InSpiRatiOnaL ThOuGhtS - fReSh IdEaS

Sex Selection: No God Has the Monopoly of X and Y Chromosomes

Is it morally permissible for parents to select the sex of their child?

It is not my intention to hurt people by offending their religious beliefs. The title was constructed to remind the reader that we no longer justify ethical problems based solely on the individual upbringing of religious beliefs. Moreover, the ethical issue is built upon the fact that today human agents, not omnipotent beings, are the ones who perform sex selection using various methods.

            In ancient history, Aristotle advised couples who wished to have a son to make love in the north wind and a daughter to make love in the south wind. Another method was tying a string around the man’s left testicle to produce a boy and tying the right one to produce a girl. In medieval times, alchemists proposed an even more bizarre method, which was to drink the blood of a lion and then have intercourse under a full moon to ensure the birth of a son (Davis cited in Dahl 2008, 21). Obviously, these are all primeval fantasies with no scientific basis.  However, it is clear that the eagerness to influence the sex of a child by a prenatal intervention is an intrinsic human instinct since ancient history.

            In terms of passing on genes from generation to the next generation, human genetics is gender bias (Mahowald 2000, 1). It can never be neutral due to the fact that some diseases have a sex-linked mode of inheritance. A female has two X chromosomes, whereas a male has only one X chromosome. Thus, if mutation occurs on the X chromosome, men are more likely to be affected than women in the case of an X-linked recessive disorder. Moreover, women with a disease-causing mutant gene on her X chromosome could be unaffected because their second X chromosome could have a normal variant of the gene and is therefore able to compensate for the mutant gene (Gilbert et al. 2005, 89). For instance, when a man who has normal chromosomes marries a woman who is a carrier of the disease, there is a 100% chance of having an unaffected daughter; but, a 50% chance of having an affected son. In the other condition of the rarer X-linked dominant disorder, women are much more likely to be affected than men because one mutant gene on X chromosome is enough to express the disease. In this situation, each daughter of an affected father has a 100% chance to inherit the disease. In Y-linked disorders, the disease is caused by mutation in the Y chromosome. Thus, every son of an affected father is going to be affected because males can only inherit a Y chromosome from their fathers.

These basic human emotions and genetic bias may account for, in part, the basis to why parents want to choose the sex of their child. However, there could also be other pressures such as economy, culture and religion specific to a part of the world. Furthermore, people no longer use the so-called ‘quasi-scientific’ routines to satisfy the need of having a child of particular gender. Modern science has provided us with three different reliable methods of sex selection: abortion, sperm sorting and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (Dahl 2008, 21-22; Gilbert et al. 2005, 91-92; Steinbock 2002, 24). The very last technique is the main focus of this essay.

I believe that it is morally permissible for parents to select the sex of their child using, at least two methods, the sperm sorting and the pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In this essay, I am going to briefly describe the three methods that are available, followed by an ethical discussion or rather justification on the PGD specifically, including the moral status of the embryo and the liberty of choice. Finally I will discuss the practice of sex selection in general such as the issue of ‘playing God’, ‘unnatural’ processes, and the distorted sex ratio.

Methods of Sex Selection

Abortion has been facilitated by prenatal diagnosissuch as amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling and ultrasound (Dahl 2002, 21). Prenatal diagnosis not only provides early detection of fetal abnormalities, but also provides information about the fetal sex. As a consequence, the fetus may be subjected to termination due to its undesired sex. In western societies, it is very rare that abortion is performed solely because it is the ‘wrong sex’ (Dahl 2002, 22). Most people believe that the fetus gains its moral status incrementally as it proceeds through the developmental process. Thus, it requires a much more serious reason, usually on medical basis, to justify the abortion. However, the practice of abortion after an ultrasound is common in countries like China and India to ensure the birth of male children (Steinbock 2002, 26). Furthermore, when abortion is performed to a healthy, but ‘wrong sex’ fetus, it may indicate a brutality towards human life and an astounding lack of maternal feeling. In short, the ethical issue focuses on abortion as a method of life terminationregardless of the preference of a particular sex, but not the idea of gender selection exclusively.

Sperm sorting has been made possible by a biomedical technique called flow cytometry (Dahl 2008, 22; Gilbert et al. 2005, 92; Steinbock 2002, 24). The basis of this procedure is the difference in the DNA content between X and Y chromosomes. The X chromosome is larger in size than the Y chromosome. Moreover, the separated sperm can be used in an intrauterine insemination procedure; thus, sperm sorting is pre-conceptual, that is, sperm selection occurs prior to fertilization. Although it is still ineffective in terms of obtaining a reliable result – at the moment there is still a small percentage of failure in separating X and Y chromosomes, it remains a potential method because it is probably the only technique that involves neither an abortion nor the destruction of “wrong sex” embryos (Gilbert et al. 2005, 92). Furthermore, reliable sperm sorting technology, such as MicroSort, could be the ultimate answer for preventing X-linked genetic disorders. In 1995, the first MicroSort baby girl was born to a woman who had a family history of X-linked hydrocephalus, a fatal swollen-brain disorder that occurs only in boys (Steinbock 2002, 24). Moreover, MicroSort has attracted the interest of couples who want to perform gender selection for nonmedical purposes. To tackle the issue of sex discrimination, MicroSort has developed the concept of ‘family balancing’. The technology is made available only to couples who have a first-born child and wish to select a child of the ‘non-dominant’ gender in their family (Sandel 2004, 53-54; Steinbock 2002, 24). In my view, this method has answered most of the ethical issues and there should not be any pause for its application, unless having preference towards a particular gender is intrinsically objectionable.

