiknya diberikan dalam suasana akrab dan terbuka dari hati ke hati antara orangtua dan anak. Kesulitan yang
timbul kemudian adalah apabila pengetahuan orangtua yang kurang memadai (secara teoritis dan objektif)
menyebabkan sikap kurang terbuka dan cenderung tidak memberikan pemahaman tentang masalah-masalah
seks kepada anak.
Melihat kenyataan tersebut, jelas keluarga membutuhkan pihak lain dalam melengkapi upaya pembelajaran
alami terhadap hakikat seksualitas manusia. Pihak lain yang cukup berkompeten untuk menambah dan
melengkapi pengetahuan orangtua, menjadi perantara antara orangtua dan anak dalam memberikan pendidikan
seks adalah sekolah.
Tujuan pendidikan seks di sekolah seperti yang diungkapkan oleh Federasi Kehidupan Keluarga Internasional
ialah : (diunduh dari Pendidikan Seks di Sekolah)

Memahami seksualitas sebagai bagian dari kehidupan yang esensi dan normal.

Mengerti perkembangan fisik dan perkembangan emosional manusia.

Memahami dan menerima individualitas pola perkembangan pribadi.

Memahami kenyataan seksualitas manusia dan reproduksi manusia.

Mengkomunikasikan secara efektif tentang pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang berkenaan dengan seksualitas

dan perilaku sosial.

Mengetahui konsekuensi secara pribadi dan sosial dari sikap seksual yang tidak bertanggung jawab.

Mengembangkan sikap tanggung jawab dalam hubungan interpersonal dan perilaku sosial.

Mengenal dan mampu mengambil langkah efektif terhadap penyimpangan perilaku seksual.

Merencanakan kemandirian di masa depan, sebuah tempat dalam masyarakat, pernikahan dan kehidupan
keluarga.

Materi pendidikan seks yang diberikan di sekolah sesuai dengan jenjang pendidikan adalah sebagai
berikut :
Sekolah Dasar (SD) > Terutama Kelas 5-6 SD (memasuki usia remaja)

Keterbukaan pada orang tua.

Pengarahan akan persepsi mereka tentang seks bahwa hal tersebut mengacu pada jenis kelamin dan
bukan lagi tentang hal-hal di luar itu (hubungan laki-laki dan perempuan; proses membuat anak; dsb.).

Perbedaan antara laki-laki dan perempuan.

Pengenalan bagian tubuh, organ, dan fungsinya.

Memakai bahasa yang baik dan benar tentang seks menggunakan bahasa ilmiah, seperti Penis,
Vagina.

Pengenalan sistem organ seks secara sederhana.

Anatomi sistem reproduksi secara sederhana.

Cara merawat kesehatan dan kebersihan organ tubuh, termasuk organ seks/organ reproduksi.

Mengajarkan anak untuk menghargai dan melindungi tubuhnya sendiri.

Proses kehamilan dan persalinan sederhana.

Mempersiapkan anak untuk memasuki masa pubertas.

Perkembangan fisik dan psikologis yang terjadi pada remaja.

Ciri seksualitas primer dan sekunder.

Proses terjadinya mimpi basah.

Proses terjadinya ovulasi dan menstruasi secara sederhana.

Memberikan pemahaman bagi para siswa mengenai pendidikan seksual agar siswa dapat memiliki sikap
positif dan perilaku yang bertanggung jawab terhadap kesehatan reproduksinya secara umum.
Sekolah Menengah Pertama (SMP)

Menjelaskan sistem organ seks dengan cukup detail.

Proses kehamilan dan persalinan agak detail.

Sedikit materi tambahan tentang kondisi patologis pada sistem organ seks.

Memperluas apa yang telah dibicarakan di SD kelas 5 dan 6, yakni identitas remaja, pergaulan, dari
mana kau berasal, proses melahirkan, dan tanggung jawab moral dalam pergaulan.

Lebih mengarah ke penyuluhan Safe Sex. Bukan hanya untuk menhindari kehamilan, tapi juga
menhindari penyakit-penyakit seksual.
Sekolah Menengah Atas (SMA)

Menjelaskan secara detail dan lengkap materi tersebut di atas, ditambah bahaya penyakit menular
seksual (PMS), terutama HIV/AIDS.

Mendalami lagi apa yang telah diberikan di SD dan SLTP yakni secara psikologis pria dan wanita,
paham keluarga secara sosiologi, masalah pacaran dan tunangan, komunikasi, pilihan cara hidup
menikah atau membujang, pergaulan pria dan wanita, tubuh manusia yang berharga, penilaian etis yang
bertanggung jawab sekitar masalah-masalah seksual dan perkawinan.

HARAPAN
Amat disayangkan bahwa banyak orangtua yang belum memahami manfaat dan tujuan dari pendidikan seks.
Ada yang menganggap bahwa pendidikan seks tidak diperlukan, sebab akan memancing anak ke arah negatif.
Terkadang orangtua juga sulit untuk terbuka dan memulai dialog mengenai materi seks pada anak, sehingga
akhirnya pendidikan seks dianggap tabu. Jelas hal ini tidak benar. Sesungguhnya dialog seks perlu dibangun,
terutama dalam keluarga.
Mudah-mudahan, setelah membaca tulisan ini, para pembaca dapat memiliki perspektif yang baru mengenai
pendidikan seks (sex education), semakin meningkat kesadarannya mengenai pentingnya pendidikan seks sejak
usia dini, serta memiliki pemahaman yang benar mengenai cara penyampaian sex education yang tepat.
SUMBER :
A key issue in the battle over sex education is whether giving kids more information about sex actually leads to
sexual activity.
In a study of 35 sex education programs around the world, the World Health Organization found there is no
evidence that comprehensive programs encourage sexual activity.
The study also concluded that abstinence-only programs are less effective than comprehensive classes that
include abstinence and safe-sex practices such as contraception and condom use.
Related nationwide studies by the Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood came to similar conclusions.
Programs in abstinence are very valuable, said Catherine Weiss, director of the ACLUs Reproductive
Freedom Project. Its programs that dont provide any information that were against. ... Its as if youre trying
to prevent kids from riding motorcycles by forbidding them to wear safety helmets.
But abstinence-only groups dismiss these studies as biased and skewed. They argue there is a fundamental flaw
in giving kids more information about risky behaviors that they should simply be taught to avoid.
etidaktahuananaktentangseksseringkalimenjadialasanpelecehanolehorangdewasa.Anakmemandangseks

sebagaisesuatuyangtabuatauvulgar.Berdasarfaktakasussemakinmeningkatkarenaanaktidakmendapat
pendidikanseksdenganjelas.Pendidikansekspadaanakusiadinimungkinmerupakansolusi.Akantetapianak
mungkinbelumbisamenerimasecaramental.Takjaranganaklebihcondongkepikirajoroknyadaripadaefek
yangdiadapatketikadiamengertiapaituseks.Dalamperkembanganbahasapunkataseksmalahdisalah
artikanmenjadihalyangtabu.Anakharusmendapatkanpendidikanseksyangsesuaidenganumurnya.Secara
psikologianaksangatmembutuhkanbimbinganorangdewasauntukmengertidefinisisekssecaralayak,karena
anakmasihbelumbisaselektifkepadasetiapinformasiyangdidapat.Pengajarmaupunorangtuamampu
mengikutilangkahproseskonsulingketikamenerangkankepadaanak.Adabanyakhalyangharusdihindari
ketikanmenerangkankepadaanak.Itudikarenakananakmasihawamdalamhalitu.Keterbukaanorangtua
sangatpentingdemikemajuandankeselamatananakdarigagapseks.
Sedangkanuntukkekerasanseksual535kasusmenurut:

Bentuk:sodomi52kasus,perkosaan280kasus,pencabulan182kasus,daninses21kasus.

Modus:obatpenenang15kasus,diculiklebihdulu14kasus,disekap45kasus,bujukrayudantipuan:139

kasus,imingiming:131kasus.

Dampak:meninggal9kasus,trauma:345kasus.

(detik.com,Kamis,18/07/201316:57WIB)

Kasuskekerasan,utamanyakekerasanseksualpadaanak,meningkatpesattahun2013ini.Darisekitar30ankasus
tahun2012,barupertengahan2013sudahmeningkatmenjadi535kasus.Jumlahkekerasanitu,menurutKetua
KomnasAristMerdekaSirait,meningkatpesatsejak2010yangtercatatada42%dari246kasuskekerasanpada
anak adalah kekerasan seksual, pada 2011 ada 50%dari 259 kasus kekerasan pada anak adalah kekerasan
seksual,dan2012ada62%dari47kasuskekerasanpadaanakadalahkekerasanseksual.(detik.com,Kamis,
18/07/201316:57WIB)
ujuan Pendidikan Seks
Tujuan pendidikan seks jika disesuaikan berdasarkan usia dengan perkembangan usia yaitu sebagai berikut :
a. Usia balita (1-5 tahun)
Memperkenalkan organ seks yang dimiliki seperti menjelaskan anggota tubuh lainnya, termasuk menjelaskan
fungsi serta cara melindunginya.
b. Usia Sekolah Dasar (6-10)
Memahami perbedaan jenis kelamin (laki-laki dan perempuan) menginformasikan asal-usul manusia,
membersihkan alat genital dengan benar agar terhindar dari kuman dan penyakit.
c. Usia Menjelang Remaja
Menerangkan masa pubertas dan karakteristiknya, serta menerima perubahan dari bentuk tubuhnya.
d. Usia Remaja
Memberi penjelasan mengenai perilaku seks yang merugikan seperti seks bebas. Menanamkan moral dan
prinsip Say no untuk seks pranikah serta membangun penerimaan terhadap diri sendiri.
e. Usia Pranikah
Pembekalan pada pasangan yang ingin menikah tentang hubungan seks yang sehat dan tepat.
f. Usia setelah menikah
Memelihara pernikahan melalui hubungan seks yang berkualiatas dan berguna untuk melepaskan ketegangan
dan stress.
2.3 Manfaat Pendidikan Seks pada Anak SD
1.

Mengerti dan memahami dengan peran jenis kelaminnya

Dengan diberikannya pendidikan seksualitas pada anak, seorang anak laki-laki diharapkan tumbuh dan

berkembang menjadi laki-laki seutuhnya, begitu pula dengan anak perempuan, diharapkan tumbuh dan
berkembang menjadi seorang perempuan seutuhnya. Sehingga tidak ada lagi yang merasa tidak nyaman dengan
peran jenis kelamin yang dimilikinya.
2.

Menerima setiap perubahan fisik yang dialami dengan wajar dan apa adanya
Masa kanak-kanak adalah masa dimana seorang manusia sedang mengalami pertumbuhan dan

perkembangan baik secara fisik maupun psikis. Terutama saat mereka mulai memasuki masa pubertas, dimana
perubahan fisik dan psikis mengalami tahap paling cepat dibandingkan dengan masa sebelum dan sesudahnya.
Dengan diberikannya pendidikan seksualitas menjadikan anak-anak mengerti dan paham tentang bagaimana
mereka menyikapi perubahan-perubahan tersebut, sehingga mereka tidak akan merasa asing, kaget, bingung,
dan takut saat menghadapinya
3.

Menghapus rasa ingin tahu yang tidak sehat

Sebaiknya, orang-orang terdekat seperti orang tua dan guru bisa menjadi sosok yang menyenangkan

bagi anak untuk bisa memenuhi rasa ingin tahunya yang menggebu tentang banyak hal termasuk tentang
seksualitas. Ini dimaksudkan agar anak tidak memutuskan untuk mencari tahu jawaban akan pertanyaanpertanyaannya melalui teman, komik, VCD, ataupun media lainnya yang tidak menjamin anak mendapatkan
informasi yang sebenar-benarnya.
4.

Memperkuat rasa percaya diri dan bertanggung jawab pada dirinya

Percaya diri akan timbul jika seorang anak sudah merasa nyaman dengan dirinya. Anak akan merasa

nyaman pada dirinya jika telah mengetahui setiap bagian dari dirinya juga fungsi dari bagian-bagian tersebut.
Sehingga, anak akan mengetahui apa yang boleh dan yang tidak boleh dilakukan. Pada akhirnya, anak akan
mulai belajar untuk bertanggung jawab atas dirinya sendiri.
5.

Mengerti dan memahami betapa besarnya kuasa Sang Pencipta

Pemahaman tentang bagian-bagian dan fungsi-fungsi yang ada pada tubuhnya akan membuat anak

semakin mengerti dan memahami betapa luar biasanya ciptaan Tuhan YME.
Keluarga merupakan faktor utama pembentukan kepribadian seorang anak agar menjadi sosok yang
diharapkan. Karena dari lingkungan keluarga anak mulai belajar mengenal dirinya, membentuk dirinya menjadi
seseorang yang memiliki pandangan diri. Melalui jalinan kerjasama antara orang tua dengan berbagai pihak
yang dapat dipercaya, antara lain pihak guru sebagai Pembina bagi anak saat di sekolah untuk membantu kita
memenuhi hak anak agar menjadi manusia seutuhnya. Meskipun ada banyak pihak yang telah membantu
mensiasati masalah ini, orang tua tidak bisa langsung lepas tangan begitu saja. Lagi-lagi orang tua diharapkan
mampu menjadi sosok pendukung, penyaring, dan penguat terhadap apa yang telah anak pelajari dari pihakpihak yang telah membantu. Untuk itulah, diperlukan kerjasama yang baik antara orang tua dengan berbagai
elemen pendukung, agar tercipta tumbuh kembang anak yang utuh dan optimal.

2.3 Pentingnya Pendidikan Seks pada Anak SD

Anak-anak dan remaja rentan terhadap informasi yang salah mengenai seks. Jika tidak mendapatkan
pendidikan seks yang tepat, mereka akan termakan mitos-mitos tentang seks yang tidak benar. Informasi
tentang seks sebaiknya didapatkan langsung dari orang tua yang memiliki perhatian khusus terhadap anak-anak
mereka.
Hasil survey Badan Koordinasi Keluarga Berencana Nasional (BKKBN) menunjukkan bahwa lebih
dari 60 persen remaja di Indonesia telah melakukan hubungan seks pranikah. Penyebabnya karena kurangnya
pendidikan seks kepada anak dan remaja.
Pendidikan seks yang dianggap tabu justru memberikan dampak negatif pada anak-anak. Sebaliknya,
seks harus diajarkan kepada anak dengan cara yang bijak. Pendidikan seks adalah upaya pengajaran,
penyadaran, dan pemberian informasi tentang masalah seksual. Informasi yang diberikan di antaranya
pengetahuan tentang fungsi organ reproduksi dengan menanamkan moral, etika, komitmen, agama agar tidak
terjadi penyalahgunaan organ reproduksi tersebut.
Pendidikan seks dapat dikatakan sebagai cikal bakal pendidikan kehidupan berkeluarga yang memiliki
makna sangat penting. Para ahli psikologi menganjurkan agar anak-anak sejak dini hendaknya mulai dikenalkan
dengan pendidikan seks yang sesuai dengan tahap perkembangan kedewasaan mereka.

Informasi tentang seks bisa diberikan sejak anak sudah bisa melakukan komunikasi dua arah, Orang
tua saat ini perlu dibekali pengetahuan mengenai seks, karena tidak jarang juga anak-anak yang bertanya akan
masalah seks. Kurangnya pembekalan tentang seks membuat anak menjadi bingung dan bisa mencari informasi
yang salah, sebab didapat dari narasumber yang tidak layak. Hasil akhirnya tentu tidak sesuai dengan harapan
dan manfaat
Sesungguhnya orang tua tidak perlu ragu lagi akan pentingnya pendidikan seks sejak dini. Hilangkan
rasa canggung yang ada dan mulailah membangun kepekaan akan kebutuhan pendidikan seks pada anak.
Apabila tidak dimulai sejak dini maka akan lebih membahayakan apabila anak beranjak remaja. Para remaja
bisa mencari informasi yang berhubungan dengan seks melalui berbagai sumber seperti buku, majalah, film,
internet dengan mudah.
Padahal, informasi yang didapat belum tentu benar dan bahkan mungkin bisa menjerumuskan atau
menyesatkan. Oleh sebab itu, orang tua disarankan agar mulai membiasakan berdialog dengan anak, dan anak
juga dapat menggunakan orang tua sebagai narasumber yang tepercaya.
Penyampaian Pendidikan Seks pada Anak SD
Salah satu cara menyampaikan pendidikan seksual pada anak dapat dimulai dengan mengajari mereka
membersihkan alat kelaminnya sendiri. Dengan cara mengajarkan anak untuk membersihkan alat genitalnya
dengan benar setelah buang air kecil (BAK) maupun buang air besar (BAB), agar anak dapat mandiri dan tidak
bergantung dengan orang lain. Pendidikan ini pun secara tidak langsung dapat mengajarkan anak untuk tidak
sembarangan mengizinkan orang lain membersihkan alat kelaminnya.
Pengenalan seks pada anak dapat dimulai dari pengenalan mengenai anatomi tubuh. Kemudian
meningkat pada pendidikan mengenai cara berkembangbiak makhluk hidup, misalnya pada manusia. Sehingga
orangtua dapat memberikan penjelasan mengenai dampak-dampak yang akan diterima bila anak sudah
melakukan hal-hal yang menyimpangnya.
Cara menyampaikan pendidikan seksual itu pun tidak boleh terlalu vulgar, karena justru akan
berdampak negatif pada anak. Di sini orangtua sebaiknya melihat faktor usia. Artinya ketika akan mengajarkan
anak mengenai pendidikan seks, lihat sasaran yang dituju. Karena ketika anak sudah diajarkan mengenai seks,
anak akan kristis dan ingin tahu tentang segala hal.
Jika menunda memberikan pendidikan seks pada saat anak mulai memasuki usia remaja, maka itu
sudah terlambat. Karena di zaman di mana informasi mudah didapat dari Internet dan teman sebaya, maka saat
anak usia remaja mereka telah mengetahui lebih banyak tentang seks dan kemungkinan besar dari sudut
pandang yang salah.
Cara yang dapat digunakan mengenalkan tubuh dan ciri-ciri tubuh antara lain melalui media gambar
atau poster, lagu dan permainan. Pemahaman pendidikan seks di usia dini ini diharapkan anak agar anak dapat
memperoleh informasi yang tepat mengenai seks. Hal ini dikarenakan adanya media lain yang dapat mengajari
anak mengenai pendidikan seks ini, yaitu media informasi. Sehingga anak dapat memperoleh informasi yang
tidak tepat dari media massa terutama tayangan televisi yang kurang mendidik.
Menurut penelitian, pendidikan seks sejak dini akan menghindari kehamilan di luar pernikahan saat
anak-anak bertumbuh menjadi remaja dan saat dewasa kelak. Tidak perlu tabu membicarakan seks dalam
keluarga. Karena anak Anda perlu mendapatkan informasi yang tepat dari orang tuanya, bukan dari orang lain
tentang seks.
Karena rasa ingin tahu yang besar, jika anak tidak dibekali pendidikan seks, maka anak tersebut akan
mencari jawaban dari orang lain, dan akan lebih menakutkan jika informasi seks didapatkan dari teman sebaya
atau internet yang informasinya bisa jadi salah. Karena itu, lindungi anak-anak anda sejak dini dengan
membekali mereka pendidikan mengenai seks dengan cara yang tepat.
Pendidikan seksual selain menerangkan tentang aspek-aspek anatomis dan biologis juga menerangkan
tentang aspek-aspek psikologis dan moral.
Pendidikan seksual yang benar harus memasukkan unsur-unsur hak asasi manusia. Juga nilai-nilai
kultur dan agama diikutsertakan sehingga akan merupakan pendidikan akhlak dan moral juga.
Berikut ini ada beberapa tahapan umur dan cara memberikan pendidikan seks sesuai dengan tingkat

usia anak :
Balita (1-5 tahun)
Pada usia ini, bisa mulai menanamkan pendidikan seks. Caranya cukup mudah, yaitu dengan mulai
memperkenalkan kepada si kecil organ-organ seks miliknya secara singkat. Tidak perlu memberi penjelasan
detail karena rentang waktu atensi anak biasanya pendek. Selain itu, tandaskan juga bahwa alat kelamin tersebut
tidak boleh dipertontonkan dengan sembarangan, dan terangkan juga jika ada yang menyentuhnya tanpa
diketahui orang tua, maka si anak harus berteriak keras-keras dan melapor kepada orang tuanya. Dengan
demikian, anak-anak bisa dilindungi terhadap maraknya kasus kekerasan seksual dan pelecehan seksual
terhadap anak.

Usia 5-10 tahun

Pada usia ini, anak biasanya mulai aktif bertanya tentang seks. Misalnya anak akan bertanya dari mana ia
berasal. Atau pertanyaan yang umum seperti bagaimana asal-usul bayi. Jawaban-jawaban yang sederhana dan
terus terang biasanya efektif.
Usia Menjelang Remaja
Saat anak semakin berkembang, mulai saatnya Anda menerangkan mengenai haid, mimpi basah, dan juga
perubahan-perubahan fisik yang terjadi pada seorang remaja. Anda bisa terangkan bahwa si gadis kecil akan
mengalami perubahan bentuk payudara, atau terangkan akan adanya tumbuh bulu-bulu di sekitar alat
kelaminnya.
Usia Remaja
Pada saat ini, seorang remaja akan mengalami banyak perubahan secara seksual. Anda perlu lebih intensif
menanamkan nilai moral yang baik kepadanya. Berikan penjelasan mengenai kerugian seks bebas seperti
penyakit yang ditularkan dan akibat-akibat secara emosi.
Menurut penelitian, pendidikan seks sejak dini akan menghindari kehamilan di luar pernikahan saat anakanak bertumbuh menjadi remaja dan saat dewasa kelak. Tidak perlu tabu membicarakan seks dalam keluarga.
Karena anak Anda perlu mendapatkan informasi yang tepat dari orang tuanya, bukan dari orang lain tentang
seks.
Karena rasa ingin tahu yang besar, jika anak tidak dibekali pendidikan seks, maka anak tersebut akan
mencari jawaban dari orang lain, dan akan lebih menakutkan jika informasi seks didapatkan dari teman sebaya
atau Internet yang informasinya bisa jadi salah. Karena itu, lindungi anak-anak sejak dini dengan membekali
mereka pendidikan mengenai seks dengan cara yang tepat.
Dengan mengajarkan pendidikan seks pada anak, diharapkan dapat menghindarkan anak dari risiko
negatif perilaku seksual maupun perilaku menyimpang. Dengan sendirinya anak diharapkan akan tahu
mengenai seksualitas dan akibat-akibatnya bila dilakukan tanpa mematuhi aturan hukum, agama, dan adat
istiadat, serta dampak penyakit yang bisa ditimbulkan dari penyimpangan tersebut.
Dalam membicarakan masalah seksual adalah yang sifatnya sangat pribadi dan membutuhkan suasana yang
akrab, terbuka dari hati ke hati antara orangtua dan anak. Hal ini akan lebih mudah diciptakan antara ibu dengan
anak perempuannya atau bapak dengan anak laki-lakinya, sekalipun tidak ditutup kemungkinan dapat terwujud
bila dilakukan antara ibu dengan anak laki-lakinya atau bapak dengan anak perempuannya.
Usahakan jangan sampai muncul keluhan seperti tidak tahu harus mulai dari mana, kekakuan, kebingungan dan
kehabisan bahan pembicaraan.
Cara menyampaikannya harus wajar dan sederhana, jangan terlihat ragu-ragu atau malu.
Isi uraian yang disampaikan harus objektif, namun jangan menerangkan yang tidak-tidak, seolah-olah bertujuan

agar anak tidak akan bertanya lagi.

Dangkal atau mendalamnya isi uraiannya harus disesuaikan dengan kebutuhan dan dengan tahap perkembangan
anak. Terhadap anak umur 9 atau 10 tahun belum perlu menerangkan secara lengkap mengenai perilaku atau
tindakan dalam hubungan kelamin, karena perkembangan dari seluruh aspek kepribadiannya memang belum
mencapai tahap kematangan untuk dapat menyerap uraian yang mendalam mengenai masalah tersebut.
Pendidikan seksual harus diberikan secara pribadi, karena luas sempitnya pengetahuan dengan cepat lambatnya
tahap-tahap perkembangan tidak sama buat setiap anak. Dengan pendekatan pribadi maka cara dan isi uraian
dapat disesuaikan dengan keadaan khusus anak.

Usahakan melaksanakan pendidikan seksual perlu diulang-ulang (repetitif) selain itu juga perlu untuk
mengetahui seberapa jauh sesuatu pengertian baru dapat diserap oleh anak, juga perlu untuk mengingatkan dan
memperkuat (reinforcement) apa yang telah diketahui agar benar-benar menjadi bagian dari pengetahuannya.

Materi Pendidikan Seks yang diberikan di Sekolah Dasar (SD) Terutama kelas 5-6
Keterbukaan pada orang tua
Pengarahan akan persepsi mereka tentang seks bahwa hal tersebut mengacu pada jenis kelamin dan bukan lagi

tentang hal-hal diluar itu (hubungan laki-laki dan perempuan, proses membuat anak dst)
Perbedaan antara laki-laki dan perempuan.
Pengenalan bagian tubuh organ dan fungsinya.
Memakai bahasa yang baik dan benar tentang seks menggunakan bahasa ilmiah, seperti Penis, Vagina.
Pengenalan system organ seks secara sederhana.
Anatomi system reproduksi secara sederhana.
Cara merawat kesehatan dan kebersihan organ tubuh termasuk organ reproduksi.
Mengajarkan anak untuk menghargai dan melindungi tubuhnya sendiri.
Proses kehamilan dan persalinan sederhana.
Mempersiapkan anak untuk memasuki masa pubertas.
Perkembangan fisik dan psikologis yang terjadi pada remaja.
Ciri seksualitas primer dan sekunder.
Proses terjadinya mimpi basah.
Proses terjadinya ovulasi dan menstruasi secara sederhana.
Memberikan pemahaman pada para siswa mengenai pendidikan seksual agar siswa dapat memiliki sikap positif
dan perilaku yang bertanggung jawab terhadap kesehatan reproduksi secara umum.

Peran Orang tua dalam Pendidikan Seks Anak SD

Ketika orang tua anak menghadapi masalah dan tidak tahu harus bagaimana membuka mulut untuk
memulai pembicaraan, sering kali mereka mengambil tindakan yang pasif, atau mengira diserahkan kepada
guru di sekolah untuk mengajar mereka dengan lebih layak.
Sebenarnya nilai pandang dan sikap orang tua itu sendiri terhadap seks merupakan siklus belajar bagi
anak - anak mereka. Jika menerima penyampaian seks yang menyimpang (dari media) atau menerima informasi
tentang seks yang salah, ayah dan ibu mempunyai kewajiban untuk segera memberikan bimbingan yang tepat
dan mengklarifikasi permasalahan, juga harus mencegah agar informasi dari media yang tidak sehat tidak
menyerang masuk ke dalam keluarga. Sebenarnya keluarga merupakan siklus yang paling penting dalam
melaksanakan pendidikan seks.
Di bawah ini adalah beberapa prinsip penting di dalam pendidikan seks keluarga, kami berikan kepada
para orang tua sebagai bahan referensi:
1.

Siap Memberikan Pendidikan Seks setiap saat

Menghadapi perkembangan seks pada anak dan kelakuan anak yang selalu ingin tahu terhadap seks

yang kemungkinan bisa muncul sewaktu - waktu, sebagai orang tua kita harus selalu siap dan harus dapat
menyesuaikan diri, serta memanfaatkan kesempatan untuk memberikan bimbingan.
Misalnya, ketika nonton TV bersama anak, lalu muncul tayangan kekerasan atau pun pelecehan seksual,
harus segera memberikan bimbingan kepada anak agar anggota tubuhnya sendiri tidak dibiarkan untuk
sembarangan disentuh oleh orang lain, suatu konsep untuk menghormati dan menghargai tubuh sendiri.
2.

Memberi Teladan dan Bimbingan Lisan Secara Bersamaan

Sikap dari pelaksana pendidikan seks sangatlah penting, sikap dan kelakuan dari para orang tua sering

kali menjadi panutan bagi anak - anak mereka, menjadi bahan perbandingan, bersamaan itu juga
dimanifestasikan dalam tingkah lakunya. Jika orang tua mereka sendiri memiliki sikap seks yang tidak tepat,
misalkan menganggap seks itu kotor, tabu dan berdosa, maka bisa mempengaruhi secara langsung konsep seks
pada diri anak - anak.
3.

Menerima pertanyaan dan memberi jawaban yang tepat

Para orang tua harus memperkaya diri dengan pengetahuan dan informasi tentang seks yang benar, dan

ketika anak mengajukan pertanyaan, harus didengar dan dipahami motif di balik pertanyaan anak itu,
mengklarifikasi masalah dari anak, serta memberi jawaban yang sederhana dan tepat.
Misalkan, ketika memberi bimbingan yang berkaitan dengan alat kelamin harus menggunakan istilah yang
benar seperti 'penis' dan jangan menggunakan istilah 'burung' atau lainnya sebagai pengganti. Biarkan anak
mengenal istilah yang benar sejak dini. Ketika memberikan bimbingan dan menjawab pertanyaan, sikap harus
rileks dan wajar, jangan membiarkan perasaan dan nada suara tegang mempengaruhi anak.
4.

Penekanan untuk menghormati dan privasi

Menghormati dan privasi adalah konsep penting di dalam pendidikan seks, biarkan anak dalam penjelajahan

rasa ingin tahunya tentang seks, mereka juga belajar menghormati orang lain. Memberi bimbingan jangan
sembarangan menjamah bagian tubuh yang bisa membuat orang lain tidak nyaman, misalnya bagian dada dan
lain-lain.
Pendidikan seks bila dilakukan oleh orang tua sebagai orang yang paling dekat bagi si anak akan dapat
membuat anak merasa aman selama dalam proses penjelajahan terhadap masalah seks. Dan dengan peran orang
tua untuk berkomunikasi dalam keluarga secara positif dapat membuat anak mengerti bagaimana mencegah
berperilaku negatif. Penyampaian pengetahuan seks secara benar, akan menentukan nilai pandang dan sikap
mereka terhadap seks, dan hal ini juga sangat menentukan keharmonisan keluarga anak di kemudian hari.

2.6

Studi Kasus
Bocah Sekolah Dasar Diduga Cabuli Rekannya 20 Jan 2011 Hukum Warta Kota, Matraman, Warta

Kota
Kasus pencabulan antar siswa sekolah dasar kembali mencoreng dunia pendidikan Indonesia. Kali ini
terjadi di salah satu Sekolah Dasar Negeri di Jakarta Timur. Peristiwa pencabulan itu diduga dilakukan dua
siswa. D (10) dan R (13). terhadap P. juga siswi sekolah itu. di toilet dekat perpustakaan sekolah. Senin (17/1)
lalu.
Kepala Satuan Reskrim Polrestro Jakarta Timur. Komisaris Dodi Rahmawan mengatakan sedang
menyelidiki dugaan kasus pencabulan itu dengan seksama. Dodi mengatakan, dari pemeriksaan yang
dilakukannya, peristiwa pencabulan itu terjadi di saat kegiatan ekstra kurtkuler sekolah.
Dodi mengatakan, peristiwa itu terungkap saat P. ditemukan dalam keadaan pingsan oleh temannya A.
murid kelas VI sekolah tersebut. Ketika sadar dari pingsan, korban mengatakan telah dicabuli oleh D dan R.
Menurut Dodi, dari hasil visum terhadap P, terbukti ada luka robek pada kelamin P. "Kini korban masih
trauma." ujar Dodi.

Sementara itu, polisi juga meminta keterangan terhadap dua bocah yang diduga melakukan pencabulan
terhadap P. Polisi juga meminta keterangan dari tiga 3 siswa lain rekan korban yang diduga mengetahui
peristiwa itu yakni A. R dan E. serta Kepala Sekolah SDN itu.
Dodi mengatakan saat ini korban dan pelaku dikembalikan kepada orangtua mereka, namun dalam
pengawasan polisi.
Bukan kriminal murni
Ketua Komisi Nasional Pelindungan Anak. Arist Merdeka Sirait, saat dihubungi Warta Kota. Rabu
malam, menduga para pelaku dalam kasus ini bukanlah pelaku tindak kriminal murni. Menurut Arist, polisi
harus mendalami kasus ini lebih jauh untuk mengungkap kebenarannya.
Arist mengatakan, dalam kasus-kasus seperti yang pernah ditanganinya, kerap ada unsur
ketidaksengajaan yang dilakukan pelaku yang anak-anak. "Sebab bisa saja mereka hanya main-main. Indikasi
itu ada karena mereka diduga melakukannya berdua terhadap seorang rekannya," ujarnya.
Menurut Arist, para pelaku dan korban yang masih anak-anak Ini cenderung melakukan hal seperti ini
karena meniru, mengimitasi baik dari tayangan televisi, film atau buku-buku. "Kalau memang ada unsur meniru
dan meng-iiilit;isi maka dua anak itu bukan pelaku tindak pidana murni. Mereka cenderung hanya bermainmain, tapi salah karena kurangnya pemahaman dan pendidikan yang anak-anak terima." kata Arist.
Arist mengatakan. Kamis ini keluarga korban akan bertemu dengan Komnas PA untuk membicarkan
lebih jauh mengenai masa depan sang anak. Selain itu, Komnas Juga akan mendalami kasus ini untuk
mengetahui apakah ada unsur ketidaksengajaan atas peristiwa tni. "Pada anak-anak hal seperti ini lebih
cenderung pada menlru serta mengimitasi, dan mereka merasa hanya bermain-main." katanya, (bom)
Analisa
Dari kasus di atas, kita dapat mengetahui pentingnya pemahaman akan pendidikan seks usia dini
dimana hal ini kurang diperhatikan orang tua pada masa kini sehingga menyerahkan semua pendidikan
termasuk pendidikan seks pada sekolah.
Padahal yang bertanggung jawab mengajarkan pendidikan seks di usia dini adalah orang tua,
sedangkan sekolah hanya sebagai pelengkap dalam memberikan informasi kepada si anak.
Orangtua juga harus bisa membatasi dan mengawasi anaknya dalam menggunakan media elektronik
terutama komputer dan handphone.
Masalah seks pada anak memang tidak mudah, apalagi yang ada di dalam pikiran orang tua ketika
mendengar kalimat pendidikan seks di usia dini adalah mengajarkan anak untuk berhubungan seksual.
Sehingga orang tua tidak ingin atau enggan untuk mengajarkannya. Namun, mengajarkan pendidikan seks pada
anak harus diberikan agar anak tidak salah melangkah dalam hidup
Peran Orang tua sangat penting dalam memberikan pendidikan seks pada anaknya, sebaiknya dilakukan
komunikasi dua arah . Orang tua harus mempunyai pengetahuan yang terbaru. Dan harus mengajarkan tentang
anatomi, fisilogi, biologi, moral, dan etika. Orang tua juga harus memberikan batasanbatasan soal pemanfaatan
teknologi, misalnya mengakses internet hanya untuk mengerjakan tugas sekolah. Tempatkan komputer di ruang
keluarga dan bukan di ruangan pribadi. Orang tua harus menanamkan rasa tanggung jawab pada anaknya.
Memberi pengertian bahwa tiap perbuatan, termasuk soal seks selalu ada resiko dan tanggung jawab yang harus
dipikulnya. Orang tua harus bersikap terbuka dan selalu siap dalam menjawab semua pertanyaan yang diajukan
anak sesuai dengan kemampuannya. Orang tua menginformasikan pendidikan seks dengan bahasa yang mudah
dimengerti sehingga anak tidak salah menyimpulkannya.
others think it should be a parents' choice to inform their own child, Even so, the idea of teaching young people
about sex in schools caused a backlash among those who believed it was best left to the parents.
The survey, which questioned more than 1,700 parents of children aged five to 11, found that 59 per cent do not
agree with the fact that sex education is often taught to children in schools, even from a young age.
This is a sensitive subject and parents have their own way to approach it and want to control what their children
know, even more so at a young age.'
Opponents of sex education in schools, on the other hand, claim that the state has no business teaching their
children about sex, either because they prefer to teach their children according to their own values or because

they object to certain controversial subjects, such as sexual orientation. However, opponents of sex education in
schools typically favor an abstinence-only approach (for example, the idea that you should wait until marriage
before having sex) if there is to be any sex education taught at all.
I believe that sexual education is very important to learn. If kids start to have sex without any education it can
lead to unprotected sex which can cause unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Public
schools should however tell kids that it is best they wait until they are of age to engaged in sexual activities.
If public schools cannot promote all religions it should not be able to promote any religion, including secular
humanism. The beliefs of this religion promote morals of the belief that if a person is going to sin, they might as
well be taught how so that they do not do it, yet this is the exact opposite of what should happen. If you do not
want someone to do an action, you do not teach them how to do it, how tempting for that person it must be. So
if you do not want someone to have sex before marriage, do not teach them to such a degree when they are
wayyyy to young to even do it.
My concern is that those modest individuals will become aware of sex is possible, but because they were afraid
of attention drawn to them in the class, will have missed the importance of the lesson. M
Speaking from my experience, I realized that the only true way to stop the spread of sexually related diseases
and maladies was abstinence until marriage. Public schools instead try to promote "safe" sex practices, but that
continues to fail in our society. That is why I think sexual education should not be taught.
We believe its an inconsistent message, said Lori Cole, executive director of the Eagle Forum, a conservative
lobby group founded by Phyllis Schlafly. If you say, dont do it, its not healthy for you, but if youre going to
do it, do it this way, that sends mixed signals to kids.
Cole argues that teaching teens about contraception and STDs only provides a means for them to live an
unhealthy lifestyle.
I myself as a teenager believe it is immoral to teach young children in schools about the details of sexual
activities. Growing up as a young girl I can definitely testify to the fact that children are naturally inquisitive
and whatever they are taught which might seem interesting or out of the ordinary to them they are inquisitive
enough to try it out themselves to see if it works. At the age of 11/12 I was introduced to the topic of sex in
school and I remember later that day, the lesson we had just been taught in class was the main topic of
coversations among the pupils in my class. Questions like "I wonder what it feels like?" "Have you ever seen a
penis/vagina before?" "Do you think it would hurt?" "Should I do it with ...(boyfriend/girlfriend)?"
Conviniently rolled out of the mouths of my class mates.. I definitely believe and can prove, using real life
examples, that the lesson based on sex that we recieved in school, played and continues to play a significant part
in the increasing number of teenage parents and pregnancies... It is the job of the parents to introduce the topic
of sex to their children not the teacher/school. Therefore sex education I believe doesn't prevent teenage
pregnancies but increases it.
Parents should have the final choice in sex education for their children
Point
Parents are the ones who are responsible for their children and they know what is best for their own. Parents are
the people who best know their children; they live with them, feed them, understand them, and know how and
when is best to broach the topic of sex with their children. Parents are in a very real way the shapers of
childrens psyche and development, so their input on a central moral and physical issue such as this must be
respected. It is a myth that somehow parents lacks the capacity to deal with an issue like sex. Rather, they are
the best suited to it. The fact is that children generally listen to their parents, or at least consider seriously what
they are told by them. Furthermore, parents are more capable than teachers, in light of their intimate
relationship with their children, to discuss the emotional aspects of sex and relationships, topics that would
become jokes in the classroom and the subject of ribald humour.[1] It is better to leave sex education in the hands
of parents who can apply the delicate touch.
Counterpoint
Parents do not always know best, particularly when it comes to sex education. Parents cannot be trusted to
instruct children effectively in sex education because they themselves are often uneducated in the matter and
have personal biases regarding the subject.[1] Often they will not understand the finer points of contraception
and STDs, things that have each changed substantially in the past few decades, with things like the morning
after pill becoming readily available in many countries, and diseases like Chlamydia much more prevalent in
populations than they were in past generations.[2] Parents ignorance may thus misinform children to their
detriment. The parent may not understand their child best preventing their children from ever developing a
meaningful understanding of their sexuality. Such is the problem for gay children raised in homes that say being
gay is sinful and unnatural.[3] With the only authority figure on the subject he knows telling him he is defective,

a gay child is left to suffer and wallow in self-loathing.

Sex education damages the education system
Point
Sex education damages the education system by confusing the children and by alienating some parents. When
children receive mixed signals from home and at school they can suffer real confusion. When parents tell their
children that the teacher is wrong about sex, it causes the student to raise his mental defences toward the school
thereafter and become less engaged in the process of education.[1] Children will be told by their parents, and will
thus come to believe, that the school is promoting a liberal view that is fundamentally contrary to their own. For
example, a Muslim girl will find schooling a horrific and alienating experience if she is forced to attend a sex
education class that conflicts with her faith as this will be clashing with what she has been taught at home. This
will alienate the parents of these children who hold the view that discussion of sex in such a framework is
morally repugnant.
Counterpoint
A disagreement over sex education will not alienate someone, whether child or parent, from the entire education
system. Students can differentiate between contentious aspects of education like sex education and the general
education over which parents, teachers, and state do not disagree. Both parents and teachers will be able to
explain the reasons for the difference in teaching in cases where the student is taught different things at home
and in school. Saying that just because one issue is contentious all of education is ruined is merely alarmist.
Point
Having a one size fits all sex education system cannot effectively deal differences within classes. Sexual
experience is a gradual process and cannot be meaningfully taught in the structured environment of the
classroom. People must discover much about their own sexuality, through experimentation and self-exploration.
By trying to impose a strict curriculum that explains sexual processes and practices along set guidelines, much
of the opportunity for self-discovery is lost. Furthermore, when people are forced to conform to the set sex
education program, they cannot move at their own pace. This is particularly harmful to people who are
physically or emotionally less mature than their fellow students and who would be better served if they were
allowed to pursue sexual knowledge at their own pace. When other students are involved in the classroom, there
is necessarily a degree of peer pressure, which places a further strain on the later bloomers of the class to
conform and experiment sexually before they are ready.[1] Another example is the case of gay and gender
dimorphic students who will be left isolated within the class, even singled out as different, in a way that may not
be conducive toward the promotion of understanding and acceptance. Teachers cannot cater their lessons to
every single student, and thus students with less conventional sexual preferences and identities are left without
meaningful engagement in the classroom.
Counterpoint
While certainly there should always be room for self-exploration in sexuality, a set mandatory curriculum is
essential to understanding the basics of sex and offering opportunity to consider the emotional and social
aspects of it in the cultures of young people.[1] It is unfortunate that some students may feel unprepared to
undergo sex education, but the value of the information outweighs any potential discomfort. Certainly there is
nothing so scarring about the nature of sex that someone who is a bit immature cannot handle with some effort.
We need also to have some confidence in the abilities and sensitivities of our teaching professionals to be able
to respond with effective sensitivity to the different needs of their students in the classroom situation. This
means that we need properly trained teachers to be delivering sex education and teachers themselves have asked
for this to be the case.
The research evidence does make it clear that young people are at varying stages of maturity when they are at
the same chronological age. Young men may lag behind young women and act with considerable immaturity in
sex education lessons.[2] The effective answer to this may be to offer single sex lessons in sex education rather
than removing the opportunity for sex education from all young people.
The state has had no historical role in sex education to no ill effect, so should it develop one now.
Point
Sexuality should not be within the purview of the state. The state maintains order and security and provides
essential services. Sex education does not fall within its responsibility. Sexuality is for many people deeply
personal and should be respected as such; young people should be allowed to explore their sexuality
independently and with the guidance of family, not under the watching eye of the state.[1] Sex education
programs reduce sexuality to biology and fail to adequately address the emotional elements of sexuality in a
way that is not seen as a joke by often-immature students. Inevitably teachers personal opinions on sexuality
will bleed into their teaching, as will that of the state officials that set the teaching standards for the subject. In
this way there is always a normative judgment in sex education that will be seen as the state mandating certain
sexual behaviour and practice. This fundamentally attacks the rights of individuals to develop their mode of
sexual expression independent of the nanny states instruction and can irrevocably harm peoples sexual

identity.
Counterpoint
This argument is based on a particular view of the state and its role in society.it is a view of the state which is
particularly innocent of and which fails to acknowledge the range of cultural messages relating to society and
sexuality[1] which are broadcast hegemonically although not entirely openly by the state.[2] The state does have a
role in sex education. It has taken an ever more holistic view of young citizens, and this is reflected in schools
whose remit stretches not just to the academic education of students, but to the preparation of young people for
the full spectrum of activities and responsibilities they will face in adult life. Sexual interaction is a fundamental
part of that life. Schools have evolved far beyond the provision of skill in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and
this should be reflected in such programs as sex education. The state does not in mandating sex education make
any normative judgment regarding sexual practices, but rather provides the necessary information and the space
to consider the emotional and social issues involved to make informed choices about sex.
According to the CDC, almost half47 percentof all U.S. high school students have had sexual intercourse,
34 percent of them during the previous three months. And 41 percent of those kids admit they did not use a
condom the last time they had sex even though such contraception is highly effective against of pregnancy and
the spread of sexually transmitted infections such as HIV.

9. THW ban the ppl to buy cigarete

without showing an identity card
The World Health Organisation predicts that this continuing epidemic will kill 1 billion more in the 21st [ i ].
Tobacco products cause the death of 50% of their users [ii] and, for each death, 20 other people suffer from a
smoking related disease [iii]. This cycle of suffering and death is unconscionable and it is now time to play the
tobacco endgame [iv].
ach year around 207,000 children start smoking [v]. While the proportion of children who have ever smoked it
declining slowly over time; in 2012 23% of all children had smoked at least once. The prevalence of regular
smoking increases with age from <0.5% of 11 year olds to 10% of 15 year olds.
Smoking causes over 100,000 deaths in the UK each year [vi], all of which are preventable. This is more than
the deaths from obesity (34,100), alcohol (6,669), road traffic accidents (1,850) and illegal drugs (1,605)
combined. Alongside this, around 460,000 NHS hospital admissions per year are attributable to smoking.
The evidence around the positive effects of stopping smoking on individual health is well established [vii].
However, The Lancet recently published a large meta-analysis showing the incredible effects that smoke-free
legislation has had on child health, including reducing premature births and hospital attendances for asthma
attacks [viii].

10. THW ban vendors at school

A recent FSA survey found 90 per cent of pupils are taking food to school that contains too much salt, sugar and
saturated fat. Children who are obese face greater risks of developing serious illness later in life, such as heart
disease, diabetes and cancer
The ban of junk food sales through school vending machines will affect kids in the coming 2013-14 school
year. Instead of selling candy bars and sodas, schools will ideally vend healthier snacks like granola bars, juices,
and whole grain products. The idea is that kids will develop healthier eating habits in school and maintain those
habits for a lifetimeand maybe even pass on healthier eating patterns to their parents. But some opponents
question whether this approach is effective, or if it will just result in lost revenue for the schools..
inclDr. Taber said it made sense for some school districts to focus on soda at first, since it accounts for about
two thirds of the calories teenagers get from sugary drinks. But that could also give some students the wrong

idea about which drinks are best.u

State laws that ban soda in schools but not other sweetened beverages have virtually no impact on the

amount of sugary drinks middle school students buy and consume at school, a new study shows.
ding restrictions on unhealthy foods
The study, which looked at thousands of public school students across 40 states, found that removing soda from
cafeterias and school vending machines only prompted students to buy sports drinks, sweetened fruit drinks and
other sugar-laden beverages instead. In states that banned only soda, students bought and consumed sugary
drinks just as frequently at school as their peers in states where there were no bans at all.
But the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
had another surprising finding. In states with policies banning all sugary drinks in schools, students had less
access to them on campus, but their overall consumption of the drinks did not fall, suggesting they were getting
the drinks elsewhere. Dr. Taber said that finding indicated that removing sugary drinks from school campuses,
while effective, could only go so far.
If you really want to create a healthier school environment, you need more comprehensive laws.

It would be smarter for us to use classroom time to teach kids

about health and nutrition. The curriculum already exists in
material provided by USDA's Eat Smart, Play Hard Program and the
Coordinated Approach to Child Health program (which originated in
California and Texas, respectively). With a little encouragement and
seed money, more of these science-based educational programs
could be created. VENDING MACHINE DEBATE / Banning foods won't
make kids fit
Lisa Mosing
Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, May 21, 2003

As the debate grows on what to do about childhood obesity, some are calling for statewide bans on certain foods
and beverages in schools -- such as the one proposed in Senate Bill 677, which would ban sales of soda in
California elementary schools beginning in September 2005 -- as a way to solve the problem. Unfortunately,
this narrow approach would be a great disservice to our kids.
Banning vending machines from schools might make some lawmakers feel as though they've accomplished
something, but it won't make our children any healthier. In fact, a much more effective way to stem the obesity
epidemic is to put nutrition and fitness education back in every school so our kids can develop the tools they
need to make smart choices about food and fitness throughout their lives.
Creating a "black list" of food products cannot teach our children how to choose wisely when faced with an
array of options. Anyone who has ever been on a diet knows that once a food is "off limits," the cravings for
that food hit full force.
As a nutritionist, I know that no single food -- or food category -- is causing the nation's obesity problem.
Simply eliminating any one food certainly won't do it. And with students spending less than a third of their
waking hours in school, the problem cannot be adequately addressed there anyway.
It would be smarter for us to use classroom time to teach kids about health and nutrition. The curriculum
already exists in material provided by USDA's Eat Smart, Play Hard Program and the Coordinated Approach to
Child Health program (which originated in California and Texas, respectively). With a little encouragement and

seed money, more of these science-based educational programs could be created.

Rather than make beverages the scapegoat, policymakers should encourage modifications in daily behavior.
Attacking the foods that make up the American diet misses the target, and fails to address an equally important
component to successful weight management -- increasing overall physical activity. The most widely accepted
formula for weight loss is simple: Eat fewer calories and burn more calories through physical activity.
Even small changes in exercise and diet can result in big improvements in health -- and help stem the tide of
rising obesity rates. If the Legislature truly wishes to take meaningful steps to reduce childhood obesity, it
should support programs that give communities, parents, teachers and children the tools they need to make
positive changes in their daily habits. They should also support their local schools by giving them the funds
needed to buy fresh and healthier foods and provide physical-education classes for all students.
Providing the resources to teach families about making sensible food-and- fitness choices will give our children
the tools they need to establish lifelong habits for a healthier lifestyle in a way that bans and restrictions never
can.
Last year, 44 percent of school districts banned junk food from vending machines, believing that by eliminating
unhealthy foods, they'd encourage kids to eat better. But a new study finds that banning vending machines in
schools might not end up curbing childhood obesity after all it may actually worsen it. Instead of promoting
healthy eating, researchers say that it could cause an increased consumption of fast food.
The researchers, from the University of Illinois, found that solely banning vending machines without taking any
subsequent measures may not help students make healthier food choices. If the schools dont have the snacks or
sodas, students will find another way to purchase their favorite items. "There may be unintended effects if you
only make small-scale changes," said Daniel Taber, the study's lead author, in a press release. "When more
comprehensive changes were implemented, there were no unintended effects."
More than 8,200 high school students throughout 27 states were involved in the study. The researchers found
that 23 percent of the students with access to vending machines in their schools drank at least one soda a day.
Yet, 28 percent of high school students without vending machines drank at least one soda a day. It was these
students who also tended to live in states with lower taxes on restaurant foods. In their research, they also found
that differences in soda consumption only occurred in states that had lower taxes on soda, and in schools, where
students were able to buy soda from the cafeteria or school store.
"Policy changes really need to be comprehensive and not just focused on one item such as regular soda or one
location such as cafeterias," said Jamie Chriqui, study co-author and senior research scientist at the university's
Institute for Health Research and Policy, in the news release.
Earlier this year, a Washington State school decided to crackdown on childhood obesity by banning foods in
birthday celebrations. Meanwhile, a report published in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior found
that "7.3 percent of schools prohibit sugary items during classroom birthday parties and 6.4 percent for
classroom holiday parties."
Currently, 17 percent of children and adolescents between 12 and 19 years old are obese, according to the
Centers For Disease Control and Prevention. Being overweight or obese can cause several health problems,
such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, asthma, liver disease, and depression. Children who are obese are
also more likely to become obese adults.
Mandatory
Australia
standards for food
There are no national mandatory standards (see below for details of national
available in
voluntary guidelines). However, six states and territories have implemented
schools,
mandatory standards, which are either based on the national voluntary guidelines
or nutrient and food criteria defined by the state: Australian Capital Territory
(2015), New South Wales (2011), Northern Territory (2009), Queensland (2007),
South Australia (2008), and Western Australia (2014). All of these states and
territories identify 'red category' foods, which are either completely banned in
schools or heavily restricted (e.g. offered no more than one or two times per term).
Queenslands Smart Choices school nutrition standards separate foods and
drinks into green, amber and red categories based on their energy, saturated fat,
sugar, sodium and fibre content. Smart Choices ensures that red foods and drinks
are eliminated across the whole school environment.
In February 2014, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) announced the phasing
out of sugary drinks for sale in school canteens by the end of 2014. The 2015 ACT

School Food and Drink Policy prohibits the sale of sugary drinks in ACT public
school canteens. ACT is working to ensure water is the easiest choice available,
including the installation of two water refill stations in each public school.

Bans specific to Australia

vending machines
In February 2014, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) government announced
in schools
the removal of vending machines from ACT public schools. The 2015 Australia
Capital Territorys Public School Food and Drink Policy prohibits food and drink
vending machines on public school premises.
INFORMATION UPDATED 29/07/2015
Bermuda
In 2006 the Healthy Schools Vending Machine and Cafeteria Policy was
implemented banning sodas and snacks from vending machines on school premises.
Only plain, unsweetened water and/or 100% fruit juice is permitted.

11. THBT medical herb is more

effective to cure disease
Alternative medicine is commonly categorized together with complementary medicine under the umbrella term
complementary and alternative medicine. Complementary medicine refers to therapies that complement
traditional western (or allopathic) medicine and is used together with conventional medicine, and alternative
medicine is used in place of conventional medicine.
erbal medicine -- also called botanical medicine or phytomedicine -- refers to using a plant's seeds, berries,
roots, leaves, bark, or flowers for medicinal purposes. Herbalism has a long tradition of use outside
conventional medicine. It is becoming more mainstream as improvements in analysis and quality control along
with advances in clinical research show the value of herbal medicine in treating and preventing disease.
n the early 19th century, when chemical analysis first became available, scientists began to extract and modify
the active ingredients from plants. Later, chemists began making their own version of plant compounds and,
over time, the use of herbal medicines declined in favor of drugs. Almost one fourth of pharmaceutical drugs are
derived from botanicals.
Recently, the World Health Organization estimated that 80% of people worldwide rely on herbal medicines for
some part of their primary health care. In Germany, about 600 - 700 plant based medicines are available and are
prescribed by some 70% of German physicians. In the past 20 years in the United States, public dissatisfaction
with the cost of prescription medications, combined with an interest in returning to natural or organic remedies,
has led to an increase in herbal medicine use.
herbs are used together because the combination is more effective. Health care providers must take many factors
into account when recommending herbs, including the species and variety of the plant, the plant's habitat, how it
was stored and processed, and whether or not there are contaminants (including heavy metals and pesticides).
Herbal medicine is used to treat many conditions, such as allergies, asthma, eczema, premenstrual syndrome,
rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, migraine, menopausal symptoms, chronic fatigue, irritable bowel syndrome,
and cancer, among others. It is best to take herbal supplements under the guidance of a trained health care
provider.
buying standardized herbal supplements helps ensure you will get the right dose and the effects similar to
human clinical trials. Ask your doctor or pharmacist about which herbal supplements are best for your health
concerns.
Herbal products are complex mixtures of organic chemicals that may come from any raw or processed part of a
plant, including leaves, stems, flowers, roots, and seeds. Under the current law, herbs are defined as dietary
supplements, and manufacturers can therefore produce, sell, and market herbs without first demonstrating safety
and efficacy, as is required for pharmaceutical drugs. University of Maryland Medical Center.
Unfortunately, there is limited scientific evidence to establish the safety and efficacy of most herbal products.
Of the top 10 herbs, 5 (ginkgo, garlic, St. Johns wort, soy, and kava) have scientific evidence suggesting
efficacy, but concerns over safety and a consideration of other medical therapies may temper the decision to use
these products. Herbal Medicine in the United States
Traditional medicine
Modern medicine
Knowledge
Open access
Closed, patent-protected
protection
Pre-determined, and once tested in
Formulation Ad hoc during consultation with the patient
clinical trials cannot be changed unless
re-tested

Regulation
Testing
Dosage

Consultation

Training

Extremely tight, to the point that

bringing drugs to market now costs
billions of dollars
Rigorous trials that happen in different
No formal testing as knowledge of the effectiveness is
phases, first testing for safety, then
handed down through generations
efficacy
Unfixed: the amount of medicine given might be
Fixed doses that tend to vary only
roughly similar, but the active ingredient (which is
slightly with age or weight, or disease
what dosage really is) can vary hugely
severity
Consultations in both primary and
Lengthy, and the patient is asked about a wider range of secondary care tend to be brief and
questions than just their symptoms
focused, especially as national health
systems come under strain
Both systems of medicine require lengthy training over
Often vocational: health professionals
many years but with traditional medicine, knowledge is
go through formal training in schools
often passed one-to-one through families, and
and universities
practitioners are often born into a family of healers
Virtually none, though some countries are trying to
introduce rules and standardisation

Yes,herbal medicine is always a better option.

Herbalism is usually the best way to go when you are faced with a minor disease or infection.
However,when faced with an emergency,( cancer etc) traditional medicine can come in handy.
Are there experts in herbal medicine?
Herbalists, chiropractors, naturopathic physicians, pharmacists, medical doctors, and practitioners of Traditional
Chinese Medicine all may use herbs to treat illness. Naturopathic physicians believe that the body is continually
striving for balance and that natural therapies can support this process. They are trained in 4-year, postgraduate
institutions that combine courses in conventional medical science (such as pathology, microbiology,
pharmacology, and surgery) with clinical training in herbal medicine, homeopathy, nutrition, and lifestyle
counseling.
Modern medicine can have side effects, but if taken with regulation and not in overdose, modern medicine can
be the most effective way to help yourself.

Inorganic, effects, contain drugs

Modern medicines are inorganic and they have chemicals as in contrast to traditional medicines....Its just like a
fertilizer. Chemical fertilizers are good at first point but slowly they show their effects and slowly kill the plant.
They have drugs and they slowly deteriorate our health be it plant or humans........
For desperate situations use the doctors, but for overall wellness and trying to keep yourself well I would like to
go natural and not support the pharmaceutical industry. That's just the tip of the iceburg on the subject though
and much more could be said.
Modern medicine is drugs.
Drugs are unnatural, they harm us. How many doctors really know nutrition? They are taught to administer
drugs. Biggest company in the USA ? - Pharmaceutical company. It's all a game.
Do we really need medicine for a flu, cough or fever? No.
Natural healing is the way to go.

Modern medicine ineffective

Modern medicine makes you more ill with all of its dangerous side effects. These dangerous side effects cause
people to make another visit to the doctor's office, only to be prescribed more drugs. Modern medicine is an
endless cycle of profit rather than about saving peoples lives. Why do we live in a world where profit is placed
above health?

Drug
Artemisinin
Cromoglycate
Etoposide
Hirudin

Lovastatin

Opiates

What it is for

Derived from
Produced by the Chinese
Anti-malarial herb Qinghao or sweet
wormwood
Synthesized from
Asthma
podophyllotoxin, produced
prophylaxis
by the mandrake plant
Synthesized from
Anti-cancer
podophyllotoxin, produced
by the mandrake plant
Salivary glands in leeches,
Anticoagulant now produced by genetic
engineering

To lower
cholesterol

Analgesic

Foods such as oyster

mushrooms and red yeast
rice.

Originally used in
Traditional Chinese medicine for chills and
fevers
Traditional Middle Eastern remedies for
asthma. Khellin has also traditionally been
used in Egypt to treat kidney stones
Various remedies in Chinese, Japanese and
Eastern folk medicine
Traditional remedies across the globe, from
Shui Zhi medicine in China to 18th and 19th
century medicine in Europe

Mushrooms are used to treat a wide range of

illnesses in traditional medicine in China,
Japan, Eastern Europe and Russia

Used to synthesize other

compounds such as
mevastatin and pravastatin
Unripe poppy seeds
Traditional Arab, Chinese, European, Indian
and North African medicines as pain relief and
to treat range of illnesses including diarrhoea,

Quinine
Vinca alkaloids
(vincristine,
vinblastine)

Anti-malarial

Bark of the cinchona tree

Anti-cancer

Rosy periwinkle

coughs and asthma

Traditional remedies to treat fevers and shivers
in South America
Various folk remedies across the world,
including use as an anti-diabetic in Jamaica, to
treat wasp stings in Indian traditional medicine,
as eyewash in Cuba, as love potion in medieval
Europe

Theyre natural. (So what? Strychnine is natural.)

Theyre safer than prescription drugs. (Maybe some are, some arent; how would you know?)

Theyre milder than prescription drugs. (That would depend on the dosage of active ingredient.)

Theyre less likely to cause side effects. (When they have been as well studied as prescription drugs,
they may turn out to have just as many or more side effects. All effective drugs have side effects, and if
an herbal medicine has fewer side effects it might have fewer therapeutic effects too. Formal systems for
reporting adverse effects have long been in place for prescription drugs; not so for herbal remedies.)

Theyre different from prescription drugs. (Some are identical to prescription drugs, like red yeast rice
which contains the same ingredient as prescription lovastatin; and some herbal products have been found
contaminated with prescription drugs.)

Theyre less expensive. (True, but is a cheaper, inferior product a good bargain?)

Theyre easier to obtain. (True, you dont have to make an appointment with a doctor; but that means
you dont get the benefit of a doctors knowledge.)

The mixture of ingredients in a plant can have synergistic effects. (This is widely claimed but almost
never substantiated. The other ingredients are just as likely to counteract the desired effect or to cause
unwanted adverse effects.)

For every disease, God has provided a natural remedy. (Perhaps this is a comforting thought for
believers, but it is not based on any evidence and is not convincing to atheists and agnostics. And it
doesnt help us find that natural remedy.)

But because they are unregulated, herbal products are often mislabeled and may contain additives and
contaminants that arent listed on the label. Some herbs may cause allergic reactions or interact with
conventional drugs, and some are toxic if used improperly or at high doses. Taking herbs on your own
increases your risk, so it is important to consult with your doctor or pharmacist before taking herbal
medicines. Some examples of adverse reactions from certain popular herbs are described below.
St. John's wort can cause your skin to be more sensitive to the sun's ultraviolet rays, and may cause an
allergic reaction, stomach upset, fatigue, and restlessness. Clinical studies have found that St. John's wort
also interferes with the effectiveness of many drugs, including the blood thinner warfarin (Couamdin),
protease inhibitors for HIV, birth control pills, certain asthma drugs, and many other medications. In
addition, St. John's wort should not be taken with prescribed antidepressant medication. The FDA has issued
a public health advisory concerning many of these interactions.
Kava kava has been linked to liver toxicity. Kava has been taken off the market in several countries because
of liver toxicity.
Valerian may cause sleepiness, and in some people it may even have the unexpected effect of
overstimulating instead of sedating.
Garlic, ginkgo, feverfew, and ginger, among other herbs, may increase the risk of bleeding.
Evening primrose (Oenothera biennis) may increase the risk of seizures in people who have seizure
disorders and bleeding in people with bleeding disorders or who take blood-thinning medications, such as
warfarin (Coumadin).
Some herbal supplements, especially those imported from Asian countries, may contain high levels of heavy
metals, including lead, mercury, and cadmium. It is important to purchase herbal supplements from reputable

manufacturers to ensure quality. Many herbs can interact with prescription medications and cause unwanted or
dangerous reactions. For example, there is a high degree of herb/drug interaction among patients who are under
treatment for cancer. Be sure to consult your doctor before trying any herbal products.
Who is using herbal medicine?
Unfortunately, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that nearly 70% of people taking herbal
medicines (most of whom were well educated and had a higher-than-average income) were reluctant tell their
doctors that they used complementary and alternative medicine.
No organization or agency regulates the manufacture or certifies the labeling of herbal preparations. This means
you can't be sure that the amount of the herb contained in the bottle, or even from dose to dose, is the same as
what is stated on the label. Some herbal preparations are standardized, meaning that the preparation is
guaranteed to contain a specific amount of the active ingredients of the herb. However, it is still important to ask
companies making standardized herbal products about their product's guarantee. It is important to talk to your
doctor or an expert in herbal medicine about the recommended doses of any herbal products.

No, herbal medicine is not better then chemical medicine

Herbal medicine is often times an effective alternative to chemical medicine. However it is my belief that
chemical medicine is more effective at healing and treating illness then herbal medicine. Chemical Medicine is
advancing to become better each and every year. Herbal medicine can still be effective if used properly

People are blinded by traditional beliefs.

Traditional medicines have proven to have devastating effects.Some people have used hand made potions
concted after brewing and seering herbs. Animals are sacrificed so that their blood can be drunk in the hope of a
remedy.People are ignorant of these "medicines". Chinese herbs have been proven to have mercury and lead
that could precipitate death.

Modern Medicine is way better than Traditional medicine

Mean while traditional medicine might have been a life saver for our ancestors, they do not suit our fast lifestyle
types. For example modern medicine provide a fast relief from leg pain, stomach ache, fracturess...Etc.
Traditional medicnie work over a long period of time... And what's more? They aren't even scientically
guaranteed to work! Therefore, I don't think patients would like to rely on traditional medicine

It's easier to take a pill, than wait for a miracle

Alternative medicine has a high risk due to inexperienced practitioners while on the other hand traditional
medicine have been clinically trailed and tested on the future side effects not only to help in a persons health but
also life style later on and his society, so therefore it is more guaranteed than herbs and whatsoever.
However, a recent meta-anlysis of the clinical trials on garlic (Reinhart et al., 2009) showed that while
triglyceride levels are modestly reduced, LDL levels are not decreased and HDL levels are not increased. So the
use of garlic supplements to reduce cholesterol must be considered controversial until further investigations
have clarified this issue.
The potential benefit of milk thistle in the treatment of liver diseases remains a controversial issue, with two
recent review studies (Rambaldi, 2007 and Saller, 2008) coming to different conclusions. (The authors of both
studies acknowledge that evidence for clinical benefits of milk thistle extracts exists and suggest more rigorous
studies are needed to resolve these controversies.)
In the UK and the USA herbal remedies are considered as dietary supplements rather than as drugs.
Consequently companies selling them cannot make any claims about their therapeutic effects and they
give no advice about their adverse effects or contra-indications

In many cases, the research supporting these uses is based on practical experience, rather than formal clinical
trials,
Both these practices can lead to harmful herb-drug interactions (Table 2). This problem is exacerbated
because at least 30% of patients do not tell their doctor that they are using them (Eisenberg et al, 1993;
Yoon and Horne, 2001). This is either because patients do not consider herbal remedies as 'drugs', and so
when asked for a history of their medications do not mention them, or because they are reluctant to
mention them for fear of a negative response from the practitioner. It is therefore vital that clinicians
include questions about herbal remedies in their routine drug histories, and be informed rather than
judgmental about their use.
Herbal medicines are not required to undergo the same quality checks as conventional drugs and so they
may be contaminated or adulterated. For example, many Asian and Indian herbal remedies have been
found to contain heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and mercury (Capriotti, 1999).
One of the worst examples of contamination causing adverse effects occurred in the USA in 1989, where
there was an outbreak of eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome associated with the use of L-tryptophan, an over-

the-counter dietary supplement used for weight loss (Anon, 1999). More than 1500 cases were reported,
including 38 deaths. More than 95% of the cases were traced to an individual Japanese supplier.
Researchers found some trace-level impurities, suggesting that a contaminated batch of L-tryptophan
contributed to the outbreak.

Norman Ferrie
Age: 64
Invergowrie, Perthshire, Scotland

Died (liver failure)

July 3, 2004

Norman suffered from arthritis, and decided to take an herbal remedy (glucosamine)
to ease his pain. Only 2 months after starting, he died of a severe allergic reaction.
Read more & more

Jacqueline Jones
Age: 50
St. Albans, Hertfordshire, England

Hospitalized for six weeks

2001

A sample of an herbal treatment for asthma was sent to her house. She tried it and
stopped using her medications. Within two days she was in a hospital where she
stayed for 6 weeks. Read more
But renewed debate about the safety of these remedies was sparked last week following the news of an EU
crackdown on herbalists and Chinese medicine practitioners who operate unregulated at present. Under the new
law, from 2011 sales of all herbal remedies except for a small number of products for minor ailments will also
be banned. Regulators warn that many of us believe that "herbal" is synonymous with "safe", whereas herbal
remedies can be deadly.
Last year, scientists at Boston University found that a fifth of Ayurvedic medicines popular traditional Indian
herbal remedies bought over the internet contained dangerous levels of lead, mercury or arsenic, which could
cause stomach pains, vomiting or liver problems.Menopause remedies also came under fire after a study
reported in the Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin, a journal that reviews medical treatment, found no evidence
they actually worked. Gynaecologist Heather Curry of the British Menopause Society says: "Our feeling is that
there isn't enough scientific evidence either on effectiveness or safety." A German study last year found the
"herbal antidepressant" St Johns wort to be as effective as standard antidepressants such as Prozac.
Menopause remedies also came under fire after a study reported in the Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin, a
journal that reviews medical treatment, found no evidence they actually worked. Gynaecologist Heather Curry
of the British Menopause Society says: "Our feeling is that there isn't enough scientific evidence either on
effectiveness or safety." A German study last year found the "herbal antidepressant" St Johns wort to be as
effective as standard antidepressants such as Prozac.
2005 survey of WHO member states found that 8490 countries (around 60 per cent) had no national policy,
laws or regulations for traditional medicine (although more than half of these proposed developing them) [5].
These are often the countries where traditional remedies are used the most (see Figure 1).
The lack of regulation means there are just as many fake remedies and false practitioners as there are genuine
treatments. And that can have fatal results. For example, last year, two people died and nine were hospitalised
after taking fake anti-diabetic traditional medicine, used to lower blood sugar, in the Xinjiang Uygur
Autonomous Region in China. [6]

Modern drugs go through a rigorous series of laboratory tests and clinical trials before coming to market.
Modern medicine has developed powerful methods for proving effectiveness, testing for safety and
standardising good manufacturing practices.
In contrast, few scientific tests are done to evaluate traditional medicine products and practices. Quality tests
and production standards tend to be less rigorous or controlled and in many cases, practitioners may not be
certified or licensed.

Contaminants (such as heavy metals, pesticides, carcinogens, toxic herbs, and insect parts).

Wild variation in content (from no active ingredient to many times the amount on the label).

Mislabeled products that contain an entirely different herb.

I wont list specific examples here; they are easy enough to find. Ill just say that natural medicines are not
regulated the way prescription drugs are, thanks to the infamous Diet Supplement and Health Education Act
(DSHEA) of 1994.
When you take an herbal remedy, you are taking
1. An active ingredient that usually has not been adequately tested,
2. Other components that have not even been identified, much less tested,
3. An uncertain amount, and
4. Possible contaminants.

12. THW impose death penalty to

corruptors\
Capital punishment is the execution of a person by the state as punishment for a crime. The word "capital"
comes from the Latin word "capitalis", which means "regarding the head". At one point and time capital crimes
where punished by severing the head. Crimes that can result in the death penalty are known as capital crimes or
capital offenses. Capital punishment has been used in societies throughout history as a way to punish crime and
suppress political dissent. In most places that practice capital punishment today, the death penalty is reserved as
punishment for premeditated murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual
crimes, such as rape, adultery and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes such as apostasy (the
formal renunciation of the State religion). In many retentionist countries (countries that use the death penalty),
drug trafficking is also a capital offense. In China human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are also
punished by the death penalty. N
the past, capital punishment has been practiced in almost every society. Currently, only 58 nations actively
practice it, with 95 countries abolishing it. Many countries have abandoned capital punishment, including
almost all European and many Pacific Area states (including Australia, New Zealand and Timor Leste), and
Canada. In Latin America, most states have completely abolished the use of capital punishment, while some
countries, such as Brazil, allow for capital punishment only in exceptional situations, such as treason committed
during wartime. The United States (the federal government and 36 of its states), Guatemala, most of the
Caribbean and the majority of democracies in Asia (e.g. Japan and India) and Africa (e.g. Botswana and
Zambia) retain it. South Africa, which is probably the most developed African nation, and which has been a
democracy since 1994, does not have the death penalty. This fact is currently quite controversial in that country,
due to the high levels of violent crime, including murder and rape.
The latest countries to abolish the death penalty de facto for all crimes were Gabon, which announced on
September 14, 2007 that they would no longer apply capital punishment and South Korea in practice on
December 31, 2007 after ten years of disuse. The latest to abolish executions de jure was Uzbekistan on January
1, 2008.
Around the world, the capital punishment debate revolves around a number of questions, which are important to
layout as a way of summarizing the moral trade-offs of the debate. They include, is capital punishment intended
primarily as a punishment? Is it a just and proportional punishment for certain crimes, like murder? Do
murderers and some other criminals commit crimes so horrific that they forfeit the right to life? Should innocent
life be valued over a murderers life, and does capital punishment demonstrate this? Is life imprisonment without
parole a sufficient punishment? Is the idea of proportional justice a slippery slope to abusive forms of
punishment? Does capital punishment jeopardize our sense of the "dignity of life"? Or, is it important to
demonstrate compassion even to murderers by sparing them their lives? Is the purpose of our prison system
retribution or rehabilitation?
Is the execution of innocent convicts a serious problem. Is it OK that wrongful executions can't be corrected?
Does this deprive due process, by foreclosing the option of appeal to those that have been executed? Does it
generally contravene a right to due process, even for those that are guilty?

Is the death penalty a necessary means of demonstrating the horror felt by a family and a society at a crime? Or,
should we draw a line before capital punishment? If a family or a public desires capital punishment to see
"justice done", is it important for the law to grant these wishes? Does capital punishment give solace, closure,
and comfort to families and society generally?
Is the death penalty a legitimate means of protecting society? Is it important to kill a murderer so that they have
a 0% chance of killing again? Or, can we trust that prisons should be able to hold these prisoners with 100%
effectiveness so as to prevent further murders? Does capital punishment have a deterrent effect, dissuading
criminals from committing future crimes? How disputed is this notion? If it remains highly disputed, can policy
be based on it? Even if there is a deterrent effect, should this be considered? Or, would this be an instance of the
ends (deterrence) justifying the means (capital punishment)?
Is it a major concern that innocent people may be wrongly convicted of a crime and sentenced to death? Does
this happen infrequently? Is it statistically insignificant, or does it only have to happen once for it to put the
whole idea of capital punishment on hold? Does capital punishment violate the notion of due process by killing
those that might make future appeals?
Are capital punishment convictions given in a discriminatory manner? If so, is this a problem with capital
punishment or the judicial system? Is it possible to apply capital punishment consistently, or is it susceptible to
arbitrary application?
What are the economics of capital punishment? Is capital punishment more expensive than life imprisonment?
Should the economics be considered?
These are the moral questions that must be asked by an individual considering this debate, and attempting to
fully weigh its pro and con arguments.
Aff Indonesia could turn to China and Vietnam to see how capital punishment is being applied to stop graft.
Have they succeeded? Is it part of their "economic miracle" narrative? Perhaps we could learn a thing or two
from these two countries that seem to be enjoying double digit economic growth while we are perpetually being
held back by rampant corruption.
Death-sentenced inmates are executed by firing squad. [4] The prisoner has the choice of standing or sitting,
and of whether to have his eyes covered by a blindfold or hood. Firing squads are made up of 12 people, three
of whose rifles are loaded with live ammunition, while the other nine are loaded with blanks. The squad fires
from a distance of between five and ten meters. [5] If following the shooting the prisoner still shows signs of
life, there is one final shot to the head. [6] A prisoner only learns of his impending execution 72 hours in
advance. [7]
It helps the victims' families achieve closure.

Point
The death penalty can also help provide closure for the victim's family and friends, who will no longer have to
fear the return of this criminal into society. They will not have to worry about parole or the chance of escape,
and will thus be able to achieve a greater degree of closure.
Mary Heidcamp, a Chicago woman whose mother's killer faced the death penalty before the State Governor
commuted the sentences to life in prison, stated 'we were looking forward to the death penalty. I'm just so
disappointed in the system'1. Other victims' families deemed the decision a 'mockery', that 'justice is not done'1.
1
Goldbery, Michelle. "The Closure Myth". Salon. January 21, 2003.Accessed June 30,2011
Improve this

Counterpoint
Many victims' families oppose the death penalty1. While some might take comfort in knowing the guilty party
has been executed, others might prefer to know that the person is suffering in jail, or might not feel comfortable
knowing that the state killed another human being on behalf of the victim.
Furthermore, Stanford University psychiatrist David Spiegel believes 'witnessing executions not only fails to
provide closure but often causes symptoms of acute stress. Witness trauma is not far removed from experience
it'2.
Even if it was the case that capital punishment helped the victims' families, sentencing is simply not about what
the victims' families want. Punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed, and not the alleged
preferences of victims' families.
1
Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation. Accessed June 9, 2011.
2
Rahka, Naseem. "Capital Punishment: Muhammad and the 'Closure' Myth." November 1, 2009. Accessed June

29, 2011.
Improve this
The death penalty deters crime.

Point
The state has a responsibility to protect the lives of innocent citizens, and enacting the death penalty may save
lives by reducing the rate of violent crime.
The reasoning here is simple- fear of execution can play a powerful motivating role in convincing potential
murderers not to carry out their acts. While the prospect of life in prison may be frightening, surely death is a
more daunting prospect. Thus, the risk of execution can change the cost-benefit calculus in the mind of
murderers-to be so that the act is no longer worthwhile for them1.
Numerous studies support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. A 1985 study by Stephen K. Layson at the
University of North Carolina showed that a single execution deters 18 murders. Another influential study, which
looked at over 3,054 counties over two decades, further found support for the claim that murder rates tend to
fall as executions rise2.
On top of this, there are ways to make the death penalty an even more effective deterrent than it is today. For
instance, reducing the wait time on death row prior to execution can dramatically increase its deterrent effect in
the United States1.
In short, the death penalty can- and does- save the lives of innocent people.
1
Muhlhausen, David. "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives," August 28,2007. Accessed June 5,
2011.
2
Liptak, Adam. "Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate." The New York Times. November 18, 2007.
Accessed June 9, 2011
Improve this

Counterpoint
There are many reasons to doubt the deterrent effect of the death penalty. For one thing, many criminals may
actually find the prospect of the death penalty less daunting (and thus, less effective as a deterrent) than
spending the rest of their lives suffering in jail. Death by execution is generally fairly quick, while a lifetime in
prison can be seen as a much more intensive punishment.
Moreover, even if criminals preferred life in prison to the death penalty, it's not clear that a harsher punishment
would effectively deter murders. Heinous crimes often occur in the heat of the moment, with little consideration
for their legal repercussions1.
Further, for a deterrent to be effective, it would have to be immediate and certain. This is not the case with the
death penalty cases, which often involve prolonged appeals and sometimes end in acquittals2.
Finally, the empirical evidence regarding the deterrence effect of the death penalty is at best mixed. Many of the
studies that purport to show the deterrence effect are flawed, because the impact of capital punishment cannot
be disentangled from other factors such as broader social trends, economic factors and demographic changes in
a region2.
Other studies have even suggested a correlation between the death penalty and higher crime rates. States such as
Texas and Oklahoma, which have very high execution rates, also have higher crime rates than most states that
do not have the death penalty2.
1
Amnesty International. "Abolish the Death Penalty." Accessed June 5, 2011.
2
"Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.
Improve this
Execution prevents the accused from committing further crimes.

Point
The death penalty is the only way to ensure that criminals do not escape back into society or commit further
crimes while in prison.
While in prison, it is not uncommon for those receiving life in jail sentences to commit homicide, suicide, or
other crimes while in jail, since there is no worse punishment they can receive1. Putting dangerous murderers in
prison endangers other prisoners and the guards who must watch them.
The other advantage of execution is that it prevents the possibly of an escape from prison. Even the highest
security detention facilities can have escapees2. Thus, the only way to be absolutely certain that a convicted
murder can no longer hurt others is to execute them.

Counterpoint

Escapes from prison, though sensationalized by the media, are relatively rare occurrences1. In 1998, according
to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 6,530 people escaped or were AWOL from state prisons. Given a total prison
population of 1,100,224 state prisoners, that figure represents just over half a percent of the total prison
population.
On top of this, it is not impossible for people to commit further crimes while on death row. Those sentenced to
death may be even more eager to escape prior to their execution than those awaiting life in prison, so it is not
true that execution necessarily prevents further crimes.
The death penalty should apply as punishment for first-degree murder; an eye for an eye.

Point
The worst crimes deserve the most severe sanctions; first-degree murder involves the intentional slaughter of
another human being. There are crimes that are more visceral, but there are none that are more deadly. Such a
heinous crime can only be punished, in a just and fair manner, with the death penalty.
As Time put it, 'there is a zero-sum symmetry to capital punishment that is simple and satisfying enough to feel
like human instinct: the worst possible crime deserves no less than the worst possible
punishment'1.Human life is sacred; there must be a deterrent mechanism in place that ensures that those
violating that fundamental precept are punished. Capital punishment symbolizes the value and importance
placed upon the maintenance of the sanctity of human life. Any lesser sentence would fail in this duty.
1
Time Magazine. "The Death Penalty: An Eye for an Eye". Time. January 24, 1983. Accessed June 30, 2011.
Improve this

Counterpoint
There is no fairness or consistency in an eye-for-an-eye attitude towards justice. Justice should remain above
the petty retributive justice that marks street or community warfare, whereby the murder of one family member
justifies a revenge attack against the murderers' family.
Furthermore, it is inconsistent with other areas of the law. As New York University Law Professor Anthony
Amsterdam notes, 'we don't burn arsonists' houses'1. Capital punishment 'attempts to vindicate one murder by
committing a second murder. And the second murder is more reprehensible because it is officially sanctioned
and done with great ceremony in the name of us all'1.
The Christian logic of an eye for an eye is undermined not merely by the Pope himself, who advocated
'clemency, or pardon, for those condemned to death', but scripture itself, which preaches mercy just as
vigorously as it does retribution1.
1
Time Magazine. "The Death Penalty: An Eye for an Eye". Time. January 24, 1983. Accessed June 30, 2011.
Improve this
Execution helps alleviate the overcrowding of prisons.

Point
The death penalty can help ease the problem of overcrowded prisons in many countries, where keeping people
for life in prison contributes to expensive and at times unconstitutional overcrowding1.
In 2011, California prison overcrowding was so problematic that a district court panel ordered authorities to
release or transfer more than 33,000 inmates. This decision was held up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which
argued that the conditions in the overcrowded prisons are so overwhelming that they constitute cruel and
unusual punishment2. Similarly, in the United Kingdom two thirds of prisons in England and Wales have been
deemed overcrowded3.
As such, the death penalty may be preferable to life in prison since it helps alleviate a pressing problem in the
criminal justice system. It is better to execute those who deserve it than to be forced to release dangerous
offenders into society because prisons are overcrowded by people serving life sentences.
1
Sanchez, Mary. "California prisons: Cruel and unusual." The Miami Herald. May 30, 2011. Accessed June 9,
2011.
2
Martinez, Michael. "California officials: We'll fix prison crowding, won't free 33,000." CNN. May 24,2011.
Accessed June 9, 2011.
3
"Two-thirds of prisons overcrowded." The Guardian. August 25, 2009. Accessed June 8, 2011
Improve this

Counterpoint
Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are largely
composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be

executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death
penalty cases1.
Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could
increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs2.
Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as arbitrary as
the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime, not
of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification for the death penalty.
1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.
2 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

1st speaker affirmative

this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptors
Im as first speaker delivering argument from political point of view. The second speaker is .
delivering argument from social point of view. The third speaker is .. Collaborating the argument of first and
second speaker and rebutting the negative team. And the replier of my team is
Ladies and gentlemen,
Id like to define and limit the motion. Government means the president and his cabinet in Indonesia bersatu
jilid 2 includes the police, prosecutor and judge who have power to manage and role this country today.
Corruptors means every person who works as the state officer, house of representative, businessman, and all
people has done activity to cheat, take, give and loss the financial of the country and use the money for him.
Death penalty means the punishment given to the corruptors by losing his life. So, the government recommends
the court to punish the corruptors with the death penalty for his activity which loss the country and Indonesian
people. The limitation is the state officer and the house of representative.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The state officer and house of representative have duty to serve the people and this country. And they know well
that their job is to make the people become prosperous. Then, when they cheat, take profit for themselves and
make the country loss or corruption, it means that they break their duty to give good serve for people. Death
penalty for corruptor gives good effects for the political and social in this country. It makes the state officer to
stay away from corruption, then, society will be more believable to them
Now, this time for me to deliver our argument from politic point of view and as the first speaker affirmative I
would like to fix my position that we agree with the motion to day this house believe that government should
give death penalty for corruptor. There are some reasons to support our arguments.
First, the policy will make the governments credibility better and the existence of the government to fight the
corruption will be no question again. As far as we know that many persons who work in the government such as
in prosecutor, police department, court, tax department, etc. corrupt so it makes the grade of believable toward
government, especially president, decreases. The signal shows the bad work of government. And it will
influence in-conducive situation of the politic in this country. The main duty of government to serve the people
wills disturb because of the corruptors in every department who make difficulties to the activities people for
example business. Moreover, there will be unfair activity and gap between the government and people. Ladies
and gentlemen, giving death penalty for corruptor will decrease the amount of officers in all departments to
corrupt and make difficulties to people. For example; Gayus Tambunan, a staff of tax department. He gives
some help to big companies to manipulate the amount of tax which is paid to be less than it should be. Then he
gets much money from those companies. He makes the income of the country decrease. He and the big
companies make the country loss for much money. While the small companies must pay suitable the tax which
should be paid because of no helping from the staff like gayus tambunan.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Second reason; that policy to give death penalty for corruptor is good step to protect the next corruptors appear,
in other word the corruptors become chary or deterrent or not corrupt again and the others will be afraid to
corrupt. Death penalty is as deterrent effect. I want to underline here that every 4 years or after finishing the
period of the members of house representatives job many of those members of the house go to the jail because
of corruption. For example the chief of the house of madiun regency and some members period 2000 to 2004 go
to the jail in 2004, then some members of the house period 2004 to 2008 also go the jail in 2008. Moreover, we
still remember our ex chief of madiun city must stay in the jail because of corruption in 2009. Why that
condition happen, ladies and gentlemen? Because the punishment the corruptors get is very low, so many state
officer and members of representative do not fell afraid, they just stay in the jail under 5 years or just pay some
billion. From that condition we are really sure that death penalty will protect the state officer and members of
the house to corrupt. Do you think they will be pleasure to release their life for sentence to death by firing

squad? No, nobody wants to die like that. So, the person will think twice or more if they intend to corrupt.
Ladies and gentlemen, bad habit such as corruption which occurs for years can not stop without a resolute step
or death penalty. We can say corruption is the bad old habit which has existed since Majapahit era or more. So
the best solution to stop corruption is by giving shock therapy, the heaviest punishment such as death penalty.
That policy also remains the government to serve people correctly. Because of many good effects for our
country so our team absolutely agrees that this house believes that government should give death penalty for
corruptors. Thank you.

2nd speaker affirmative

this house believe that government should give death penalty for corruptor
Ladies and gentlemen,
First of all, Id like rebut the argument of 1st speaker negative team. She/he said
Ladies and gentlemen,
This is my turn to deliver my argument from social point of view. As the second speaker affirmative team I
agree with the motion today that this house believes that government should give death penalty for
corruptor.
Ladies and gentlemen, corruption will make big destroying and loss the country. Most of the corruptors are state
officers who work in government and members of the house. They enrich themselves by making loss for the
countrys income. While the people, common people or businessmen, follow situation created by the corruptors
in the government to give them some money to make their case or affair to be able to work smoothly and well.
We can say that there will be no bribe from the businessmen if the state officers do all affairs in its place and
serve properly. So there is no corruption again. Or the members of the house just receive salary and do not
receive money by breaking the role and law.
We note some advantages from social point of view by applying death penalty for corruptor.
First, society will admit the existence and commitment of the government to serve totally to the people to create
the prosperity for people. Death penalty is fresh air for people where they know well that corruptors get
punishment heavily. People are sure that action can decrease the amount of corruptors then become clean from
corruptors. It shows that government can work well. Moreover, the clean government can create the stable
society where the people believe toward the government, especially president who is voted directly by the
people. At last, the expectation of the people will come true to get proper and prosperous life in their own
country. Death penalty makes the income of the country increase because of nothing for corruptors. Then, the
money uses for serving people better. For example the corruption by sekmenpora or staff in kemnakertrans
which talks about millions of money hurt the peoples heart. People are doubtful about the work of government.
They take a lot of money for themselves while many people live in poverty condition. That condition decreases
the admitting of people belief toward the government. The situation also forces the president to reshuffle his
cabinet because of decreasing of peoples belief toward the government which consists of many corrupted
official.
Second, applying death penalty for corruptor will lose the corruption activities so the society will be proud that
Indonesia becomes the clean country or no corruption action from the grass root until chief of the country. As
we know according to Independent organization in 2010 Indonesia got sixth rank from 146 countries in the
world as the country with corruption problem and got first rank in Asia pacific. Oh my god, thats very worst
achievement for the country which begins new future in reformation era. It is very ashamed for all people that
we are rich country but we have most of poor people. It happens because of corruption which grows like flower
in the rainy season. Getting first rank for corrupting shows Indonesian officials have bad character. Death
penalty especially for corrupted official makes the country stand strongly beside the country all the world. . I
believe that, when there is no really strict punishment in Indonesia, corruption will definitely be rampant. The
death penalty is the answer. Corruptors deserve the death penalty. They are even more dangerous and worse
than a killer. A killer kills one or two people right away. But a corruptor kills a lot of people gradually, slowly
but surely.
Ladies and gentlemen,
People want to live properly and prosperous. The corruption makes the people angry and loses their proud to
this country. Then, they do not believe toward the government any more. That condition is very dangerous for
stabilization of society. When people lose their belief to government, it means the government should be

reshuffled or changed. Then to avoid bad impact from decreasing peoples belief to government so we need to
say once again that this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor. Thank
you.

3rd speaker affirmative

this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor
Ladies and gentlemen,
Im third speaker affirmative. Allow me to respond the negative team argument, collaborate first and second
speaker and conclude my team argument.
As my team rebuttal, that first speaker negative said.
Then the second speaker negative also argues that.
Here, wed like to give some solution and suggestion to solve the problem, so our country will be clean from
corruption activities.
Ladies and gentlemen, as the affirmative team of course we support and agree that students this house believes
that government should give death penalty for corruptor. From political point of view, my first speaker said
that the policy, applying death penalty for corruptor, will make the governments credibility better and the
existence of the government to fight the corruption will be no question again. In other hand political situation
becomes stable. She also said that policy to give death penalty for corruptor is good step to protect the next
corruptors appear, in other word the corruptors become chary or not corrupt again and the others will be afraid
to corrupt. Death penalty is as deterrent effect. The young generation also stays away from corruption activities.
The bad habit such as corruption must be stop so it does not become our culture, not now or not in the future.
Beside those reasons, applying death penalty for corruptors is also supported by the positive law in Indonesia
until nowadays. It begins UU no. 5 1969 and issues the next UU no. 26 / 2000 about human right and UU no. 15
/ 2005 about terrorism. All of UU are released by the government and the house has agreed them. Moreover,
Minister of Justice and Human Rights Patrialis Akbar asserted that the Indonesian Constitution of 1945 does not
prohibit the application of the death penalty for people convicted of corruption. So it is clear that bases on the
law the dead penalty for corruptor has strong power to do.
Ladies and gentlemen, in the beginning of this debate my first speaker has said that the main duty of official is
to serve people well and make them prosperous. Corruption action does not support to realize the duty but
corruption cut off to be the clean and good official. Corruption suffers the people so the death penalty is good
policy to punish the corruptors.
Ladies and gentlemen, from social point of view, my second speaker said that society will admit the existence
and commitment of the government to serve totally to the people to create the prosperity for people. Death
penalty is fresh air for people where they know well that corruptors get punishment heavily. So the social
situation becomes stable because the people support the policy of the government. She also said that applying
death penalty for corruptor will lose the corruption activities so the society will be proud that Indonesia
becomes the clean country or no corruption action from the grass root until chief of the country. So Indonesia
will not be the sixth rank in the world as the corrupting problem and first rank in Asia pacific. That the worst
achievement for our country.
Beside those reasons, applying death penalty for corruptor appears good condition in the society. As we know
many corruptions make people suspicious each other and think negative toward the others. Moreover, people
are easy to be provoked and used by certain person or group. There are many bad habits like lazy, indiscipline,
leave the work, late, etc. which appear because of the corrupted environment. For example someone must pay
billions of money for certain official to get job as the state official such as PNS in local and central government
so they have less commitment to serve people well. They get the job because of money, not as professional.
That condition also creates unfair chance for some people who do not have much money for the certain official
to get job as PNS.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Corruption in Indonesia is very bad. We can find the corruption every where such as in education department, in
the court, in the office of district, in the police department etc. And it is done directly and indirectly, formal and
informal situation. The corruption really makes the people suffer. They also think government has responsibility
toward the worst condition where corruption has been like culture to do in our country. So to stable political and

social condition, government must decide one serious decision to stop corruption to grow larger. And the answer
is by applying the strict punishment for all corruptor that is death penalty. Once again ladies and gentlemen, our
team very agrees this house believe that government should give death penalty for corruptor. Thank you.
Corrupt are criminals were indeed very deplorable and everyone knows it. But we can not forget that he is
human just like us all. Actions that we hate is not the culprit. He also had a future, have become family
responsibilities, have an environment that sometimes expect his presence. All this is a consideration for given
death penalty for a corrupt person. In the theory of criminal law when the judge was about to decide a case
relating to an offense, regardless of its form then the Judge should see 2 sides, the first is the past, which indeed
it became a problem because it never committed a crime, the latter needs to be seen is the future First, in the
sense that human beings by nature always want the good will be better able to be beyond even what we think. It
means that there is still a possibility of change in moving towards a better course with coaching. Then the future
of the family who became its responsibilities, his son, his wife, and other family members who became her
responsibility. When the death sentence was handed down could be realized so that instead of the state without
corruption but instead gave rise to a new crime figures who were born because the effect of the pressures of life
in economic terms because after after the death of his father could be sentenced to death or the country could be
destroyed by the kids her father became a victim of the death penalty because based on revenge. Things like this
should also be kept.
1st speaker negative
this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor
Ladies and gentlemen,
We are negative team. As the first speaker, Id like to state our team split. Im the first speaker and I will rebut
and deliver our argument from human right point of view. The second speaker is .. she will rebut and deliver
the argument from law point of view. The third speaker is .. She will collaborate and summarize the
argument of first and second speaker. And replier of our team is.. The motion today is this house believes
that government should give death penalty for corruptor.
Ladies and gentlemen,
First we can accept the definition and limitation which are given by affirmative team
Now allow me to rebut the first speaker affirmative argument. She said that.
Ladies and gentlemen, nobody perfect, this is the word I want to remain you again. It means here that everyone
can do wrong action and it is common to get punishment because of that mistake. We say that corruption is bad
action and need to be punished, but what appropriate punishment he should get suitable his mistake. And
because we are educated person, the punishment had better to contain education and change someone to be
better. Punishment should have good value for himself, the society and the country so it is effective to repair the
condition for all elements. Death penalty is not good punishment to give good effect for all elements; it is
something like the other face of killing legally. It teaches nothing for corruptor.
Ladies and gentlemen, as first speaker negative team wed like to fixed our position that we absolutely disagree
with the motion that this house believe that government should give death penalty for corruptor. From human
right point of view we have some reasons to support it.
First, death penalty is inhuman punishment although it is used to punish even corruptor. In fact, the policy
breaks the human right which always appreciates someones life whoever he is, without some discrimination.
Moreover, death penalty as a deterrent effect is conceptually wrong. The purpose of punishment is rehabilitation
to make someone better, not for revenge. Death penalty does not full fill the requirements as the good
punishment. It just cuts someones life. It does not try to change someones character to be better, realize his
wrong and does not corrupt again. The most important thing of punishment is to make someone to able to walk
his next life in right line. Kontras said the death penalty did not respect the right to life and would be ineffective
as a corruption deterrent. It said the clause would also hinder efforts to repatriate corruption fugitives hiding
abroad, as well as their assets. Moreover, YLBHI strongly opposes death sentence for convicted of corruption.
YLBHI is of an opinion that a death sentence is against universal human rights. In addition, the death sentence
is a punishment that can not be corrected or overturned.
Second, death penalty shows that the country has become the owner of the rights of life and, of course, it is not
correct. We must come back to the basic of life that Just God can take someone life, not the country or the
government. Is there any guarantee that the punishment decided by court is really right without any pressure
from power person? No guarantee, so how can we punish death penalty if the court cannot run well? For
example the court in Pasuruan punishes guilty as the murder for someone and some years later the real murder

has been caught and it also happens for the person who punishes guilty as the corruption. Finishing someones
life is not the right of government because we dont have the best judge, prosecutors and law which is clean
from intervention or some importance of certain group.
Ladies and gentlemen, Someones life is not toy to try out about applying fatal punishment such as death
penalty, or just government tries to take the sympathy of people. We talk about life and death of people, so
please think carefully. Every wrong person even corruptor has right to get some chance to repair his mistakes.
And the punishment should become a place to repair himself. Here we conclude that we very disagree that this
house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor. Thank you.

2nd speaker negative

this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor
My name is .. from smk pgri 3 madiun as the second speaker negative team.
Ladies and gentlemen,
First, Id like rebut the argument of 2nd speaker affirmative team. She/he said we think ..
Ladies and gentlemen, ..
Ladies and gentlemen, as second speaker negative team we still concert to disagree with motion today that this
house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor. We have some reasons to support
our argument from law point of view.
First, death penalty is not strong supporting of law in this country. It undermined human dignity, was
incompatible with Article 28 of 1945 Constitution that guaranteed the right to life of every individual and that it
failed to curb similar crimes. All people, including the corruptor, have rights to defend their life and the
constitution guarantee it clearly. In our constitution, capital punishment is mentioned as part of human rights
that should not be revoked under any circumstances, too. But, Article 28 (i) mentioned that the implementation
of human rights is limited by two things. First, it must not violate the rights of others. Second, it is restricted by
law. So, it is possible for the states issue a law that would impose death penalty to convicted corruptor. So it is
very funny that the government issues the death penalty in law while in fact it breaks the foundation of our
country, the Constitution of 1945. Its clear enough that death penalty doesnt have strong power to do in law.
Second, death penalty is not suitable with ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). As we
know that the Indonesian government decides to ratify the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights) into law No. 12/2005. Actually, more than 100 countries in the world have erased the death penalty as
the punishment. As the one of the countries in the world Indonesia should criticize about this condition. In
globalized world death penalty has not become the priority of the punishment again. As the modern country we
also live more humanity and think forward. There are many ways to solve the problem without violence such as
death penalty. I say violence because death penalty is to take someones life with pressure. Most of the countries
in the world have moved forward by erasing death penalty as the punishment because of inhuman action, then
when we are brave to step such like that? Now, thats the answer. We must change.
And, ladies and gentlemen, from the law point of view, it is not ideal again especially in globalization era to
apply death penalty as the punishment even for corruptor. According the law, every person has the same right to
live and defend from violence or pressure. Moreover, according the law, punishment is process to realize
someone about all mistakes and learns more to better person and has better life. And the most important thing is
the person does not do the mistake again.
Ladies and gentlemen, everyone can make mistakes but it doesnt mean he never does the right thing. He has
done the valuable things for himself and the others, and now he slips of steps, then why dont we give them
chance to repair the entire mistake? He can give something useful for this country in the future. Here we
emphasize that we disagree this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor,
thank you.

3rd speaker negative

this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor

Ladies and gentlemen,

Im third speaker negative. Allow me to respond the affirmative team argument, collaborate first and second
speaker and conclude my team argument.
As my team rebuttal, that first speaker negative said.
Then the second speaker negative also argues that.
Here, wed like to give some solution and suggestion to solve the problem, that sending the corruptors to the jail
or imprisonment for more than 25 years without some decreasing or life sentence, do the public service free
such as cleaning the river, taking garbage, etc and returning the money which is corrupted and giving fine.
Ladies and gentlemen, as the negative team of course we do not support and do not agree this house believes
that government should give death penalty for corruptor. From human right point of view, my first speaker
has said that death penalty is inhuman punishment although it is used to punish even corruptor. In fact, the
policy breaks the human right which always appreciates someones life whoever he is, without some
discrimination. Moreover, death penalty as a deterrent effect is conceptually wrong. The purpose of punishment
is rehabilitation to make someone better, not for revenge. Death penalty does not full fill the requirements as the
good punishment. Then, she also argues that death penalty shows that the country has become the owner of the
rights of life and, of course, it is not correct. We must return to the basic of life that Just God can take someone
life, not the country or the government.
Beside those reasons, the United Nations study has shown that there is no statistically valid data that support the
application of the death penalty to be directly proportional to the decrease in corruption level. Both are not
proportionally related. Furthermore, death penalty is not good solution to fight corruption. We must find out the
root of the reason why people corrupt. Moreover, government has responsibility to repair the bureaucracy and
service to people because government has power to create the culture without corruption in all aspects include
the government itself. The failure of the handling of corruption cases in Indonesia is because of politics as well
as the bad service and bureaucracy of the Indonesian legal system.
Ladies and gentlemen, in the beginning of this debate my first speaker has said nobody perfect. It means here
that everyone can do wrong action and it is common to get punishment because of that mistake. Punishment
should have good value for himself, the society and the country so it is effective to repair the condition for all
elements. And death penalty is not good solution.
Ladies and gentlemen, from law point of view, my second speaker said that death penalty is not strong
supporting of law in this country. It undermined human dignity, was incompatible with Article 28 of 1945
Constitution that guaranteed the right to life of every individual including the corruptor. And she also argues
death penalty is not suitable with ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). As we know
that the Indonesian government decides to ratify the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights) into law No. 12/2005. Furthermore, Article 28I (1) of the 1945 Constitution guarantees the right to life
of each and every Indonesian citizen, in line with the ICCPR and law No. 12/2005. Retaining the death penalty
in Indonesias penal code (KUHP) is therefore a contradiction and proof of the inconsistency in Indonesias
system of constitutional laws.
Beside those reasons, according to Pancasila number 2 says the humanity with justice and wisdom. So its clear
that death penalty is not full fill the justice especially for corruptor and it doesnt show the wisdom of this
country.
Ladies and gentlemen, death penalty is not the good answer to fight corruption because there is no statistically
valid data that support the application of the death penalty to be directly proportional to the decrease in
corruption level. So we need clear enforcement law, in other word, the most important thing is actually the
honesty of law enforcement officers. Then it can repair the bad service and bureaucracy of the Indonesian legal
system. The last we still disagree this house believes that government should give death penalty for
corruptor. Thank you.

Killers, murderers, terrorists, drug lords. Who cares if they are faced with death, right? These are the
arguments of many pro-death penalty advocates who highlight the guilt of the convicted and the serious nature
of their crime.
But what if you couldn't be sure? What if it wasn't only reserved for the "worst of the worst"? World Day
Against the Death Penalty reminds us all to challenge the notion of "an eye for an eye" equals justice.

Here are five reasons why:

1. You can't take it back

The death penalty is irreversible. Absolute judgments may lead to people paying for crimes they did not
commit. Texas man Cameron Todd Willingham, for example, was found innocent after his 2004 execution.
2. It doesn't deter criminals
In fact, evidence startlingly reveals the opposite! Twenty seven years after abolishing the death penalty, Canada
saw a 44 per cent drop in murders across the country. And it wasn't alone.
3. There's no 'humane' way to kill
The 2006 execution of Angel Nieves Diaz, by a so-called 'humane' lethal injection, took 34 minutes and
required two doses. Other methods of execution used around the world include hanging, shooting and
beheading. The nature of these deaths only continues to perpetuate the cycle of violence and does not alleviate
the pain already suffered by the victims family.
4. It makes a public spectacle of an individual's death
Executions are often undertaken in an extremely public manner, with public hangings in Iran or live
broadcasts of lethal injections in the US.
5. The death penalty is disappearing
Out of 198 countries around the world only 21 continue to use capital punishment. And while countries that
carried out executions in 2011 did so at an alarming rate, those employing capital punishment have decreased
by more than a third in the last decade. With this clear downward trend, public pressure may help persuade the
world's biggest executors China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the USA to stop.
There are countless arguments for and against the death penalty. In an imperfect world where we can never be
sure we have ever got the "worst of the worst" is it ever justified to take a life?
State-sanctioned killing is wrong.

Point
The state has no right to take away the life of its citizens. By executing convicts, the government is effectively
condoning murder, and devaluing human life in the process. Such acts violate the right to life as declared in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights1 and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading
punishment2.
On top of this, the state forces executioners to actively participate in the taking of a life, which can be unduly
traumatizing and leave permanent psychological scars. Thus, a humane state cannot be one that exercises the
death penalty.
1
Amnesty International. "Abolish the Death Penalty." Accessed June 5, 2011.
2
European Union Delegation to the USA. "EU Policy Against the Death penalty." October 10, 2010. Accessed
June 5, 2011.
Improve this

Counterpoint
A just state regularly abrogates people's rights when they intrude upon the rights of others. By sentencing
people to prison, for instance, the state takes away rights to movement, association, and property rights from
convicted criminals. The right to life should be no different. When you commit certain heinous crimes, you
forgo your right to life. This does not devalue life, but rather affirms the value of the innocent life taken by the
criminal. Certain crimes are so heinous that the only proportionate sentence is execution.
As for the executioners themselves, there are methods of execution that involve multiple executioners which
might reduce the associated psychological burdens. At any rate, no one is forced to become an executioner, and
people who choose to take on that role do so with full awareness of the risks involved.
Improve this
The death penalty is a financial burden on the state.

Point

Capital punishment imposes a very high cost on taxpayers, which far outweighs the costs of alternative
punishments such as life in prison1.
A single capital litigation can cost over $1 million as a result of the intensive jury selection, trials, and long
appeals process that are required by capital cases2. The cost of death row presents an additional financial burden
associated with the death penalty.
Savings from abolishing the death penalty in Kansas, for example, are estimated at $500,000 for every case in
which the death penalty is not sought1.
In California, death row costs taxpayers $114 million a year beyond the cost of imprisoning convicts for life 2.
This money could instead be better spent on measures that are of much greater benefit to the criminal justice
system- greater policing, education, and other crime-preventing measures that are far more cost-effective.
1
Liptak, Adam. "Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate." The New York Times. November 18, 2007.
Accessed June 9, 2011
2
"High Cost of Death Row." The New York Times. September 27, 2009.
Improve this

Counterpoint
Justice is priceless. Even if the death penalty is more expensive than other punishments, that is not sufficient
reason to ban it. Fair and proportionate punishments should be independent of financial considerations.
Further, there are ways to make the death penalty less expensive than it is today. Shortening the appeals process
or changing the method of execution could reduce its costs1.
1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.

Improve this
Wrongful convictions are irreversible.

Point
There are an alarming number of wrongful convictions associated with the death penalty1. So far, more than 130
people who had been sentenced to death have been exonerated2. In many cases, unlike those who have been
sentenced to life in prison, it is impossible to compensate executed prisoners should they later be proven
innocent.
The state should not gamble with people's lives. The chance of wrongful execution alone should be enough to
prove the death penalty is not justifiable.
1
European Union Delegation to the USA. "EU Policy Against the Death penalty." October 10, 2010. Accessed
June 5, 2011.
2
"Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.
Improve this

Counterpoint
Wrongful convictions are particularly rare in cases where the death penalty is sentenced. The lengthy and
thorough procedures associated with death penalty cases offer sufficient protection against wrongful
convictions. If there is any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty, they will not receive the sentence.
Finally, even in cases where there is a wrongful conviction, there is generally a lengthy appeals process for them
to make their case. For example, in 1993, Alex Hernandez was sentenced to death for the kidnapping, rape and
murder of a 10-year old girl in Chicago; he was released a number of years later due to his lawyers proving both
a paucity of evidence and the confession of her actual killer1. As a result, very few innocent people receive the
death penalty, and the legality of capital punishment does not increase wrongful or prejudicial convictions2.
1
Turow, Scot. "To kill or not to kill," The New Yorker, January 6, 2003. Accessed June 3, 2011,
2
Murdock, Deroy. "A Sure Way to Prevent Prison Escapes." March 30, 2001. Accessed June 9, 2011
Improve this
The death penalty can produce irreversible miscarriages of justice.

Point
Juries are imperfect1, and increasing the stakes of the verdict can pervert justice in a couple of ways.
First, implementation of the death penalty is often impacted by jury members' social, gender-based or racial
biases2, disproportionately impacting certain victimized groups in society and adding a certain arbitrariness to
the justice system. A 2005 study found that the death penalty was three to four times more common amongst
those who killed whites than those who killed African Americans or Latinos, while those who kill women are

three and a half times more likely to be executed than those who kill men2.
Regional differences in attitudes towards the death penalty can also introduce elements of randomness into
sentencing. For instance, in Illinois, a person is five times more likely to get a death sentence for first-degree
murder in a rural area than in Cook County2.
Finally, the fear of wrongful execution can also pervert justice by biasing juries towards returning an innocent
verdict when they would otherwise be deemed guilty3. When they are told that the consequence of a guilty
verdict is death, they are likely to find some kind of reasonable doubt to avoid being responsible for the death of
that criminal. This means that more criminals who would've otherwise been convicted do not get charged. In
this sense the death penalty can pervert the goals of justice and prolong the difficult process for victims'
families.
1
"Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.
2
Turow, Scot. "To kill or not to kill," The New Yorker, January 6, 2003. Accessed June 3, 2011,
3
Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.
Improve this

Counterpoint
The fact that juries are prone to several biases is not a flaw inherent or unique to capital punishment.
If there are racial or prejudicial issues in sentencing, these are likely to present themselves just as often in cases
where the punishment is life in prison. It is equally problematic for people to die or spend decades in jails for
crimes they did not commit. These errors suggest that the judicial process may need some reform, not that the
death penalty should be abolished. Implementation errors that result in discrimination can and should be
corrected.
Moreover, there is little evidence that these biases are even present in most death penalty cases1. A study funded
by the National Institute of Justice in the US found that differences in sentencing for white and non-white
victims disappeared when the heinousness of the crimes were factored into the study1. Thus, factors relating to
the crime, not the race, of the accused accounted for some of the purported racial disparities that were found.
Finally, jurors must be "death- qualified" in such cases, meaning that they are comfortable sentencing someone
to death should the fact indicate their guilt2. Thus, it is unlikely that many jurors will abstain from a guilty
verdict because they are uncomfortable with the death penalty.
1
Muhlhausen, David. "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives," August 28,2007. Accessed June 5,
2011.
2
Haney, Craig. "Juries and the Death Penalty." Crime and Delinquency. Vol 26 no 4. October 1980.
Improve this

13. THW ban all medical profesional to

smoke
Since Scotland became the first country in the UK to introduce the smoking ban in March 2006, all the
remaining countries which constitute the UK all now have the same or very similar legislation in place with
regards to the smoking ban. There are some places which are exempt however. And, although any exemptions to
the smoking ban are highly likely to be the same, or very similar to, those which apply to England, all of the
information contained within this article comes from guidance set out under English law which came into force
on July 1, 2007. Therefore, it may be worth checking other legislation which applies to Scotland, Ireland and
Wales which may differ in some way just to make sure you know your rights.
What are the Exemptions to the Smoking Ban?
There are certain designated places which, under the normal conditions of the smoking ban, it would not be
permissible to smoke but where the government have made some exceptions. These include:

Mental health units

Residential care/nursing homes

Prisons

Adult hospices

Designated rooms in hotels

However, even within these kinds of enclosed establishments there are still strict rules surrounding where you
are permitted to smoke. For example, in a prison, you would be permitted to smoke in your own cell or if you
shared a cell with another smoker but you would not be allowed to smoke freely in any communal area which
may be shared with non-smokers nor would you even be able to smoke in your cell if you shared it with a nonsmoker.
To force a breakthrough in the smoking culture in psychiatry it should be prohibited for mental health staff to
smoke in the work place. There I said it! (and yes I agree it should be like that everywhere in health care but in
this blog I will focus on psychiatry). Its a challenge for patients to quit smoking in psychiatry where a lot of
people smoke. They get discouraged. Mental health workers may often tell the patient that its too hard to quit
with mental illness, that it stresses them out too much. And of course its quite an effort for them but I have seen
enough to prove that it is not impossible. Sometimes I wonder if staff who smoke feel threatened by the brave
attempts of patients who want to quit when they cant manage to quit themselves. Healthcare professionals are
an important component of every smokefree air campaign. Doctors, dentists, nurses, dental hygienists, and
healthcare students not only have a shared interest in promoting and protecting public health, but many are also
are well-known and well-respected within their communities.
If I'm in hospital all I want from my nurses and doctors is that they do their jobs well, which the overriding
majority do. Patients should focus on their job, which is primarily, getting better, not moralising on the private
lives of the people who are there to treat them.

14. THW make vaccination

compulasory
Should Parents Be Allowed to Decide About Vaccines?
April 29, 2014 | 214,866 views
|

Disponible en Espaol

Spread the Word to

Friends And Family
By Sharing this Article.

86
inShare

2.0k
Email

Print

Visit the Mercola Video Library

By Dr. Mercola
USA Today recently ran an editorial under the headline, "Vaccine opt-outs put public health at risk" and called
for elimination of personal belief exemptions in state public health laws, including those that require children to
get dozens of doses of up to 15 vaccines in order to attend daycare and school.
1

"When vaccination rates are very high, as they still are in the nation as a whole, everyone is protected. Diseases
such as polio, smallpox and measles are wiped out," the editorial claims.
"This 'herd immunity' protects the most vulnerable, including those who can't be vaccinated for medical
reasons, infants too young to get vaccinated and people on whom the vaccine doesn't work.
But herd immunity works only when nearly the whole herd joins in. When some refuse vaccinations and seek a
free ride, immunity breaks down and everyone is more vulnerable."

Not Sharing the Risks of Vaccination = Selfish?

The editorial goes on to claim that outbreaks of infectious diseases such as measles are due to the "selfish
decisions" of a few, who take vaccine exemptions and place everyone else in the "herd" at risk.
The answer, the editorial board says, is to eliminate personal belief vaccine exemptions from state public health
laws and presumably force all children and adults to get every government recommended vaccine. The article
finishes off with the curious statement:
"Everyone enjoys the life-saving benefits vaccines provide, but they'll exist only as long as everyone shares in
the risks." [Emphasis mine]
I call it curious, because nowhere in the editorial did they actually address the issue of health risks associated
with vaccines, which is one of the primary reasons for having personal choice in the first place. If safety and
effectiveness of the product could be guaranteed, fewer people would have major objections.
Also noteworthy is the editorial board's statement that herd immunity protects "people on whom the vaccine
doesn't work." Right there, they admit that vaccination isn't a foolproof disease prevention strategy. Vaccines
can and often do fail to prevent disease.

What USA Today Didn't Tell You

What they don't spell out clearly is that the risk of vaccine failure must be weighed in along with the potential
risk of harm from the vaccine. That inconvenient truth is cleverly hidden amid inflammatory rhetoric designed
to get people to rally against those pesky free-thinkers who have the audacity to do their own risk-benefit
analysis.
While the USA Today editorial board admits that there are health risks associated with vaccines and vaccines
don't always work, they still insist that people should not be free to make their own choices when it comes to
vaccination. Why?
Apparently, their reasoning goes like this: the only way to have any hope of success in eradicating disease is by
forcing everyone to blindly accept the known and potential unknown risks of vaccination.
And since there are risks - even though the newspaper's editors only acknowledge risk briefly in their OpEd the only way they say mass vaccination policies are "fair" is by mandatorily distributing the risk across the
entire population.
The simpler argument is that it is done for "The Greater Good" and opting out is therefore proclaimed to be
"selfish," which is an old utilitarian rationale that can be challenged on ethical grounds.
Sadly their reasoning is irrational. For starters, the premises of vaccine-induced immunity and herd immunity
are both fundamentally flawed, and the medical literature is full of scientific evidence of thisnone of which is
ever mentioned in newspaper OpEds designed to make you fear and intensely dislike anyone who wants to
make well informed, independent vaccine choices for themsleves and their children.
The theory of vaccine-acquired herd immunity, which is regularly used as a justification for forced vaccination,
is based on the premise that it will work the same way naturally-acquired herd immunity works. The only

problem is that it doesn't. For a refresher on herd immunity, and the differences between vaccine-induced and
naturally-acquired immunity, please refer to my previous article "Expert Pediatrician Exposes Vaccine Myths."

Leave Parents Free to Choose Vaccines

Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)
wrote an editorial opposing USA Today's call for an end to personal belief vaccine exemptions in state laws. She
noted that US health officials now recommend twice as many vaccines compared to three decades ago.
If you follow the recommended vaccine schedule, your child will receive no less than 69 doses of 16 vaccines.
Up to 15 of those vaccines are mandated by different states. Yet despite this cornucopia of "preventive
medicine," American children are among the sickest in the developed world.
"With 95 percent of US kindergarteners fully vaccinated and one child in six learning disabled, one in 10
asthmatic and one in 50 living with autism, educated parents and health care professionals are asking
legitimate questions about why so many highly vaccinated children are so sick," Fisher writes.
"They're examining vaccine science shortfalls and wondering why Americans are coerced and punished for
declining to use every government-recommended vaccine while citizens in Canada, Japan and the European
Union are free to make choices.
Vaccines carry two risks: a risk of harm and a risk of failure to prevent disease. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention admit that US pertussis outbreaks are not due to a failure to vaccinate but failure of the
vaccine to confer long-lasting immunity...
When doctors cannot predict who will be harmed by a vaccine and cannot guarantee that those who have been
vaccinated won't get infected or transmit infection, the ethical principle of informed consent becomes a civil,
human and parental right that must be safeguarded in US law. Non-medical vaccine exemptions immunize
individuals and the community against unsafe, ineffective vaccines and tyranny."
Fortunately, judging by the newspaper's reader polls, few Americans agree with the USA Today editorial board.
In fact, 82 percent of readers (as of this writing) "strongly disagree" with the editorial. In contrast, 85 percent of
readers "strongly agree" with Fisher's "pro-vaccine choice" rebuttal. Clearly, most Americans who took the time
to cast their vote expressed strong opposition to the newspaper's "anti-choice" stance and were not fooled by the
same old emotion-based propaganda. And that's good news.

Is Mass Vaccination Causing Unforeseen Consequences?

When it comes to vaccination, there are a lot of unanswered questions. Some of these questions include:

Could injecting up to 69 doses of various vaccines into a child beginning on the day of birth and
throughout childhood create immune system problems over the long term?

What are the multi-generational effects of forcing our immune systems to react to vaccines rather than
naturally-occurring pathogens? One recent study found that women who received the Tdap vaccine
during pregnancy had children whose immune responses to vaccination was far weaker compared to
children whose mothers were not vaccinated.
2

Animals that are not yet weaned are typically not vaccinated as the mother's milk is known to interfere with
antibody responses to vaccines. Many animals are titered to ensure they don't receive excessive vaccines, as the
side effects are well known. As explained by veterinarian Dr. Jean Dodd:
3

"A titer test is a simple blood test that measures a dog or cat's antibodies to vaccine viruses (or other infectious
agents). For instance, your dog may be more resistant to a virus whereas your neighbor's dog may be more
prone to it. Titers accurately assess protection to the so-called 'core' diseases (distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis
in dogs, and panleukopenia in cats), enabling veterinarians to judge whether a booster vaccination is
necessary. "
So, we're titering animals but not children? There are plenty of reasons not to accept a mandated one-size-fitsall vaccination policy: the right to self determination being first and foremost. The decision to participate in a
medical intervention or experiment that carries serious risks, whether the risk is high or low, should belong to
each individual person, including parents of minor children who are legally and morally responsible for
protecting their children.

The Case for Reasonable Doubt

What is some of the evidence raising reasonable doubt about the "reasonableness" of forced vaccinations? How
about the following:

Environmental toxins can reduce vaccine efficacy. Research published in the Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA) suggests that exposure to perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) prior to, and
after birth, can significantly weaken the effectiveness of vaccines. PFCs are found in countless products,
including non-stick cookware and food wrappings, personal care, and cleaning products, just to name a
few. If poorly regulated environmental pollutants can dramatically decrease vaccine effectiveness, then
that means your risk-to-benefit ratio of vaccination is automatically skewed toward higher risk and
lower benefit. As reported by ABC News:
4

"The study found that higher levels of PFCs in both mothers and children meant lower numbers of
disease-fighting antibodies in the children. Mothers who had twice the level of PFC in their blood had
children with a 40 percent decrease in the number of antibodies formed after getting the diphtheria
vaccine. The 7-year-old children who had doubled PFC levels had nearly a 50 percent reduction in their
antibody levels."

Vaccinated people are asymptomatic carriers of disease, and can still both spread and contract the
disease. Mounting evidence shows that vaccinated people can actually unknowingly be infected with
and spread diseases like pertussis (whooping cough) for which they were vaccinated. This was shown in
an FDA baboon study last year, which concluded that while the pertussis vaccine can cut down on
serious clinical disease symptoms, it does not eliminate transmission of the disease. As noted by the lead
author of the research, when the baby baboons were newly vaccinated with either DPT or DTaP
vaccines, they were asymptomatic carriers of pertussis and could infect others in their community.
5

Needless to say, if vaccinated people can be asymptomatic carriers of disease, this can place everyone at
risk and really raises questions about the wisdom of vaccinating health care workers before permitting
them to work with high-risk populations. Vaccinated people can still contract the disease because (a)
most vaccine-acquired artificial immunity is temporary, and (b) because microbes can evolve to evade
the vaccines.
6

For example, 97 percent of those who contracted mumps during the outbreak in Ohio earlier this year
were fully vaccinated against the disease. Some are quick to say that "sure, vaccinated people can
contract the diseaseif exposed; which is why no one should be allowed to opt out of vaccination."
However, when a vaccinated person can contract the disease from another vaccinated person... this
entire argument clearly falls apart.
7

Flu vaccination raises your risk of contracting more serious flu illness. Research published in 2012
showed that the flu vaccine increases your risk of contracting more serious pandemic flu illness, such as
H1N1. This supported previous findings, such as that from a 2011 study, which found that the seasonal
flu vaccine actually weakened children's immune systems, thereby increasing their chances of getting
sick from influenza viruses not included in the vaccine. Unvaccinated children actually built up more
antibodies against a wider variety of influenza virus strains than the vaccinated children.
8

Vaccines promote disease mutations. Vaccines have also been found to place pressure on microbes to
develop mutated versions of the disease, and/or enhance the ability of other similar strains to become
more dominant and cause disease. For example, a veterinary vaccine study at the University of
Melbourne (Australia) found that using two different vaccine viruses to combat the same disease in an
animal population quite rapidly caused the viruses to combine (referred to as recombination), creating
brand new and more virulent viruses.
10

In Australia, dangerous new strains of whooping cough bacteria were reported in March 2012. The
vaccine, researchers said, was responsible. The reason for this is because while whooping cough is
primarily attributed to Bordetella pertussis infection, it is also caused by another closely related
pathogen called B. parapertussis, which the vaccine does NOT protect against.
11

Two years earlier, scientists at Penn State had already reported that the pertussis vaccine significantly
enhanced the colonization of B. parapertussis, thereby promoting vaccine-resistant whooping cough
outbreaks. According to the authors, vaccination led to a 40-fold enhancement of B. parapertussis
colonization in the lungs of mice, and the data suggested that the vaccine may be contributing to the
observed rise in whooping cough incidence over the last decade by promoting B. parapertussis infection
instead.
12

Fraudulent Research Does Not Inspire Confidence

Please understand that efficacy of a vaccine relates to its ability to produce an antibody and this is NOT at all a
good marker for whether or not immunity has been achieved, while effectiveness measures the ability of the
vaccine to actually protect against infection. So let's look at the basic effectiveness of vaccines, and the
reliability of the research backing up effectiveness claims. On a number of occasions, outright fraud has been
revealed, raising serious doubts about whether or not the stated benefitthe ability of the vaccine to prevent
diseaseis even part of the risk-benefit equation. If not, you're taking on risk with very minimal, if any, benefit.

Case in point: in 2012, two former Merck virologists sued their former employer, claiming Merck overstated the
effectiveness of the mumps vaccine in the company's combination MMR shot. A federal antitrust class action
lawsuit was also filed that year, in which Merck was accused of falsifying test results and selling millions of
doses of the vaccine that were of "questionable efficacy."
Clearly, vaccine effectiveness has a major bearing on disease outbreaks, and it would appear as though many
vaccine failures are simply covered up by blaming outbreaks on the unvaccinated population. This way,
ineffective vaccines can still be sold, while everyone's busy tarring and feathering those who have opted out of
using every government recommended vaccine. You know, those who "selfishly" choose not to "share in the
risks."
Another example: in 2012, a systematic review of pre- and post-licensure trials of the HPV vaccine showed
that the vaccine's effectiveness is not only overstated (through the use of selective reporting or "cherry picking"
data) but also unproven. According to the authors: "[T]he widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines longterm benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odds with factual
evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data."
13

A 2013 HPV vaccine effectiveness study also turned out to have significant discrepancies, raising doubts about
the veracity of its conclusions. Upon closer scrutiny, the data actually revealed that unvaccinated girls had the
best outcome. Furthermore, records obtained last year through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
against the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) revealed that the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program has so far awarded nearly $5.9 million to 49 victims for harm and/or death resulting
from the HPV vaccine.
According to an April 7 report by WCPO News, the VAERS database has received more than 31,000 reports of
adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine Gardasil. This is up from May 13, 2013, at which point VAERS had
received 29,686 adverse event reports (including 136 deaths, 922 reports of disability, and 550 life-threatening
adverse events). Is it reasonable to doubt the safety and efficacy of Gardasil? Ask Tracie Moorman, whose 15year-old daughter Maddie became too chronically ill to attend school after receiving the HPV vaccine. "If I ever
could have a do-over, it absolutely would be this situation," Tracie told WCPO in a recent interview.
14

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Who's Healthier?

Large studies comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children have not been a
priority for vaccine researchers. This is a travesty, as this is the kind of research most desperately needed. Most
vaccine studies are about developing more vaccines for children and adults to use.
Some claim that studies comparing the health of highly vaccinated and unvaccinated children cannot be done
because it would be "unethical" to leave children participating in the study unvaccinated in order to do the
comparison. But since some American parents are already delaying or avoiding vaccinating their children, this
hardly seems like a reasonable excuse. It is more likely that comparing the health of vaccinated and
unvaccinated children in appropriately designed studies are avoided because the results might upset the
proverbial apple cart.
However, that doesn't mean there is a total absence of evidence about the health of vaccinated versus
unvaccinated children to give us an indication of whether or not the use of many more vaccines by children in
the U.S. is contributing to so many being chronically ill and disabled. In December 2010, a survey was initiated
by VaccineInjury.info to compare the health of vaccinated children with unvaccinated children. The survey is
ongoing, so if you would like to participate, you can. Though this is obviously not a double-blind controlled
study, and depends on the individuals submitting the data to give accurate information, it is still revealing. At
the time of this writing, the results show:

Do You Want the Right to Choose Vaccination for Yourself and Your
Child?
So, what do we know, and what can we be sure of? One thing that appears to be beyond dispute, based on
overwhelming evidence that spans across decades, is that pharmaceutical companies have repeatedly
demonstrated their willingness to bribe, lie, threaten and commit fraud in order to bring, and keep, their
products on the market. This kind of behavior is so commonplace, it appears to be part and parcel of the
accepted modus operandi of the drug industry, albeit unofficially.
So, based on what you know, do you think parents should have the legal right to choose whether or not to give
their children every one of the dozens of doses of 15 vaccines that health officials mandate for infants and
children attending school and daycare? Do you want that right to know and freedom to choose for yourself
which vaccines you are going to get?
I cannot impress upon you strongly enough the importance of your active involvement when it comes to
defending our legal right to make informed vaccine choices in America. In order to protect the health of as
many children as possible, we cannot continue to ignore the signs that using vaccines as the nation's primary
disease prevention strategy may have been taken too far in the past three decades - to the point that we're now
seeing the health of too many children and adults being compromised..
When you follow the money, you realize that multi-national drug companies marketing vaccines and the
organizations they fund are the ones pulling the political strings to eliminate non-medical vaccine exemptions in
U.S. state laws. Eliminating the freedom to know and right to choose nationwide would be a major coup by a
pharmaceutical industry already making huge profits from vaccine laws that require every person born in
America to purchase and use their products. At the same time, the safety of vaccine policies are primarily based
on the word of these very companies that not only have their products mandated but also enjoy a liability shield
from vaccine injury lawsuits in civil court that was given to them by Congress and the Supreme Court!
Is any of this really wise?
Many people pass through the school yard. infant siblings, grandparents and carers rely on herd immunity.
Immunising children protects not just them but those around them.
It is the states duty to protect its community
Point
If an age group is protected, that results in a better health conditions for the whole society.
In an industrialized country such as the USA, those choosing exemption from statutorily compulsory
vaccination were 35-times more likely to contract measles than vaccinated persons; in developing countries
where these viruses are still endemic, the risk would be considerably higher[1].
Those who wish to opt-out of vaccination (often on behalf of their children, who have no say in the matter) are
classic free riders, hoping to benefit from the more responsible behavior of the rest of society. As it is assumed
that most of society see it as a responsibility and a duty to protect others.
After a scare about possible side effects of the MMR jab, in 2008 there was a drop in voluntary vaccinations in
a part of London (Lewisham). In that part of London only 64.3 % of children were vaccine and in that year the
district accounted one third of all south-east London measles cases. Unless there is a 95 % vaccination, there is
a great threat to public health of infection outbreaks.[2] It is therefore the role of the state to understand these
issues and possible treats and provide a duty of protection and care, in this case, in the form of immunization.
Another example of the need to protect is also given by the example of voluntary vaccination against the flu,
because of its impacts on the whole population is given by Pediatric studies: In several studies, results
indicated that a 100% vaccination rate among health care personnel in acute care settings triggered a 43%
decline in risk of influenza among patients. This decrease appeared even higher 60% among nursing
home patients.[3]
So by giving up some of the individuals freedoms and the feeling of duty to protection, the community is much
more protected and benefits from the vaccination of the community.
011
Counterpoint
A great deal of health care and prevention of diseases is information and an informed decision. The United
Kingdom does not have a system of compulsory health care, but disease outbreaks are still prevented due to the
voluntary uptake of immunizations. The pediatrician Miriam Fine-Goulden explains: The risk of contracting

these infections is only so low at present because the voluntary uptake of immunizations has been high enough
(in most cases) to reduce the chance of contact with those organisms through the process of herd immunity.[1]
Also it can be argued that measles, mumps and rubella (one of the diseases vaccine against) are far from
harmful. They are relatively minor illnesses[2]. Measles causes a rash and high fever. Mumps causes swollen
glands, headache and fever. Rubella is usually mild and can go unnoticed.
Just because medical advance has been made in vaccinations it does not mean that we have to be immunized
against every little disease known to man. Bearing in mind the cost of such jabs on the heavily burdened NHS,
surely it would be better to not make the MMR jab compulsory. This way we keep parents happy and the NHS
budget can be stretched further.
Researches also show that alternative approaches towards diseases such as better nutrition, homeopathy, etc.
give very positive results. Healthier populations would not need vaccines to fight a disease. High profits that are
now reserved only for the pharmaceutical industry would be spread to other areas of the economy, such as
agriculture and the service sector, and more people would gain.
[1] Miriam Fine-Goulden: Should childhood vaccinations be compulsory in the UK ?, University College
London, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/opticon1826/archive/issue8/articles/Article_Biomed_Sc_-_FineGoulden__Vaccination_Publish.pdf, accessed 05/29/2011
[2] BBC News, Should the MMR vaccine be compulsory, 03/02/2002,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2088426.stm, accessed 05/29/2011
Improve this
Duty to protect the child
Point
As article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states, State parties shall strive to
ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to health services.[1]
Each year millions of children worldwide die of preventable diseases before the age of five.
The argument presented here is that the state needs to protect the child and immunize him or her from
preventable diseases as obviously the child does not have the capabilities at this stage to make informed
decisions of their own.
The United Nations Right to Liberty and Security of the Person treaty, article 6.2 supports this view - State
Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.[2]
It is up to the State to decide if a child is to be immunized, as overall it will be the State who would benefit from
having the vast majority of its citizens vaccinated, and it will be the State who will have to pay for any
treatment needed to treat a preventable disease. Whilst a childs parents have to a certain degree the right to
decide what is best for their childs future, poor decision making in this area could result in serious medical
issues for the nation. In this extremely important area, the State must have authority over the rights of the
parent.
[1] Convention on the Rights of the Child. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
[2] Right to Liberty and Security of Person. http://www.unfpa.org/rights/language/right8.htm
Improve this
Counterpoint
Compulsory vaccination is an example of the tyranny of the majority even if it is made by a democratic
government. And in a community that praises itself as democratic and respectful to wishes of others it is in no
way acceptable that the rights of some get abused by the wishes of others.
John Stuart Mill has set philosophical basics: the majority the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a
part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power In
the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own
body and mind, the individual is sovereign.[1]
The state (or the majority) can only dictate to the individual is if that individuals actions adversely affect the
collective. Therefore the question is what is the purpose of the vaccination? if it is to provide individuals with
their own protection then autonomy of decision-making and individual liberty should predominate as guiding
principles.
Under these circumstances there can be little justification of any coercion on the part of public health officials,
in particular the use of mandatory vaccination legislation. If it is more based upon public harm i.e. the more
chance of the virus infecting from one human to another then the less this defense can be used.[2]
[1] Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869; Bartleby.com, 1999.
www.bartleby.com/130/. 2nd October, 2009, Chapter 1, paragraph 9
[2] University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Medical ethics experts identify, address key issues in
H1N1 pandemic, FirstScience News 23rd September 2009 http://www.firstscience.com/home/news/breakingnews-all-topics/medical-ethics-experts-identify-address-key-issues-in-h1n1-pandemic-page-3-1_71059.html,
accessed 05/29/2011
Improve this

Compulsory vaccines are a financial relief on the health system

Point
Commonly-used vaccines are a cost-effective and preventive way of promoting health, compared to the
treatment of acute or chronic disease. In the U.S. during the year 2001, routine childhood immunizations against
seven diseases were estimated to save over $40 billion per birth-year cohort in overall social costs including $10
billion in direct health costs, and the societal benefit-cost ratio for these vaccinations was estimated to be 16.5
billion.[1]
Another aspect is also, that productivity rates remain high and less money is earmarked for social and health
transfers because people are healthier. This is also supported by a WHO study, that claims: We calculate that
the average percentage increase in income for the children whose immunization coverage increases through will
rise from 0.78 per cent in 2005 to 2.39 per cent by 2020. This equates to an increase in annual earnings per child
of $14 by 2020. The total increase in income per year once the vaccinated cohort of children start earning will
rise from $410 million in 2005 to $1.34 billion by 2020 (at a cost of $638 million in 2005 and $748 million in
2020).[2] This study based on economic and health indicators is part of the world immunization program
GAVI.
[1] Wikipedia. Vaccine Controversy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversy
[2] David Bloom, David Canning and Mark Weston, The value of immunization, World Economics, July
September 2005
http://www.who.int/immunization_supply/financing/value_vaccination_bloom_canning_weston.pdf, accessed
05/28/2011
Government intervention in the publics lives isnt a popular concept, but are the preventable deaths of innocent
children a better option? Parents are required to feed their children to prevent starvation, to provide them with
water to prevent dehydration and to provide them facilities for hygiene and cleanliness. Why is it suddenly an
ideological battle and not a legal one when it comes to vaccinating children to prevent deadly
infectious diseases?
The doctor-patient relationship is based on trust, choice and openness and we think introducing compulsory
vaccination may be harmful to this."
.every parent should have the right to do whats best for their child.
Food for thought I would think.
Compulsory vaccination violates the individuals right to bodily integrity
Point
In most countries and declarations, one of the most basic human rights is the one to bodily integrity. It sets
down that you have a right not to have your body or person interfered with. This means that the State may not
do anything to harm your body without consent.
The NHS (National Health Service) explains: You must give your consent (permission) before you receive any
type of medical treatment, from a simple blood test to deciding to donate your organs after your death. If you
refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected.
This comes from the principle, that if a person has the capacity to consent to treatment and is making an
informed decision (based on pros and cons of the treatment), the decision must be respected. The NHS explains
further on: If you have enough capacity and make a voluntary and informed decision to refuse a treatment,
your decision must be respected. This applies even if your decision would result in your death, or the death of
your unborn child.[1]
In the case of vaccination this principle should be also applied. Even though we recognize that children are not
able to fully comprehend the consequences a refusal would have, the parents should be there to decide on behalf
of children over such decisions. The state has no right to stick a needle into a child just because they see fit
doing so. It might be contested that in case of life endangering illnesses, the state should override the
individuals rights. But rejection of vaccinations is not life endangering. So it is the judgment of the individual
that is important and should not under any case be violated, just because someone might get an illness that in
todays modern world is easily curable.
[1] National Health Service (NHS), Do I have a right to refuse treatment ?,
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/899.aspx?categoryid=68&subcategoryid=156, accessed 29/05/2011
Improve this
Counterpoint
The problem with this is that those refusing vaccines on account of this effectively violate the same right for
other people if, and when, there is an outbreak of the disease against which the vaccine is protecting.
Improve this
It is a parental right to decide about vaccinations for a child
Point

Through birth, the child and the parent have a binding agreement that is supported within the society. This
agreement involves a set of rights and duties aimed at, and justified by, the welfare of the child. Through that
(according to texts from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): parents owe their children an open future,
understood as one where they become adults capable of choosing their own conception of the good. As
custodian, the parent is under a limited obligation to work and organize his or her life around the welfare and
development of the child, for the child's sake. Concomitantly, the parent is endowed with a special kind of
authority over the child.[1]
It therefore is the courtesy of a parent to decide what the best possible outcome is for a child. If the parent
believes the child will be safer and better off in society without being given vaccine it is the parents right to
decide not to give vaccination to the child.
Also the American Academy of Pediatrics reports, that refusing the immunization might not put children at risk,
as long as they live in a well immunized community and can benefit from the herd immunity. They state:
Even in a community with high immunization rates, the risk assumed by an unimmunized child is likely to be
greater than the risks associated with immunization. However, the risk remains low, and in most cases the
parent who refuses immunizations on behalf of his or her child living in a well-immunized community does not
place the child at substantial risk of serious harm.[2]
[1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parenthood/, accessed 05/28/2011
[2] Diekema Douglas, Responding to Parental Refusals of Immunization of Children,
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/5/1428.full, accessed 05/28/2011
Improve this
Counterpoint
An adult vaccine refusal and a parental vaccine refusal are not the same. Parents do not have absolute right to
put their child at a risk even if they themselves are willing to accept such a risk for him or herself.
Minors have a right to be protected against infectious diseases and society has the responsibility to ensure
welfare of children who may be harmed by their parents decisions.
Counseling should form an integral part of any such legislation, as often it is not conviction but laziness of the
parents in taking their child to the clinic for immunization or the parents inability to make an informed
decision.[1]
Also the state has already protected children in cases, when their functioning later as an adult could be
compromised due to parental actions. For instance: in order to promote culturally prescribed norms, parents
may seek to remove their child from school, or have their daughter undergo clitoridectomy; yet the state may
claim that such a decision violates the parents' trustee relationship on grounds that the state has a compelling
interest in securing the full citizenship capacities and rights of each of its citizens. As trustee, the parent has a
limited right to exclusivity in determining the child's life over the course of childhood, but this determination is
to be aimed at shaping the child into (for instance) a productive citizen and community member. [2]
The LSU Law center also explains: The more difficult problem is religious or cultural groups that oppose
immunizations. These groups tend to cluster, reducing the effective immunization level in their neighborhoods,
schools, and churches. In addition to endangering their own children, such groups pose a substantial risk to the
larger community. By providing a reservoir of infection, a cluster of unimmunized persons can defeat the
general herd immunity of a community. As these infected persons mix with members of the larger community,
they will expose those who are susceptible to contagion.[3]
As seen not to vaccine children can represent a danger for their future, there should be no ultimate power of
parents to prevent vaccine jabs.
[1] Lahariya C, Mandatory vaccination: is it the future reality ?, Singapore medical journal (editorial) 2008,
http://smj.sma.org.sg/4909/4909e1.pdf, accessed 05/25/2011
[2] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parenthood/, accessed 05/28/2011
[3]Louisiana State University (LSU), Compulsory Immunization,
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/books/lbb/x790.htm, accessed 05/29/2011
Improve this
Vaccines have severe side effects
Point
Some of the used vaccines may have severe side effects, therefore we should let every individual asses the risk
and make choices on his/her own. Besides introducing foreign proteins and even live viruses into the
bloodstream, each vaccine has its own preservative, neutralizer and carrying agent, none of which are
indigenous to the body. For instance, the triple antigen, DPT, which includes Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus
vaccine, contains the following poisons: Formaldehyde, Mercury, and aluminum phosphate, and that's from the
Physician's Desk Reference, 1980. The packet insert accompanying the vaccine, lists the following poisons:
aluminum potassium sulfate, a mercury derivative called Thimersol and sodium phosphate. The packet insert
for the polio vaccine lists monkey kidney cell culture, lactalbumin hydrozylate, antibiotics and calf serum. The
packet insert for the MMR vaccine produced by Merck Sharp and Dhome which is for measles, mumps and
rubella lists chick embryo and neomycin, which is a mixture of antibiotics.[1]
Evidence also suggests that immunizations damage the immune system itself. By focusing exclusively on

increased antibody production, which is only one aspect of the immune process, immunizations isolate
dysfunction and allow it to substitute for the entire immune response, because vaccines trick the body so that it
will no longer initiate a generalized response. They accomplished what the entire immune system seems to have
been evolved to prevent. That is, they place the virus directly into the blood and give it access to the major
immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it.
The long-term persistence of viruses and other foreign proteins within the cells of the immune system has been
implicated in a number of chronic and degenerative diseases. In 1976 Dr. Robert Simpson of Rutgers university
addressed science writers at a seminar of the American Cancer Society, and pointed out the following.
"Immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps, polio and so forth may actually be seeding humans with
RNA to form latent pro viruses in cells throughout the body. These latent pro viruses could be molecules in
search of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Parkinson's disease, and perhaps
cancer."[2]
Vaccines may cause a child who is genetically predisposed to have autism. If the trend of increased Thimerosal
in vaccinations correlates so well with the trend of increased autistic diagnoses, there is a link. Thimerosal in
vaccinations (which means 'contains mercury') causes autism. Too many times has a child been completely
healthy, and then a vaccine containing Thimerosal is injected into the child. The child becomes ill, stops
responding visually and verbally, and is then diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
[1] Roger R. Gervais. Understanding the Vaccine Controversy. Natural MAgainse May/June 1996.
http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/naturalparenting/vaccines.htm
[2] Alex Loglia, Global healing center, http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/vaccinations-the-hour-of-thetime.html, accessed 28/05/2011
Improve this
Counterpoint
The argument of bad vaccines is a very popular one. However, scientifically seen this arguments is flawed in
many aspects.
First of all many of the examples used in arguments suggesting vaccination is dangerous and therefore should
not be used, is very old. Many refer to examples from the 60s or 70s, which in medicine is highly flawed as
science every few years significantly advances, improves the level of knowledge and reduces possible side
effects. And even though many believe in the damages caused by vaccines retrospective studies disprove this
point:
1. Autism
Scientists at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health's Center for Infection and Immunity and
researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Trinity
College Dublin, evaluated bowel tissues from 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with
GI disturbances alone (controls) by real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR for the presence of measles virus
RNA. Samples were analyzed in three laboratories blinded to diagnosis, including one wherein the original
findings suggesting a link between measles virus and autism had been reported. [1]
"Our results are inconsistent with a causal role for MMR vaccine as a trigger or exacerbate of either GI
difficulties or autism," states Mady Hornig, associate professor of Epidemiology and director of translational
research in the Center for Infection and Immunity in the Mailman School, and co-corresponding author of the
study. "The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that autism with GI
complaints is related to MMR vaccine exposure. We found no relationship between the timing of MMR vaccine
and the onset of either GI complaints or autism.[2]
Many parents came to believe that vaccines caused their children's autism because the symptoms of autism
appeared after the child received a vaccination. On a psychological level, that assumption and connection makes
sense; but on a logical level, it is a clear and common fallacy with a fancy Latin name: post hoc ergo propter
hoc ("after this, therefore because of it"). They just need someone to blame for the disease of their child.[3]
2. Allergies and vaccines
A recent (2011) study of a German Health Institute concludes that in comparing the occurrence of infections and
allergies in vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adolescents. These include bronchitis, eczema, colds, and
gastrointestinal infection. The only difference they found is that unvaccinated children and adolescents differ
from their vaccinated peers merely in terms of the frequency of vaccine preventable diseases. These include
pertussis, mumps, or measles. As expected, the risk of contracting these diseases is substantially lower in
vaccinated children and adolescents.[4]
[1] Science Daily, No connection between Measels, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) Vaccine and Autism, Study
suggests 09/05/2008http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145218.htm
[2] Ibid.
[3]Benjamin Radford, Autism and sciences: Why bad Logic Trumps Science, 09/05/2008
http://www.livescience.com/2845-autism-vaccines-bad-logic-trumps-science.html
[4] Deutsches Aerzteblatt International (2011, March 7). Vaccinated children not at higher risk of infections or
allergic diseases, study suggests. ScienceDaily. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110304091458.htm, accessed May 28, 2011
Improve this

15. THBT BPJS helthcare is more

effective than life insurance
New Non-Taxable Income and Calculation of BPJS for Health Premium and
its Service
Introduction
The Minister of Finance increases Non-Taxable Income through the issuance of Regulation No.
122/PMK.010/2015 on Adjustment of Non-Taxable Income (Ministerial Regulation No. 122/2015) that have
been effective since 29 June 2015. The Ministerial Regulation No. 122/2015 stipulates that the amount of NonTaxable Income is as follows[i]:
1. IDR 36,000,000 for individual taxpayer
2. Additional IDR 3,000,000 for married taxpayer
3. Additional IDR 36,000,000 for a wife whose income is combined with its husbands income
4. Additional IDR 3,000,000 for each immediate family member or extended family member in a direct
line of descendant and adopted child, which fully become its dependent, 3 person at most for each
family
Although the Ministerial Regulation No. 122/2015 is effective since 29 June 2015, it stipulates that the new
Non-Taxable Income is valid since 2015 fiscal year[ii]. This means that each company must calculate its Article
21 Income Tax Payable from July 2015 to December 2015 using the new Non-Taxable Income. In addition, Tax
Notification period of Article 21 Income Tax from January 2015 to July 2015 that has been reported using the
old Non-Taxable Income must be revised using the new Non-Taxable Income[iii].
Calculation of BPJS for Health Premium
Based on Ministerial Regulation No. 122/2015, Non-Taxable Income for a married person with one child is IDR
42,000,000 annually or IDR 3,500,000 monthly. This new Non-Taxable Income has been increased substantially
if compared to the old Non-Taxable Income. Please note that according to the Minister of Finance Regulation
No. 162/PMK.011/2012 which has been revoked by the Ministerial Regulation No. 122/2015, the previous
Non-Taxable Income for a married person with one child was IDR 28,350,000 annually or IDR 2,362,500
monthly.
An increase on Non-Taxable Income will also automatically increase the highest amount of BPJS for Health
which must be paid by both employer and employee. BPJS for Health premium must be paid together by
employer who pays 4 % and employee who pays 1 % of the employees monthly salary. The highest limit of
monthly salary for calculation of BPJS for Health premium is 2 x Non-Taxable Income of a married person with
one child[iv]. Based on these calculations, the highest amount of premium which must be paid by both
employer and employee are as follows:
Must be paid by Employer
(1 % x 2 x Non-Taxable Income of a married person with one child which is IDR 3,500,000) = IDR 70,000
monthly premium.
Must be paid by Employee
(4 % x 2 x Non-Taxable Income of a married person with one child which is IDR 3,500,000) = IDR 280,000
monthly premium.
Group of Inpatients in BPJS for Health
The inpatients are grouped into 3 classes in BPJS for Health which are Class I, Class II, and Class III.
Participant of BPJS for Health who does not receive salary and participant who does not work but pay premium
can enjoy the service of Class III treatment room. The service of Class II treatment room can be enjoyed by
Participant of BPJS for Health who works and receives a maximum salary of 1,5 x Non-Taxable Income for
married taxpayer with one child. Lastly, the service of Class I treatment room can be enjoyed by Participant of
BPJS for Health who works and receives salary between 1,5 x and 2 x Non-Taxable Income for married
taxpayer with one child[v].

Since the amount of Non-Taxable Income has been increased by Ministerial Regulation No. 122/2015, the
group of inpatients in BPJS for Health who can enjoy the services of Class I and Class II treatment room are
also changed. Those group of BPJS for Health participants are as follows:
Participant that can enjoy the service of Class II treatment room
(Participant with maximum monthly salary of 1,5 x Non-Taxable Income for married taxpayer with one child
which is IDR 3,500,000) = participant with maximum monthly salary of IDR 5,250,000.
Participant that can enjoy the service of Class I treatment room
(Participant with monthly salary between 1,5 x and 2 x Non-Taxable Income for married taxpayer with one
child which is IDR 3,500,000) = Participant with monthly salary of between IDR 5,250,000 and IDR 7,000,000.
The Social Security Management Agency (BPJS)

Premi BPJS lebih murah daripada asuransi swasta.

Semua orang baik keadaan sakit atau sehat dapat mendaftar BPJS. Sedangkan kalo kamu pakai asuransi
swasta harus mendaftar dalam keadaan sehat, pun dalam keadaan sakit premi yang kamu bayarin jauh
lebih mahal.

BPJS tidak ada medical check up sebelumnya. Kalo asuransi swasta kamu wajib melakukan medical
check up.

Health Minister Andi Nafsiah Walinono Mboi stated here on Friday.

She explained that the BPJS, in the health sector, until now had 117 members, and its numbers were expected to
reach 120 at the end of next year.
"We hope for not just a large number of members but also for increasing health quality services," the minister
remarked.
She explained that in the beginning, when it was introduced early this year, many members complained of the
services but the number of complaints lodged with the BPJS services has been declining ever since.
"We have been trying to resolve the problems with the system. After all, many who had not yet understood the
health system have now become active in asking for information and consultations," the minister noted.
She added that it was natural for the BPJS to receive many complaints because previously PT Akses (previous
state-owned insurance company which is transformed into the BPJS) had just 16 million members but now the
number has risen to 116 million.
Based on Law No. 24 / 2011 related to BPJS, the social security management agency will consist of two
administrations, namely the BPJS-Health on health security (administered by PT Askes) and BPJS-Manpower
on social security schemes for workers (to be administered by PT Jamsostek, previously workers insurance
firm).
Law No. 24/2011 became effective in January 2014 and the government hoped it will cover Indonesias entire
population (about 250 million) by 2019.
Under the scheme, the government bears the medical insurance costs for around 86.4 million underprivileged
people, while premium for medical insurance for the working population are paid by their companies.
"Under this system, poor people cannot be rejected by hospitals when they seek medical treatment,"
Coordinating Minister for Peoples Welfare Agung Laksono stated recently.
(Uu.A014/INE/KR-BSR/F001)

1.Murah
Murah bukan berarti murahan dengan hanya premi perbulan untuk kelas 1 59ribu kelas 2 49.500 kelas 3 25.000
anda sudah bisa di cover puluhan penyakit,rawat inap,pembedahan obat dan lain sebagainya,dari hasil berita
tetangga saya yang sering cuci darah puas karena gratis,ada juga cerita teman saya yang istrinya melahirkan dan
biaya nol alias gratis
2.Wajib

Kenapa wajib karena di undang undang sudah ada dan bersifat wajib artinya jika anda ikut asuransi swasta
maka anda juga harus asuransi bpjs kesehatan
3.No Medical check up
Nah jika anda mendaftar di asuransi kesehatan swasta lain,anda akan kena medical cek up terlebih dahulu jika
anda terkena penyakit kritis dan sudah berumur diatas 40 tahun maka premi anda akan menjadi mahal bahkan
malah pengajuan polis anda bisa di tolak,nah di bpjs di umur berapapun boleh mendaftar dan tanpa medical cek
up bahkan bayi yang masih dalam kandungan saja bisa di daftarkan.
4.Berani jamin seumur hidup
Mungkin hanya bpjs yang berani menanggung proteksi peserta hingga seumur hidup asuransi yang lain paling
maksimal 100 tahun itupun kami belum pernah dapat testimoni atau kabar ada asuransi yang berani
menanggung hingga umur 100 tahun
5.No Pre Existing
Nah jika di asuransi swasta jika sebelumnya anda sudah terkena penyakit kronis tapi tetap mendaftar itu bisa
ditolak kalaupun tidak nanti premi mahal bahkan polis di tolak kalaupun juga berbohong nanti juga anda akan
susah klaim dana anda ketika sakit dan bisa di anggap pembohongan,nah di bpjs waktu anda sakit misalnya
jantung anda bisa daftar bpjs dan asal syarat lengkap 99% di terima
Nah itulah beberapa kelebihan bpjs dibanding asuransi swasta,walaupun masih baru bpjs juga selalu berusaha
untuk memperbaiki dan membuat terobosan yang membantu masyarakat indonesia,prinsip gotong royong
seperti yang sehat menolong yang sakit cocok untuk lidah orang indonesia karena gotong royong sudah ada
sejak ratusan tahun lalu.
Agar informasi berimbang saya juga menulis kelemahan bpjs

Daftar 51 Perusahaan Asuransi Swasta yang Bekerjasama dengan

BPJS Kesehatan melalui Skema Coordination of Benefit
Sebagai bentuk peningkatan layanan bagi masyarakat, Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial (BPJS) Kesehatan
membuka ruang seluasnya bagi peserta untuk mendapatkan manfaat lebih (khususnya dalam hal manfaat non
medis) melalui skema koordinasi manfaat atau coordination of benefit (CoB) dengan perusahaan asuransi
swasta. Selain tertuang dalam Pasal 28 Peraturan Presiden No 111 Tahun 2013, skema COB ini diharapkan akan
meningkatkan pelayanan bagi peserta yang mampu membayar lebih. Prinsip COB BPJS Kesehatan ini adalah
koordinasi manfaat yang diberlakukan bila peserta BPJS Kesehatan membeli asuransi kesehatan tambahan dari
Penyelenggara Program Asuransi Kesehatan Tambahan atau Badan Penjamin lainnya yang bekerjasama dengan
BPJS Kesehatan.
BPJS Kesehatan nantinya akan menjamin biaya sesuai tarif yang berlaku pada program Jaminan Kesehatan
Nasional (JKN), sedangkan selisihnya akan menjadi tanggung jawab asuransi komersial selama sesuai dengan
ketentuan dan prosedur yang berlaku. Berikut merupakan daftar perusahaan asuransi swasta yang telah
bekerjasama dengan BPJS Kesehatan melalui skema CoB:

1. Besaran Premi
Asuransi Kesehatan Swasta
Premi untuk asuransi swasta terbilang cukup mahal dan sulit dijangkau untuk kalangan menengah ke bawah.
Peserta asuransi kesehatan harus membayar premi hingga ratusan ribu rupiah perbulan dan itu juga tergantung
jenis asuransi kesehatan mana yang diambil dan dari perusahaan asuransi mana. Premi dibayar dengan jangka
waktu 1 bulan, 3 bulan, 6 bulan atau 1 tahun.
Sekedar informasi:
1. Makin tua umur peserta maka preminya akan semakin mahal.
2. Premi juga akan semakin mahal jika peserta yang diasuransikan adalah seorang perokok.
3. Ada perbedaan harga premi untuk peserta laki-laki dan perempuan
BPJS
Iuran untuk BPJS Kesehatan termasuk sangat murah dan terjangkau. Untuk pekerja, sebagian besar iuran itu
ditanggung oleh perusahaan, sementara untuk veteran dan fakir miskin, iuran BPJS dibayar secara penuh oleh
pemerintah.
Sementara itu, untuk pekerja non formal seperti pedagang, nelayan, pengangguran, atau freelancer, iuran BPJS
juga sangat terjangkau karena minimal mereka bisa membayar Rp 25.500 rupiah per bulan untuk perawatan
kelas III di rumah sakit.
Oh ya, iuran BPJS ini ditarik setiap bulan dan ada denda sebesar 2 persen dari total iuran seandainya Anda telat
membayar.
Informasi lainnya:

1. Tidak ada perbedaan besaran iuran antara peserta tua dan muda
2. Tidak ada perbedaan besaran premi antara peserta yang perokok dan bukan perokok
3. Tidak ada perbedaan besaran premi antara peserta yang laki-laki dan perempuan

2. Segi Manfaat
Asuransi Kesehatan Swasta
Mayoritas asuransi kesehatan memberikan manfaat untuk rawat inap seperti kamar, operasi, ambulan, obat,
jaminan kematian, kunjungan dokter dan aktivitas-aktivitas yang berhubungan dengan perawatan pasien di
rumah sakit. Ada juga fasilitas asuransi yang menawarkan rawat jalan setelah dirawat inap, dan itu memang satu
paket dengan rawat inap.
Ingin asuransi untuk membantu pembayaran rawat jalan? Nah Anda diharuskan membayar sejumlah premi lagi
dan itu cukup mahal. Selain itu asuransi kesehatan tidak memberi fasilitas untuk optik, gigi, dan kehamilan.
BPJS
Bisa dibilang BPJS memiliki manfaat fasilitas kesehatan yang cukup lengkap. Selain rawat inap, BPJS juga
menerima rawat jalan, optik, gigi, dan kehamilan.
Menariknya lagi BPJS memberi manfaat untuk layanan promotif dan preventif seperti penyuluhan, imunisasi,
dan keluarga berencana. Selain itu ada manfaat non medis seperti ambulan. Bisa dibilang manfaat yang
diberikan BPJS lebih lengkap dibanding asuransi kesehatan swasta.

3. Plafon
suransi Kesehatan Swasta
Ada batasan limit manfaat yang kerennya disebut plafon asuransi. Contohnya Anda boleh dirawat di sebuah
rumah sakit dan ditanggung oleh asuransi selama batas maksimum rawat inap yang sudah disetujui. Begitu juga
biaya-biaya rawat inap seperti kunjungan dokter, operasi, dan laboratorium punya limit biaya yang dicover
asuransi. Seandainya Anda melebihi batas limit itu, Anda harus membayar sendiri.
Penghitungan plafon pada asuransi kesehatan swasta ada dua yaitu berdasarkan per-penyakit yang tidak
memiliki batasan tahunan, atau berdasarkan waktu, misalnya plafon tahunan.
BPJS
Tidak ada batasan plafon. Semua biaya ditanggung BPJS dan pesertanya cuma harus mengikuti sejumlah
prosedur yang sudah ditentukan termasuk dirawat di ruang rawat yang sesuai dengan iuran yang mereka bayar.
Pokoknya BPJS akan membayar pengobatan pasien sampai dia sembuh benar.
Biaya tambahan akan diminta pihak rumah sakit seandainya pasien ingin pindah ke ruang rawat lebih kelasnya
lebih tinggi, atau pembelian sejumlah obat yang tidak ditanggung BPJS.

4. Penyakit Bawaan
Asuransi Kesehatan Swasta
Dalam asuransi kesehatan akan ada medical check up untuk mengecek apakah si calon peserta menderita
penyakit bawaan seperti jantung, gula darah dan lain-lain. Ini yang disebut pre-existing condition. Cek up yang
sama juga akan dilakukan untuk seluruh anggota keluarga yang tertanggung dalam asuransi kesehatan tersebut.
Nah kalau ternyata ada calon peserta asuransi menderita penyakit bawaan, biasanya penyakit tersebut TIDAK
akan ditanggung oleh asuransi kesehatan. Namun ada juga asuransi yang menanggung penyakit bawaan itu
dengan syarat peserta juga menjadi peserta asuransi selama dua tahun alias tidak serta merta. Artinya klaim
untuk penyakit itu bisa dibayarkan setelah dua tahun.
BPJS
Semua penyakit baik penyakit bawaan atau penyakit baru akan ditanggung oleh BPJS. Tidak ada diskriminasi.
Selain itu tidak ada yang namanya medical check up untuk mendapatkan kepesertaan BPJS. Calon peserta
cukup mengisi formulir dan melengkapi persyarata kemudian membayar.
BPJS health has so far sent over 2000 written warnings to companies that have failed to comply with the BPJS provisions, explained
Purnawarman Basundoro, Directorfor LegalandCommunicationAffairsandInter-institutionalRelations for BPJS Health, to
hukumonline in Malang, East Java on 27 August 2015
Basundoro added that in order to make sanctions more effective, especially in the regions, BPJS Health and the National Social Security
Council (DJSN) were in coordination with the stakeholders in a bid to deal with the one of the most common violations faced,
namely a reluctance shown by various companies to register all of their employees with the BPJS program and to then make the
required monthly premium payments.
Written warnings have been sent out to companies that have yet to register their families and their employees with BPJS Health, while
those which have registered but which neglect to pay the monthly premiums have been visited and assessed, with a view to ensuring
that the companies in question pay their outstanding premiums.
Among the regions that have already been visited are Bandung, Balikpapan, Palembang and Serang. However, regional technical
regulations are required for BPJS Health to run effectively and thus the issuance of a new regional regulation may be in order.
As for the refusal of certain public services as a possible sanction, both PBJS and DJSN are currently still coordinating with
stakeholders such as the regional government. This sanction can take the form of a revocation of building permits (IMB) as well as
the revocation of drivers licenses (SIM).

If the offending companies wish to obtain a building permit and/or driver's license, then they should first register with BPJS Health,
stated Mr. Basundoro.
Mr. Basundoro has said that he is also prepared to follow up on cases of possible fraud within companies, which may have made
deductions from employees salaries in order to pay monthly BPJS Health premiums, without ultimately paying said premiums. To
date, however, no such cases have been brought to Mr. Basundoro's attention.
DJSN spokesperson Subianto told us that, up to the present moment, the body has yet to compile all of the relevant data relating to
violations committed by various business entities regarding their obligations to BPJS Health.
In Subianto's opinion, one such violation currently disadvantaging workers concerns the MoU that exists between BPJS Health and the
IndonesianEmployers Association (Apindo), which is delaying BPJS Health membership for business entities who are Apindo
members.
According to Timboel Siregar, Advocacy CoordinatorforBPJS Watch, the application of sanctions, as set out in Government Regulation
Number 86 of 2013, cannot simply be handed over to the country's regional governments.
In Siregar's view, enforcement of sanctions should be supervised by central government, specifically by the Ministry of Home Affairs
and the Ministry of Health, in order that sanctions, such as the refusal of certain public services by regional governments, be
implemented effectively.
Mr. Siregar has also stated that BPJS should be authorized to assign supervisory officials who will coordinate and report back to BPJS
regarding violations committed in the field. BPJS should then coordinate with central government, who should act in a supervisory role
as regards regional governments, in order to optimize the application of sanctions for violators.
If there is no central supervision, then we fear that regional governments will prioritize investment over the upholding of the law, as it
relates to BPJS, concluded Mr. Siregar.

Neg Prosedural BPJS lebih panjang dan berbelit-belit dibandingkan asuransi swasta.

Kamu harus berobat di rumah sakit yang telah bekerja sama dengan BPJS. Sedangkan dengan asuransi
swasta kamu bisa berobat dimanapun, kalau tidak bekeja sama dengan perusahaan asuransinya akan
digunakan sistem reimburse.

BPJS hanya bisa digunakan di dalam negeri, asuransi swasta dapat digunakan di beberapa negara.

HomePenjelasanKelemahan Dan Kekurangan BPJS Kesehatan

Kelemahan Dan Kekurangan BPJS Kesehatan

Thursday, July 30th, 2015 - Penjelasan
Seperti kita ketahui bahwa bpjs berdiri pada 1 januari 2014,jika di ukur dari umur penerapan jelas masih
baru,dan jelas segala ribet ruwet akan muncul,sistem dan kebijakan akan terus berganti ganti,efeknya ada yang
merasa puas dan ada yang kecewa dan itu sudah biasa.
1.Metode berjenjang
Nah jika di asuransi lain anda bisa langsung ke berobat ke rumahsakit yang bekerja sama atau rekanan,maka
kalau di bpjs anda harus ke faskes 1,biasanya klinik atau puskesmas setelah di faskes 1 dapat rujukan baru anda
ke rumah sakit yang bekerja sama dengan bpjs,sebenarnya langsung ke rumah sakit bisa tapi ada prosedurnya
seperti kritis atau kecelakaan dan lain sebagainya namun jika anda yang biasa pakai asuransi swasta pasti akan
mengeluh dengan prosedur seperti ini.
2.Hanya Indonesia
Perlindungan asuransi bpjs hanya melindungi di indoensia berbeda dengan asuransi swasta sebelah yang bisa
melindungi dan rumah sakit yang bekerja sama hingga seluruh dunia
3.Antri Sana Sini
Untuk pendaftaran dan pengubahan data di kantor bpjs antrian kadang tidak terbendung contohnya saja hari
senin silahkan anda lihat di kantor bpjs antrian lumayan banyak tidak cukup disitu saja jika anda berobat ke
rumah sakit dan sudah dapat rujukan dari faskes 1 antrian berobat di rumah sakit juga banyak,boleh dibuktikan
4.Jarang dapat kelas 1
Nah saat mengurus istri saya yang melahirkan saya coba gunakan BPJS selain untuk mereview juga menilai
bagaimana sistemnya dan hasilnya saya hanya dapat kelas 3 padahal kelas bpjs saya bukan 3 itupun kata rumah
sakit kelas 3 hanya tinggal 1 kamar,begitu juga cerita dari teman teman saya gak ada yang dapat kelas 1 kalau
berobat menggunakan bpjs,heran saya,mungkin memang kamar penuh atau jawab sendiri saja ya.
Dan masih banyak kekurangan bpjs akan saya update lagi,sebagai warga yang baik walaupun saya menilai
masih banyak kekurangan saya juga peserta BPJS terkadang juga berfikir saya kalau sistem bpjs tidak dibenahi
karena sudah terlanjur berjalan dan juga bpjs sudah banyak membantu masyarakat indonesia.

5. Layanan
suransi Kesehatan Swasta
Layanan biasanya akan lebih cepat dan pasien bisa langsung ke rumah sakit untuk segera mendapatkan
penanganan. Hampir semua rumah sakit menerima asuransi kesehatan sehingga prosesnya tidak sulit dan
cenderung tidak berbelit-belit.
BPJS

Memiliki layanan berjenjang, yaitu saat Anda sakit Anda harus ke fasilitas kesehatan (faskes) I terlebih dahulu
untuk mendapat rujukan. Setelah itu baru faskes I akan merujuk Anda ke rumah sakit yang menjadi mitra BPJS
untuk pengobatan lebih lanjut. Birokrasi ini terkadang berbelit-belit. Belum lagi antriannya cukup panjang
untuk memperoleh pelayanan.
Selain itu rumah sakit yang menjadi mitra BPJS masih sedikit dibanding rumah sakit yang menjadi mitra
asuransi kesehatan.

6. Pilihan Rumah Sakit

Asuransi Kesehatan Swasta
Anda bisa memilih untuk berobat ke rumah sakit mana pun dan asuransi akan menanggung semua biaya,
meskipun rumah sakit itu tidak memiliki kerja sama dengan asuransi milik Anda.
BPJS
Anda cuma bisa berobat ke rumah sakit yang sudah ditunjuk BPJS begitu juga rumah sakit rujukannya. Tidak
hepi dengan pilihan rumah sakit? Nah, Anda harus menunggu tiga bulan untuk merubah rumah sakit rujukan
supaya sesuai dengan rumah sakit yang Anda inginkan.
Anehnya, sistem ini juga berlaku meskipun Anda sedang berada di luar kota dan mengalami sakit. Anda tetap
harus meminta rujukan ke faskes I sebelum ke rumah sakit. Ketentuan BPJS akan dinafikan jika pasien dalam
kondisi darurat. Tetapi Anda harus terlebih dulu tahu apa definisi darurat menurut BPJS.

7. Asuransi Jiwa
Asuransi Kesehatan Swasta
Ada asuransi kesehatan yang menyertakan juga fasilitas asuransi jiwa dalam programnya, sehingga bila peserta
meninggal dunia, maka ahli warisnya akan menerima dana asuransi kematian.
BPJS
Tidak ada program ini dalam BPJ Kesehatan.

8. Batas Wilayah
Dalam hal ini, BPJS bisa dibilang kalah dalam hal wilayah perawatan. Rinciannya adalah sebagai berikut:
Asuransi Kesehatan Swasta
Kalau Anda sakit dan sedang berada di luar negeri, Anda bisa mengunakan asuransi kesehatan milik Anda.
Kebanyakan asuransi swasta biasanya bisa menanggung pesertanya hingga ke luar negeri.
BPJS
Namanya asuransi nasional ya hanya berlaku di Indonesia. Jadi Anda harus merogoh kocek kalau terpaksa
dirawat di luar negeri.

9. Double Klaim
Untuk masalah klaim, lagi-lagi BPJS harus mengakui keunggulan dari asuransi kesehatan swasta. Antara lain:
Asuransi Kesehatan Swasta
Anda bisa melakukan double claim dari perusahaan asuransi. Double claim yang dimaksud adalah saat Anda
sakit dan membayar dengan asuransi kantor, Anda tetap bia melakukan klaim ke perusahaan asuransi sesuai
manfaat asuransi yang diambil.
BPJS
Sementara untuk BPJS tidak bisa dilakukan double claim. Jadi misalnya Anda sakit dan dibayar oleh asuransi
kantor, Anda tidak bisa klaim lagi ke BPJS. Perlu diketahui BPJS hanya menerima klaim dari fasilitas kesehatan
langsung dan tidak menerima klaim perorangan.
The regulation of asking every citizen to have a BPJS
A few years ago the Indonesian Government launched a health insurance program for those citizens who were
interested to benefit from it. Recently, a regulation has been passed by the parliament that requires the BPJS for
every citizen. Therefore, this health insurance is compulsory now for every citizen. Its implementation started in
the beginning of 2014, and by January 1, 2015 every employer is expected to register all his employees in the
BPJS. Then, by beginning of 2019 every Indonesian citizen is expected to be part of this health insurance
program required by the government. This new regulation brings both advantages and disadvantages for the
peoples of Indonesia. Although the new regulation of asking every citizen to have a BPJS helps the poor, it is
not a good regulation because it does not provide good salaries for the doctors and nurses, it forces employers to
register their employees, and it offers a health service to the poor that is not enough.
It is a fact that the new regulation facilitates the access to health services for people who cannot afford it. In
Indonesia there are still many people who have this problem. It is a very sad reality the one of many people who
suffer illnesses and cannot receive treatment in the hospitals. Therefore, the BPJS is indeed a noble attempt
from the government to solve the problem of the lack of health service for the poor. However, this measure to
help the poor to have access to medical services does not overcome its weaknesses. The BPJS unfortunately is
not effective yet, and this regulation of asking every citizen to subscribe to it is making bad things worse.

To begin with, this new regulation provides unfair salaries for both doctors and nurses. The budget for the BPJS
is determined by the INA-CBG (Indonesia Case Base Groups). This system allocates fixed funds for every
specific medical treatment. For example, the budget for every type of CT scan is Rp 250,000. However, there
are some types of CT scan that are more expensive than the allotted budget. For example, a heart CT scan is
more expensive than a kidney one. Therefore, hospitals will have to pay the difference between the available
fund and the real cost. Since the money received by the hospitals is less, then hospitals have to cut the salaries
of doctors and nurses. However, that is not fair because doctors and nurses offer a professional work that entails
a big deal of pressure and that should be rewarded properly. Beside, doctors spend many years studying, so they
need higher incomes to balance the time they have not been getting any income.
Secondly, it is not fair to demand all the employers to register their employees to the BPJS. It is a lack of respect
for freedom to force companies to subscribe to the BPJS program because they are free to choose the health
insurance that is most suitable for them. If an employer thinks that the health service provided by the BPJS is
not good enough, s/he has the right to register his/ her employees in another health insurance that is more
suitable for the type of risk the employees are exposed to. For example, if somebody owns a construction
company, s/he knows that employees may suffer injuries at a construction site like falling from scaffolding.
Therefore, the employer would prefer to register his/her employees in an insurance company like Allianz
because this insurance company is specialized in that type of injuries. Now, if the government forces the
construction company to also register the employees in the BPJS, the company will have to pay a greater
amount of expenses that may reduce the net income of the business and render the business less profitable.
Besides, the employer and employees are already contributing to the BPJS by paying their taxes. So, it cannot
be said that they do not want to help the poor.
Thirdly, it is not completely fair with the poor people because it does not really take good care of their health.
Patients suffering major illnesses will be received in the hospitals and stay in intensive care units if necessary.
However, once they recover and can leave the hospital, they will still need to take some medicines that will not
be provided by the BPJS anymore. The problem is that those medicines are very expensive, and thus poor
people cannot afford them. This is why the BPJS is not truly effective. It does not think in the long run. For
example, if a patient is admitted to a hospital because of kidney malfunctioning, s/he will receive treatment in
the hospital until the condition improves, but s/he will be left alone afterwards. Besides, it is not possible to get
a really good medical service by paying so little. The facilities used cannot be as good because the financial
resources are not high. As a result, the poor will get access to a rather low quality health service. Furthermore,
the poor people still have to pay. Even though it costs Rp 25,000 per person per month, in the long run it does
matter for big families. Since the income of these poor people is too low, they may end up sparing money
needed for food in order to get the BPJS. For example, a family was interviewed about the BPJS in a clinic, and
the mother said that only the husband and one of the two children have BPJS. The reason why is that they
cannot afford the BPJS for four of them. That is why the Government should offer this service for free.
To wrap it up, although the new regulation of asking every Indonesian citizen to have a BPJS has a good aim, to
provide health services for the poor, it is not a really effective means to achieve it. This new regulation causes
the following problems for the peoples of Indonesia: it does not provide good salaries for the doctors and
nurses, it forces employers to register their employees, and it offers an incomplete service to the poor. With the
coming of President Joko Widodo, society hopes that this health insurance may become truly effective in
serving the poor.

16. THW support the legalizationof

recreational drugs
Recreational drugs are chemical substances taken for enjoyment, or leisure purposes, rather than for medical
reasons. Alcohol, tobacco and caffeine can be classed as recreational drugs, but are not covered in this leaflet.
Recreational drugs are usually started to provide pleasure, or improve life in some way. However, they can lead
to addiction, health and social problems and crime. Most are illegal, so their use comes with all the
consequences of breaking the law. If you, or someone you know, have a problem with drugs, there are lots of
ways to get help.

What are recreational drugs and why are they used?

Recreational drugs are chemical substances which are used for pleasure. There are many reasons people try
recreational drugs. These include:

Their friends are doing it, and they don't want to feel left out, or not cool.

They get pressurised into trying it.

They are interested in experimenting with the effects, and seeing what happens when they take drugs.

They may feel drugs give them new experiences or perspectives.

They make them feel more relaxed, or more confident when relating to others.

They may feel drugs help them forget their worries or problems.

They may feel drugs make them feel happier.

They want to be rebellious.

They enjoy the effects.

Related discussions

But the drugs help

Guest
3
replies

Inspirations for Today

Guest
4
replies

Cough mixture
Guest
6
replies

Start a discussion

What are the problems with the use of recreational drugs?

All drugs can have dangerous effects. Many can be unpredictable and variable. There are numerous problems
which the use of drugs can cause. These include:

Infections. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and certain types of hepatitis can be passed to others
by blood on needles. This can happen through sharing needles, or from needlestick injuries.

Addiction. Most recreational drugs can become addictive, and the person can be dependent on having
them regularly.

Cost. A regular drug habit is expensive, and getting the money for it can lead to crime, especially when
the person is addicted and cannot stop.

Social problems. People regularly using drugs may behave in different ways. This may cause problems
with their relationships or they may lose their job. Children of people who use drugs can be affected.

Mental problems. Drugs can cause people to have bizarre behaviour. There are thousands of admissions
to hospital each year for drug-related behavioural and mental problems. Drugs can cause people to
develop depression or anxiety.

Overdose. People can become very ill or die from drug overdose.

Illegal drugs are often not pure, and people don't always know what they are taking.

Accidents and fights are more likely after taking drugs.

Unwanted sexual intercourse is more likely under the influence of drugs.

How many people use recreational drugs?

The government obtains reports on drug use in the UK every year. These are published regularly. The latest
statistics at the time of writing this leaflet are from 2012.
Surveys showed that in 2012 more than 1 in 4 schoolchildren were offered drugs. Around 17 in 100 secondary
school pupils had tried drugs at some point. Currently these numbers are going down, ie fewer schoolchildren
are trying drugs than in previous surveys.
There were around 376,136 people who were problem drug users in the UK, which is around 9 out of every
1,000 people. Around 133,112 people regularly injected drugs in the UK. The total number of deaths related to
drug misuse in England and Wales was 1,496 in 2012. There were 12,238 admissions to hospital due to
poisoning by illicit drugs.

Which are the most common recreational drugs used?

In the UK, cannabis is the most commonly used recreational drug. Cocaine is the second most used.
Some of the more common recreational drugs are listed below, along with their nicknames, and approximate
prices in 2011-2012. However for a complete list, visit the Frank website (see the end of this leaflet).
Amfetamines (amphetamines)

Other names: speed, whizz, sulph, dexies.

How are they taken? Amfetamines are usually sold in powder form. This can be snorted up the nose,
wrapped in cigarette paper and swallowed ("speedbomb"), rubbed into the gums, mixed with drinks, or
injected.

What do they do? An amfetamine is a stimulant, so it gives you more energy. You can keep partying,
dancing, working for longer without getting tired. It makes you feel excited and upbeat.

What are the harmful effects? It can make you overactive, jittery or anxious. Occasionally it causes a
severe mental condition where people lose contact with reality, and see or hear things that are not really
there (psychosis).

How much do they cost? The street price of amfetamines is around 13 per gram.

Amyl nitrates

Other names: poppers, TNT, amyls, kix, liquid gold.

How are they taken? They usually come in a bottle of liquid which is sniffed. They can also be inhaled
through a cigarette dipped in the bottle.

What do they do? They give you a "high". The effects come and go very quickly. Some people think
they make sex better.

What are the harmful effects? They can cause chemical burns around the mouth or nose. The liquid is
very flammable so can cause fires if used carelessly. They can make you feel sick or weak. They can
cause death if swallowed by accident.

How much does it cost? The street price is around 5 per bottle.

Cannabis

Other names: hash, hashish, weed, pot, marijuana, ganja, dope, skunk, grass, puff.

How is it taken? It is usually smoked. It can be mixed with tobacco and rolled up. This is called a spliff
or a joint. It can also be mixed in with food or drinks.

What does it do? It can make you feel happy and relaxed. It can also change the way you see or hear
things.

What are the harmful effects? It can make you feel very anxious or excessively worried or make you
panic. It can also make you feel very suspicious of everybody (paranoid). It makes you more likely to
develop a mental illness such as schizophrenia. Driving under the influence of cannabis makes you more
likely to have an accident. It can make your brain work less well, so you don't concentrate or remember
things as well. It can be especially harmful for people with heart disease. It can make you less fertile if
you are trying to have a baby.

How much does it cost? The street price is around 5-7 per gram.

Cocaine

Other names: crack, coke, white, toot, pebbles, freebase.

How is it taken? Cocaine comes as powder, freebase or crack cocaine. The powder is called coke and is
usually sniffed up the nose. Freebase and crack cocaine are usually smoked through a pipe or tube. All
forms can be turned into a liquid and injected.

What does it do? It makes people feel super-confident, and alert. It reduces hunger pangs. After a big
high, there follows a "come-down" or low.

What are the harmful effects? People can do dangerous things when they feel more confident than
they should. It can damage the inside of your nose. It makes the heart beat faster, and can sometimes
cause very high blood pressure or heart attacks. It can cause mental illnesses such as depression, anxiety
and panic disorder. There are risks from infected needles. Cocaine can become very addictive, and
people who use it regularly crave more. It can cause death in overdose.

How much does it cost? The street price is around 45 per gram for cocaine powder.

Ecstasy

Other names: E, crystal, dolphins, Superman, pills, mitsubishis, MDMA, Mandy, brownies.

How is it taken? Ecstasy is usually swallowed as a pill.

What does it do? It makes you feel high and happy and full of energy. It can make colours and sounds
more intense. It can give you feelings of love and affection towards people around you for a short time.
It is often used by people who go clubbing, so they have the energy to carry on late into the night. The
effects last for several hours.

What are the harmful effects? Ecstasy pills are often not pure, so the effects can be unpredictable,
depending on what they are mixed with. The after effect, or "comedown", can make you feel very low. It
can cause depression, anxiety and memory problems. Sometimes it can cause problems with your
immune system, heart, kidneys or liver. It can cause death.

How much does it cost? The street price is around 6 per tablet.

Related articles

Dealing with Poisoning

Substance Misuse

More related content

Heroin

Other names: H, smack, skag, gear, brown.

How is it taken? Heroin is usually dissolved into a liquid, then injected. It can also be smoked or
snorted.

What does it do? Heroin is made from the opium poppy. In its form for medical use, it is called
diamorphine, and is used as a very strong painkiller. It makes you feel calm, happy and relaxed.

What are the harmful effects? Heroin is extremely addictive, and once people are hooked it is very
difficult to stop using it. When people overdose on it, they can stop breathing, and lose consciousness or
die. Using infected needles to inject heroin can cause the spread of hepatitis or HIV. It can damage the
blood vessels.

How much does it cost? The street price is around 52 per gram.

Ketamine

Other names: K, vitamin K, super K, special K, green, donkey dust.

How is it taken? It can be swallowed, snorted or injected.

What does it do? It can make you feel very relaxed. It is a very strong painkiller. It can make you feel
as though you are somewhere else rather than in your body. It can give you hallucinations, and affect the
way you see time and space. This effect is called a "trip", and a trip can be a good or a bad one.

What are the harmful effects? It can affect your heart or blood pressure. It can make you confused and
frightened. It can make you feel sick. It can affect your memory. It can damage your bladder and make
you feel like you need to pee more often and urgently. This is called 'Ketamine bladder syndrome'. You
can also injure yourself because you don't feel pain. It can damage your veins, and sharing infected
needles puts you at risk of hepatitis and HIV.

How much does it cost? Ketamine costs around 20 per gram.

LSD

Other names: LSD stands for its chemical name, lysergic acid diethylamide. It is also commonly called
acid. Other terms include blotter, tripper, flash, stars, rainbows, paper mushrooms.

How is it taken? It is swallowed as a tablet or drops of liquid.

What does it do? Like ketamine, LSD causes good or bad trips. A good trip can make you feel relaxed
and happy. A bad trip can make you feel frightened and make you panic. It can make you see things that
aren't there (hallucinate) and these can be good things or bad things.

What are the harmful effects? It can make you frightened and confused. Sometimes you can get
"flashbacks" when you relive the same experience again. People can be more likely to self-harm when
they have a bad trip.

How much does it cost? It costs around 5 per tablet.

Magic mushrooms

Other names: shrooms, mushies, magics, philosopher's stone.

How is it taken? Magic mushrooms grow wild in the UK. The two types are liberty caps and fly agaric.
They are eaten raw, or dried and used in drinks.

What does it do? Magic mushrooms can also give you good or bad trips. A good trip makes you feel
happy, chilled out and confident. A bad trip can be frightening. Some people find magic mushrooms
make them more imaginative or creative or sensitive, or they have a feeling of spiritual enlightenment.

What are the harmful effects? They can make you feel sick or give you tummy ache or diarrhoea. You
can feel very frightened or disorientated. You can get flashbacks later. You might put yourself in danger
when you feel disconnected from reality.

How much does it cost? They can be picked as they grow wild. However, wild mushrooms should
never be picked unless you know exactly what you are looking for, as some are poisonous. If bought,
they cost about 5 for a handful.

Mephedrone

Other names: meow meow, miaow, m smack, m cat, drone, bubble, white, mc, charge.

How is it taken? It can be snorted, or wrapped in paper and then swallowed ("bombed").

What does it do? It is a stimulant with similar effects to amfetamines. It makes you feel euphoric and
confident and talkative. You may develop a short-lived love for those around you.

What are the harmful effects? It can make you feel sick or dizzy or give you headaches. It can make
you suspicious or anxious. It can cause your heart to race. Occasionally it causes fits. It can damage your
nose, mouth or throat. It can stop you sleeping.

How much does it cost? The cost is around 10-15 per gram.

Methamfetamines (methamphetamines)

Other names: yaba, glass, meth, crank. The crystal form is called crystal meth or ice. Methamfetamines
are a stronger form of amfetamine. 4-Methylamfetamine is another strong form of amfetamine, also
called ket phet or phet ket.

How is it taken? Methamfetamines can be swallowed, snorted, injected or smoked. The crystal form is
the strongest and most addictive.

What does it do? It causes a strong "high", which lasts for 4-12 hours (longer than crack cocaine)
followed by a severe "comedown". It may make you feel full of energy and awake. It may make you feel
more aroused. It may make you less hungry.

What are the harmful effects? It can make you feel agitated, jittery, anxious, suspicious or aggressive.
It increases heart rate and blood pressure, and makes you more likely to have a heart attack. It reduces
your inhibitions, and makes you more likely to take risks you would not usually take - for example,
having sex with strangers. It can cause severe psychiatric illness, or psychosis. The effect of this can be
homicidal or suicidal thoughts or behaviour. Overdose can result in death. It is very addictive.

How much does it cost? Price is very variable, but it can cost up to 250 per gram. It is used less in the
UK than in other countries such as the USA.

Volatile substances - gases, glues and aerosols

What substances are abused? Aerosols (such as deodorants, air freshener, hairspray), nail polish or
nail polish remover, glue, paint remover, shoe polish, petrol, cigarette lighter fluid. It can be called
sniffing, tooting, huffing, dusting, or buzzing gas.

How are they taken? The substance is breathed in or, if in a spray form, can be sprayed to the back of
the mouth.

What do they do? They may make you feel happy and excited. You may feel giggly and high. It is a
very short-lived effect.

What are the harmful effects? They can cause dizziness, being sick (vomiting) or blackouts. They can
cause hallucinations. You may get sore around the mouth or nose. They can give you headaches. They
can give you problems sleeping and make you feel tired. These substances can be very dangerous, and
sometimes people die instantly when they use them. They can make your heart stop. Sometimes the gas
at the back of your throat can make it swell up so you can't breathe.

Recreational drugs and the law

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
The Misuse of Drugs Act was a law passed in 1971 in the UK to try to prevent the use of harmful drugs. It
divides drugs into three categories - A, B or C, depending on how dangerous they are thought to be. Each of the
categories then has different penalties for those convicted of use or supply.
Offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act include:

Possession of drugs

Supply of drugs

Possession with intent to supply another person

Offering to supply another person with drugs

Manufacture of drugs

Export or import of drugs.

Allowing your property to be used for the use, supply or production of drugs.

Class A drugs are the most harmful. They include cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, LSD, methadone and magic
mushrooms. The maximum penalty is seven years in prison plus a fine for possession, and life imprisonment
plus a fine for supply.
Class B drugs include amfetamines (other than injectable types), cannabis, mephedrone, codeine and
barbiturates. The maximum penalty is five years in prison plus a fine for possession, and 14 years in prison plus
a fine for supply.
Class C drugs include anabolic steroids and minor tranquillisers. The maximum penalty is two years in prison
plus a fine for possession, and 14 years in prison plus a fine for supply.
Many drugs have medical or scientific uses, so they are placed in to one of five schedules by the Misuse of
Drugs Regulations of 2001. These allow some drugs to be legally used in certain situations.
Schedule 1 drugs are those which have no legitimate medical purpose. These are strictly controlled and can
only be used with a special Home Office licence. This category includes cannabis, ecstasy, LSD and raw opium.
Schedule 2 drugs can be prescribed by doctors, and are legal to possess if they have been prescribed. They
include amfetamines, cocaine, dihydrocodeine, heroin, methadone, morphine, opium in medicinal form,
pethidine and methylphenidate hydrochloride (Ritalin). These have to be looked after in a specific way by
pharmacies.
Schedule 3 drugs can also be prescribed legally, and include groups of medicines which make you sleepy,
called barbiturates and benzodiazepines. There are special rules guiding prescriptions.
Schedule 4 drugs include most minor tranquillisers, and anabolic steroids. They are legal if you have a
prescription for them. However, it is illegal to supply them to other people.
Schedule 5 drugs are those which are unlikely to be abused. They do not necessarily need a prescription. They
are legal to possess but illegal to supply them to another person. This includes certain cough medicines and mild
painkillers.
Related Wellbeing

School pupil survey: smoking, drinking and drugs at decade low

Extra funding for mental health nurses at police stations and courts

See all Wellbeing

The new 'Drug-driving' offence
This refers to driving, trying to drive or being in charge of a vehicle while having a specified controlled drug in
your body, above a specified limit. This comes into effect in March 2015. The drugs to be covered by this
offence include: cannabis, cocaine, MDMA (ecstasy), lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), ketamine, heroin and
methylamphetamine.
Roadside drug screening devices will be developed using spit (saliva) to identify if the person driving or in
control of the vehicle had taken a drug as listed above. Following a positive result using saliva, you can then be
asked to provide a blood sample for evidential purposes, to allow prosecution for the new offence (if you are
above the specified limit).

How can I tell if my child or my friend is using recreational drugs?

Some signs which MAY indicate somebody is using drugs include:

They may become more moody or have mood swings. (But remember teenagers can be moody for lots
of reasons!)

They may start staying out later, or socialising with new friends.

They may seem more tired, and have difficulty concentrating, or lose interest in the things they normally
enjoy. Schoolchildren may start doing less well at school, or stop doing their normal hobbies. Adults
may neglect their usual responsibilities.

Sores around the mouth or nose.

Losing their appetite.

Odd things around the house, such as torn cigarette packets, small sealable plastic bags, silver foil,
needle covers, empty aerosol cans.

Needing more money, and nothing to show for it. Money in the house going missing.

Regularly getting into trouble.

Being more anxious or worried than normal.

Bloodshot eyes, pupils bigger or smaller than usual.

Unusual body smells.

Shaking, poor co-ordination.

How can I obtain help if I have a problem with recreational drugs?

You are not on your own. Lots of people have tried taking drugs, and needed help to stop. If you find you are
using a drug more and more often, this may be the start of becoming dependent on it. If you keep wishing you
hadn't afterwards, or find you are running into trouble in other areas of your life, there are lots of ways to get
help. Think about why you are using the drugs, and see if that helps you work out how to stop. For example:

Is it because of pressure from other people? If so, you might be able to consider hanging out with other
friends.

Is it because it makes you feel better about problems in your life? If so, you might be able to obtain help
by talking about those problems with somebody.

Is it because you are bored? If so, you could look for a new hobby or skill to take up that would be
healthier and enjoyable.

Is it because you can't stop because you crave more? If so, you might need help from one of the many
organisations who help people quit.

There are lots of different ways of seeking help, it depends on you which might suit you the best. Sometimes it
is helpful to talk to the people who care about you - your parents, your friends, your teacher, your GP, for
example. There are several organisations that help people wanting to stop taking drugs. You can choose to
contact them in various ways - online for live chat, or by email, or by phone, or by visiting in person. Or you

can just read the information on their websites. Some of these, such as "Frank", "Turning Point", or "Know the
Score", are listed below. Alternatively, your GP would be able to suggest the right place to go for help.
Don't be scared of telling people about your drug problem. They are likely to be relieved you want to do
something to stop.

How can I obtain help for another person who has a problem with
recreational drugs?
Talk to them first. Be honest about your concerns and discuss the risks of drug taking and the worries you have.
Try to understand why they are taking drugs, and not to be critical. If you understand why it is happening, you
are more likely to be able to help them stop.
Either on your own, or with the person you are worried about, you can go and speak to your GP and ask advice.
Or you can contact one of the many organisations that help people who are misusing drugs. Several of these are
listed below. They can give you advice and support. School nurses, teachers, or social workers may also be able
to help and advise. It is not an uncommon problem, so you are not alone. There are professionals with lots of
experience in helping other people in the same boat.
Thomas Kerr, Associate Professor in the faculty of medicine at the University of British Columbia, has run
several NIH-funded studies of injection drug users. Hes also one of the lead scientists evaluating Vancouvers
supervised injection facility, Insite. (A supervised injection facility is a place where addicts can take their drug,
under the supervision of medical personnel. The site doesnt offer illegal drugsthey simply provide a clean,
safe environment, so the person isnt using dirty needles or if they OD or want help medical staff is on hand.)
One of the major benefits of a regulated drug market, Kerr said, is you can be assured of the dose and purity.
So many deaths happen as a result of lack of knowledge or purity. Sometimes the heroin can be cut with
impurities that make people sick. When people are consuming a drug that is illegal and they are marginalized
for their use, they dont know the purity or strength.
By keeping these drugs illegal, and forcing people to turn to an illegal market, we are causing more harm than
the drugs themselves. Imagine every time you wanted to have a drink, you had to go to an unknown source, and
every now and then, you got alcohol that contains paint remover. It would burn your esophagus and youd need
to be hospitalized. It seems crazy and makes no sense. But weve tolerated that with drugs like heroin.
There have been numerous heroin trials around the world, including Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands,
Germany, Canada, and England says Kerr, and they show that when you provide people with pharmaceutical
heroin, they can return to work, reduce their involvement in criminal activities, and reduce their illicit use.
Additionally, Were not talking about a one-off, poorly conducted study. There have been numerous trials
conducted in multiple countries with the same results. There is no academic debate about the value of
prescribed heroin. Its really a political and ideological debate rooted in an archaic system of drug and law
control. That in turn creates stigmatizing and discriminating. The WHO [World Health Organization] agrees this
is a health issue.
But others argue that heroin maintenance does nothing more than use taxpayer money to support, or even
encourage, addiction. Calvina L. Fay, Director of the Drug Free America Foundation, reports, Most opiate
addicts are polytoxicomaniacs (addicted to several drugs) and [heroin maintenance] programs would supply
them with their base drug, free of charge Psychic effects of opiates make it very difficult to get in touch with
the addict emotionally; therefore, psychotherapy is almost impossible [and] A patient in a heroin maintenance
program is still under the influence of the drug and has no motivation to begin a therapy leading to abstinence.

Legalize it, tax it, use it medicinally, and regulate it.

Legalizing would only make life better for addicts. Honestly, no one OD's on Heroin. They OD on the street
substances put in it. Many doctors agree with that.
So cut out the street! Heroin could boost the economy!
This is a dumb debate, with an obvious answer.
I won't bore you with the medical benefits, but there are plenty.

Legalisation is wrong.
Heroin is illegal for a reason. I can't stress this enough. Its not about choice of the individual, heroin ruins lives.
it destroys users life, their family, friend and kids (if applicable).

Legalizing heroin will lead to widespread usage.

Legalizing heroin will cause an epidemic of addiction and adequate resources do not exist to support such an
increase in the number of hard drug users from a medical or rehabilitation standpoint. Once becoming quickly
addicted to heroin, new users would become a burden on society as they would not be employable or reliable as
family members.

Heroin does not only affect the user!

The harmful effects of heroin use are felt by society! It makes individuals less economically efficient and more
unstable! In addition, there are good chances that your tax dollars will be used even more extensively to help
out addicts and the harm being caused. Heroin is VERY addictive, and will prove to not only be a bane for the
individual, but one for society (and that is what must really be taken into consideration). For example, look at
drunk driving. You may say the person has the right to be drunk in their car, it's their body. However, they are a
danger to those other drivers. This is analogous to how heroin is harmful to our society.
Report Post

17. THBT alterative medication is a

threat for modern medication
Alternative medicine is any practice that is put forward as having the healing effects of medicine, but does not
originate from evidence gathered using the scientific method,[n 1][n 2][n 3] is not part of biomedicine,[n 1][n 4][n 5][n 6] or
is contradicted by scientific evidence or established science.[1][2][3] It consists of a wide range of health care
practices, products and therapies, ranging from being biologically plausible but not well tested, to being directly
contradicted by evidence and science, or even harmful or toxic.[n 4][1][3][4][5][6] Examples include new and
traditional medicine practices such as homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic, energy medicine, various forms of
acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine, and Christian faith healing. The treatments are
those that are not part of the science-based healthcare system, and are not clearly backed by scientific evidence.
[7][8][9][10]
Despite significant expenditures on testing alternative medicine, including $2.5 billion spent by the
United States government, almost none have shown any effectiveness greater than that of false treatments
(placebo), and alternative medicine has been criticized by prominent figures in science and medicine as being
quackery, nonsense, fraudulent, or unethical
There are many fields of alternative medicine available for study in traditional college or institute settings, as
well as in online health degree programs. These include:

Chinese medicine

Acupuncture

Massage therapy

Herbal medicine

Naturopathic medicine

Indian Ayurvedic medicine

Homeopathic medicine

Yoga

acupuncture, which has been tested for over 3000 years, has been shown to actually deactivate the pain centers
of the brain without using the placebo affect (as several studies have shown), while not causing any further
neuronal toxicity compared to Pain Relievers. For these reasons, I support that natural, herbal treatment and
acupuncture, once combined, is of much higher worth than the large majority of modern medicine (that is not
herbal or acupunctural).
Overall, western medicine focuses on pathology and curing disease while alternative medicine focuses on the
health and healing of the person.
For both treatments, the majority of concern comes from general misunderstanding and a lack of compromise

from bot
Health is universal. Its a human right, not a privilege. Both western and alternative medicine have strengths
that would grow stronger when used in harmony. It would prevent disruption during the healing process as the
patient wouldnt need to visit many different clinics and doctors, and it would encourage a feeling of safety and
true health care for all.h sides.

18. THW demolish meningitis injection

for the pilgrmers
Hajj and Umrah Health Requirements
THE ROYAL EMBASSY OF SAUDI ARABIA

Health requirements that must be met by Hajj pilgrims and Umrah performers (updates will be issued as
needed):
The Ministry of Health has established a number of requirements that must be met by visitors to obtain an Entry
Visa for Hajj and Umrah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for Hajj season 1434 H. These health regulations
include:
1 - Yellow Fever
a) In accordance with the International Health Regulations 2005, all travelers arriving from countries or areas at
risk of yellow fever must present a valid yellow fever vaccination certificate showing that the person was
vaccinated at least 10 days and at most 10 years before arrival at the border. In case of the absence of such a
certificate, the individual will be placed under strict surveillance for 6 days from the date of vaccination or the
last date of potential exposure to infection, whichever is earlier. Health offices at entry points will be
responsible for notifying the appropriate Director General of Health Affairs in the region or governorate about
the temporary place of residence of the visitor.
The following countries/areas are at risk of yellow fever transmission:
Angola
Argentina
Benin
Bolivia
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Chad
Colombia
Congo
Cote dIvoire
Democratic Republic of the
Congo
Ecuador

Equatorial Guinea
Ethiopia
French Guyana
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea Bissau
Guyana
Kenya
Liberia
Mali
Mauritania
Niger
Nigeria

Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Rwanda
Senegal
Sierra Leone
South Sudan
Sudan
Suriname
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
Venezuela

b) Aircrafts, ships and other means of transportation coming from countries affected by yellow fever are
requested to submit a certificate indicating that it applied disinfection in accordance with methods
recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). In accordance with the International Health
Regulations 2005, all arriving ships will be requested to provide to the competent authority a valid Ship
Sanitation Certificate. Ships arriving from areas at risk for yellow fever transmission may also be required to
undergo inspection to ensure they are free of yellow fever vectors, or disinfected, as a condition for granting
free pratique (including permission to enter a port, to embark or disembark and to discharge or load cargo or
stores).
2 - Meningococcal Meningitis
a) Visitors from all countries: Visitors arriving for the purpose of Umrah or pilgrimage (Hajj) or for seasonal
work are required to submit a certificate of vaccination with the quadrivalent (ACYW135) vaccine against

meningitis issued no more than 3 years and no less than 10 days before arrival in Saudi Arabia. The responsible
authorities in the visitors country of origin should ensure that adults and children over the age of 2 years are
given 1 dose of the quadrivalent polysaccharide (ACYW135) vaccine.
b) Visitors from African Countries: For visitors arriving from countries in the African meningitis belt (Benin,
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Cote dIvoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea,
Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and the Sudan), in addition to the above stated requirements,
ciprofloxacin tablets (500 mg) chemoprophylaxis will be administered at port of entry to lower the rate of
carriers.
c) Interior pilgrims and the Hajj workers vaccination with quadrivalent (ACYW135) vaccine is required for:
All citizens and residents of Madinah and Makkah who have not been vaccinated during the past 3 years;
All citizens and residents undertaking the Hajj;
All Hajj workers who have not been vaccinated in the past 3 years;
Any individual working at entry points or in direct contact with pilgrims in Saudi Arabia.
3 - Poliomyelitis
All travelers arriving from polio-endemic countries and re-established transmission countries, namely,
Afghanistan, Chad, Nigeria and Pakistan, regardless of age and vaccination status, should receive 1 dose of oral
polio vaccine (OPV). Proof of polio vaccination at least 6 weeks prior to departure is required for visitors from
polio-endemic and re-established transmission countries to apply for an entry visa for Saudi Arabia and
travelers will also receive 1 dose of OPV at border points on arrival in Saudi Arabia. The same requirements are
valid for travelers from recently endemic countries at high risk of re-importation of poliovirus, i.e. India.
All visitors under the age of 15 travelling to Saudi Arabia from countries reporting polio following importation
or due to circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus in the past 12 months (as of mid-February 2013, see list below)
should be vaccinated against poliomyelitis with the OPV. Proof of OPV or IPV vaccination is required 6 weeks
prior to the application for entry visa. Irrespective of previous immunization history, all visitors under 15 years
arriving in Saudi Arabia will also receive 1 dose of OPV at border points.
Polio cases related to wild poliovirus importation or to circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus have been
registered during the past 12 months in the following countries: Chad, Kenya, Niger, Somalia and Yemen.
4 - Seasonal Influenza:
The Saudi Ministry of Health recommends that international pilgrims be vaccinated against seasonal influenza
before arrival into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, particularly those at increased risk of severe influenza
diseases, including pregnant women, children under 5 years, the elderly, and individuals with underlying health
conditions such as HIV/AIDS, asthma, and chronic heart or lung diseases. In Saudi Arabia, seasonal influenza
vaccination is recommended for internal pilgrims, particularly those at risk described above, and all health-care
workers in the Hajj premises.
Health Education:
Health authorities in countries of origin are required to provide information to pilgrims on infectious diseases
symptoms, methods of transmission, complications, and means of prevention.
Food Material:
Hajj and Umrah performers are not allowed to bring fresh food into Saudi Arabia. Only properly canned or
sealed food or food stored in containers with easy access for inspection is allowed in small quantities, sufficient
for one person for the duration of his or her trip.
Responses to International Outbreaks:
1 - MERS-COV Precautions: The Saudi Ministry of Health recommends that the elderly (above 65 years of age)
and those with chronic diseases (e.g. heart disease, kidney disease, respiratory disease, diabetes) and pilgrims
with immune deficiency (congenital and acquired), malignancy and terminal illnesses, pregnant women and
children (under 12) coming for Hajj and Umrah this year, postpone the performance of the Hajj and Umrah for
their own safety.
The Saudi Ministry of Health also advises all pilgrims to comply with common public health guidelines to curb
the spread of respiratory infectious disease, which can be summarized as follows:
A - Wash hands with soap and water or disinfectant, especially after coughing and sneezing
B - Use disposable tissues when coughing or sneezing and dispose of them in a waste basket.

C - Try as much as possible to avoid hand contact with the eyes, nose and mouth.
D - Avoid direct contact with infected persons (people with symptoms such as cough, sneezing,
expectoration, vomiting, and diarrhea) and do not share their personal gadgets.
E - Wear masks, especially when in crowded places.
F - Maintain good personal hygiene.
2 - General Precautions: Updating immunization against vaccine-preventable diseases in all travelers is strongly
recommended. Preparation for international travel provides opportunity to review the immunization status of
travelers. Incompletely immunized travelers can be offered routine vaccinations recommended in national
immunization schedules (these usually include diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, measles, and mumps), in
addition to those needed for the specific travel (e.g. meningococcal vaccination for Hajj).
3 - Emergency Precautions: In the event of a public health emergency of international health concern, or in the
case of any disease outbreak subject to notification under the International Health Regulations 2005, the health
authorities in Saudi Arabia will undertake additional preventive precautions (not included in the measures
mentioned above), following consultation with the WHO, that are necessary to avoid the spread of infection
during the pilgrimage or on return to their country of origin.
Gejala klinis penyakit ini adalah demam (panas tinggi) mendadak, nyeri kepala, mual, muntah, kaku kuduk,
ketahanan fisik melemah, dan kemerahan di kulit. Pada keadaan lanjut, kesadaran menurun sampai koma serta
terjadi perdarahan echymosis.
Pencegahan meningitis paling efektif adalah dengan imunisasi (vaksinasi) meningitis. Vaksinasi meningitis
paling efektif dan aman dan dapat memberikan perlindungan selama tiga tahun terhadap serangan penyakit
meningitis. Vaksin meningitis dianjurkan bagi orang lanjut usia dan penderita penyakit kronis seperti asma,
paru-paru kronis, jantung, diabetes, ginjal, gangguan sistem imunitas tubuh, kelainan darah, dll.
Berkumpulnya populasi yang besar seperti jemaah haji dari berbagai negara di Arab Saudi, dapat merupakan
penyebaran kuman dan penyakit , sehingga pemberian vaksinasi merupakan upaya yang penting dalam
memberikan perlindungan kesehatan jemaah haji. Tanpa imunisasi meningitis, dikhawatirkan para jemaah yang
tertular meningitis ketika menunaikan ibadah haji, akan membawa pulang kuman meningitis dan menimbulkan
wabah meningitis di Indonesia.
Vaksin meningitis menjadi syarat wajib bagi calon jemaah haji. Vaksin meningitis berfungsi untuk menangkal
penyakit radang selaput otak. Berada dalam kondisi di tengah jutaan manusia dari berbagai daerah sangat rentan
bagi penularan penyakit radang selaput otak. Makanya harus ada sistem imun yang kuat. Setiap calon jamaah
akan mendapatkan vaksin yang melindungi empat dari lima kelompok bakteri penyebab meningikokus, yaitu
jenis A,C, W-135 dan Y. Satu jenis vaksin lagi, tipe B, sekarang ini sedang dalam tahap uji coba. Pemberian
vaksin dilakukan antara 10-14 hari sebelum keberangkatan. Itu adalah masa paling efektif pemberian vaksin
karena pada saat pemberangkatan, antibodi sedang terbentuk dengan kuat. Ketika antibodi sudah kuat, potensi
tertular atau sekadar sebagai pembawa meningitis pun bisa ditekan. Masa inkubasi meningitis sendiri terbilang
singkat, yaitu 2-10 hari, yang bisa menyebabkan kematian, bahkan ketika sudah terdeteksi dan mendapatkan
perawatan.
Setelah kita melakukan suntik vaksin, maka akan diberikan sebuah buku kuning bertuliskan International
Certificate of Vaccination of Prophylaxis (ICV) asli yang merupakan bukti bahwa kita telah melakukan suntik
vaksin meningitis.
Kementrian Kerajaan Arab Saudi mewajibkan negara yang mengirimkan jamaah haji serta Travel Umrah untuk
memberikan vaksin meningitis dan menjadikannya syarat pokok dalam pemberian haji dan umrah Sejak tahun
2002.
Calon jamaah Umroh bisa datang ke Kantor Dinas Kesehatan atau Kantor Kesehatan Pelabuhan (KKP) di
wilayah masing-masing untuk mendapatkan vaksin meningitis ini. Data memuat nama, alamat, jenis kelamin,
jenis vaksin, foto, no. batch, no. kode buku (running number), tanggal penyuntikan, nama dokter yang
menyuntikan juga harus ada barcode. Biaya Suntik vaksin meningitis bervariasi antara satu tempat dengan yang
lain. Kisarannya Rp. 300.000 Rp. 450.000,-. Apabila rumah sakit tidak mengeluarkan buku kuning, biasanya
calon jamaah diberikan surat keterangan telah vaksin, yang mencantumkan nama sesuai paspor dan no paspor,
serta no batch vaksin (tertera dalam kemasan).

Meningococcal disease, WHO

Vaccine
Polysaccharide vaccines

Internationally marketed meningococcal polysaccharide vaccines are bivalent (A and C), trivalent (A, C and W135) or tetravalent (A, C, Y and W-135). The vaccines are purified, heat-stable, lyophilized capsular
polysaccharides from meningococci of the respective serogroups.
Following one dose, both group A and group C vaccines have documented short-term efficacy levels of 85
100% in older children and adults. However, group C vaccines do not prevent disease in children under 2 years
of age, and the efficacy of group A vaccine in children under 1 year of age is unclear. Group Y and W-135
polysaccharides have been shown to be immunogenic only in children over 2 years of age.
A protective antibody response occurs within 10 days of vaccination. In schoolchildren and adults, one dose of
these polysaccharide vaccines appears to provide protection for at least 3 years, but in children under 4 years of
age the levels of specific antibodies decline rapidly after 23 years.
Adverse events and precautions - polysaccharide vaccine
The internationally available polysaccharide vaccines are safe, and significant systemic reactions are very rare.
The most common adverse reactions are erythema and slight pain at the site of injection for 12 days. Fever
exceeding 38.5 C occurs in up to 2% of vaccinees. No significant change in safety or reactogenicity has been
observed when the group-specific monovalent vaccines are combined into bivalent or tetravalent meningococcal
vaccines.
Special precautions: Children under 2 years of age are not protected by the vaccine
Conjugate meningococcal vaccines
Conjugation of the bacterial polysaccharide to a protein carrier induces a T-cell-dependent immune response
characterizedby increased immunogenicity among infants, prolonged duration of protection, and reduced
nasopharyngeal carriage of meningococci. Conjugate meningococcal vaccines are available as monovalent
serogroup A and serogroup C vaccines; bivalent serogroups A, C vaccine; and tetravalent serogroups A, C, Y,
W-135 vaccine.
These vaccines are highly immunogenic (>90%), although protective antibody titres are not long-lasting in
young children. Cross29 protection between different meningococcal serogroups does not occur.
Monovalent serogroup C conjugate vaccines were first licensed for use in 1999 and are now incorporated in
national vaccination programmes in an increasing number of countries. In contrast to group C polysaccharide
vaccines, the group C conjugate vaccine elicits adequate antibody responses and immunological memory even
in infants who are vaccinated at 2, 3 and 4 months of age.
A combination vaccine based on Haemophilus influenza type b and Neisseria meningitidis serogroup C vaccines
(HibMecC) is also marketed.
In 2010, a conjugated serogroup A meningococcal vaccine designed particularly for use in the African
meningitis belt received regulatory approval in India and in a few African countries. This vaccine, which is
licensed for single-dose immunization of individuals 129 years of age, has proved to be safe and highly
immunogenic.
Three tetravalent conjugate vaccines against serogroups A, C, Y and W-135 meningococci are now licensed
internationally. They differ in the conjugate carrier protein (CRM 197, tetanus toxoid, and diphtheria toxoid),
but all are administered intramuscularly and show similar immunogenicity. In Canada and the United States,
these vaccines are licensed for single-dose immunization of individuals 2 55 years of age. In addition, two of
these vaccines offer a two-dose schedule for children aged 9-23 months.
In 2012, a conjugate tetravalent vaccine that can be administered as a single dose from the age of 1 year was
licensed in Europe.
Adverse events and precautions conjugated vaccines
All meningococcal conjugate vaccines have an excellent safety record. None has been associated with any
serious adverse effects during clinical trials or in post-marketing surveillance. Redness, swelling and pain at the
site of injection may occur, however. Such reactions 3 days.usually start within the first day after
immunization and last 1 Less commonly, children may develop a fever or be irritable for a short period.
Travellers should be aware that protection induced by meningococcal vaccines is strictly serotype-specific and
that tetravalent vaccine offers the widest range of protection. However, tetravalent meningococcal vaccines do
not protect against meningococci of serogroups B and X which are common causes of meningococcal disease in
some countries.

Required vaccinations: Saudi Arabia demands proof of recent meningococcal vaccination (tetravalent vaccine)
as a visa requirement for pilgrims and guest workers. See 6.4 Required vaccinations.

Vaccination for Bacterial Meningitis

By Jean Rothman | Medically reviewed by Pat F. Bass III, MD, MPH

Vaccines can prevent some types of bacterial meningitis and its serious
after-effects. Learn about your options.
Don't Miss This
6 Superfoods You Should Be Eating
What People Don't Know About Alzheimer's
Although there are fewer cases of bacterial meningitis (caused by the bacteria Neisseria meningitides) than
there were more than a decade ago, the statistics remain grim: roughly 15 percent of people who contract
meningococcal disease die, even after theyve been treated. Of those who survive, approximately 20 percent
have long-term after-effects, including:

Deafness

Mental retardation

Nervous system disorders

Seizures or strokes

Because of these devastating effects, its crucial to get a meningitis vaccine, in part because the vaccine can also
protect you from other types of bacterial meningitis.
Bacterial Meningitis Vaccines
There are vaccines that will protect children and adults from most, but not all, kinds of meningococcal disease.
In the United States, the two vaccines that can prevent meningococcal disease are:

Meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4 or Menactra). Licensed in 2005, MCV4 is the newer
version of the two vaccines. It can be given to people between the ages of 2 and 55.

Meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine (MPSV4 or Menomune). This vaccine, around since the mid1970s, can be used when MCV4 is not available. It is the only licensed vaccine for people over age 55.

Each of these vaccines can prevent four kinds of meningococcal disease. They protect about 90 percent of the
people who receive them. The newer vaccine, the MCV4, is thought to provide longer-lasting and better
protection than the MPSV4.
Under normal circumstances, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that the
meningococcal vaccine be given to children between the ages of 11 and 18. Usually, the vaccine is given at a
regular doctors visit when a child is around 11 or 12. If for some reason your child didnt get vaccinated at that
age, make an appointment for the vaccination to be done as soon as possible.
The meningococcal vaccine does not work as well in young children and is only given to children who are
between 3 months and 2 years of age under special circumstances. The CDC recommends giving these children
two doses, three months apart.
If anyone from the age of 2 through 55 is in a high-risk category for bacterial meningitis, they should be
vaccinated. Those at higher risk for meningococcal disease include:

College freshmen, especially those who live in dorms

Scientists (microbiologists) who are frequently exposed to meningococcal bacteria

Recruits for the U.S. military

Travelers to countries where meningococcal disease is common

People whose spleens have been injured, for example in a car accident, or surgically removed

People with disorders of the immune system

Anyone who may have been exposed to someone with bacterial meningitis

The CDCs Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices prefers MCV4 rather than MPSV4 for people at
high risk, but if MCV4 is unavailable, MPSV4 can be used. If you or your child is in any of these groups, talk to
your doctor about getting vaccinated.
Meningococcal Vaccines Risks
As with any medication, a meningococcal vaccine carries risks, but the CDC says the risk of serious harm from
this type of vaccination is extremely small. Mild problems include redness or pain at the site of the shot. Some
people, but only a small percentage, get a fever.
More significant side effects may include:

Weakness

Changes in behavior

An allergic reaction signs of which can include difficulty breathing, hoarseness, getting hives, being
pale, weak, or dizzy, or having a fast heartbeat

If any of these occur, contact your doctor immediately.

Meningococcal Vaccine Pros and Cons
On the plus side, meningococcal vaccines are safe and effective. By lowering the risk of contracting or
spreading meningococcal disease, the vaccines also reduce the chance of dying or having severe after-effects
from meningococcal illnesses.
According to the CDC, the vaccine supply in the United States is the safest, most effective supply in history.
But some parents worry about their children receiving vaccinations, and not just for meningococcal disease. If
you have such a concern, talk to your childs doctor and make sure you have all of the facts about vaccine safety
and side effects.
Some people should not be vaccinated against meningococcal disease. These include people who:

Have had a severe allergic reaction in the past to a meningococcal vaccine

Have a severe allergy to any vaccine component. Be sure to tell your doctor before the vaccination if
you have any serious allergies.

Are moderately or severely ill

Have had Guillain-Barr Syndrome

The meningococcal vaccine is a safe and effective way to protect yourself from meningococcal disease and
bacterial meningitis. If you, or your child, have not been vaccinated, talk to your doctor to see if the
meningococcal vaccine is right for you.
Aff
Neg