            The main focus of this essay is on thepreimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) method which relies on the in vitro fertilization (IVF) technique (Dahl 2008, 22; Gilbert et al. 2005, 92; Steinbock 2002, 24). This method is widely used therapeutically to prevent X-linked diseases. PGD in conjunction with IVF provide an opportunity for couples, who have a risk of transmitting genetic disease, to create embryos and screen them for genetic abnormalities. Thus, only embryos that are free from any genetic defect would be implanted in the woman’s uterus to start pregnancy. PGD also reveals the sex of the embryos; hence, a woman often requests to transfer only those “desired-sex” embryos. This method is known to be more accurate than the sperm sorting method for determining the sex of the offspring (Steinbock 2002, 25). In fact, Gleicher (cited in Steinbock 2002, 25) suggested that “it would not be ethically permissible to offer patients an inferior method when a superior method was available”. Youngner (cited in Steinbock 2002, 25) stated that “PDG for sex selection should be discouraged due to the risk of gender bias, social harm, and the diversion of medical resources from the actual medical need”. However, if the idea of sex selection is for ‘family balancing’, then why should the PGD method be discouraged when the sperm sorting method is accepted, given that both methods may fall into similar objections? What is it that makes PGD more morally wrong than the sperm sorting method? Is it really morally wrong?

Ethical Discussion

I believe it is important to address the specific objections on the practice of PGD for sex selection, as well as the general objections of sex selection which are relevant to all methods, including the PGD.

The practice of PGD solely for sex selection is often regarded as morally objectionable; whereas the sperm sorting method is considered morally acceptable. This view may be caused by the fact that sperm sorting does not involve any embryo destruction, while PGD does (Steinbock 2002, 25). William Schoolcraft (cited in Steinbock 2002, 25) expressed that “with sperm sorting, you are not throwing away potential babies”. However, are we really discarding potential human beings who possess an equal moral status to us? The central argument for this problem is certainly on how we define the moral status of a human embryo. Moreover, in order to be a person, a being or embryo has to possess characteristics that provide an underlying reason to give it a particular moral status. John Locke (cited in Harris 1999, 302) stated that a person is “a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself the same thinking thing, in different times and places”. Personhood refers to an individual who has intelligence, the ability to think and reason, the capacity for reflection, the ability to value its own existence, self-consciousness, memory and foresight (Harris 1999, 303). Does an embryo meet Locke’s criteria of personhood? The answer must be ‘No, it does not’. Thus, it is very difficult to justify that an embryo has the same moral status as that of a human adult. One might argue that embryos have a potential to gain those characteristics, hence they deserve some moral status (Steinbock 2002, 25). However,having the potential to gain those characteristics does not imply that the embryo has the privilege of receiving the rights of being a person.Moreover, Harris (1999) proposed two arguments against the idea of potentiality, such as the logical difficulty and the scope of potential for personhood (298). He gave an example that we have the potential to be dead; however, none of us want to be treated as a corpse now. In addition, Harris (1999, 298) also argued that “if the human zygote has the potential to become an adult human being, and supposedly morally important in virtue of that potential, then what of the potential to become a zygote?” Should an unfertilized egg and sperm also have a claim on the moral status of a human adult? In cloning by nuclear transfer, the nucleus of an unfertilized egg is replaced by a nucleus taken from any adult cell; followed by, an electrical stimulation which, indeed, induces the development of embryo from an unfertilized egg (Harris 1999, 298). This means that any adult human cell has the potential to become the ‘clone’ of that individual. However, is it rational to think that every human cell should have the same moral status as us? I believe that it is ridiculous for anyone to give the answer ‘Yes’ to the two previous questions, simply because in answering ‘Yes’, that person demonstrates a loss of John Locke’s personhood qualities of rational and logical thinking. Furthermore, a human embryo has neither a future-directed desire nor an identifiable wish to live; therefore, discarding human embryos should not be considered as depriving an embryo from a life, as it neither values nor is aware of the possible future it may have had (Harris 1999, 307).

In many cases, PGD is mainly carried out to prevent the birth of a child with severe genetic defects and the aspect of sex selection is a side effect (Steinbock 2002, 25). For instance, when a couple who is going through the process of PGD in conjunction with IVF produces three healthy embryos, is it morally objectionable to decide which embryo to discard based on the gender, given that two of the embryos are female and one is male? I think it is morally acceptable, not only because embryos cannot claim a moral status as a human adult due to lack of John Locke’s personhood, but also women have the right to make their own decisions regarding their pregnancy. This is known as procreative autonomy, which was described by Savulescu (1999) as the freedom to decide when and how to have children based on the best judgment by the parents (374). At the end, parents are the ones who take care of and are responsible for the children.

A constantly opposing argument to sex selection by PGD or other methods is that choosing the sex of a child means ‘playing God’. This objection is most often an instinctive response rather than a clearly reasoned moral reaction. Literally, this objection means that human beings are not allowed to pre-select the sex of their children because it is considered as the prerogative of a supernatural being (Warren 1985, 81). However, does the supernatural being really exist? Richard Dawkins (2006) certainly argued against the existence of God (157-158). Even if there is a God, it is still extremely difficult to prove that this God claims the monopoly to determine the sex of human children (Warren 1985, 81). Is it morally right for any external authority to control the sex of our children without our consent? Furthermore, I would consider religious beliefs to have an even worse impact on the sex ratio. For instance, in India, a huge number of girls are aborted, abandoned, neglected, or even killed right after birth, which results in skewed sex ratio towards male due to religious reasons (Dahl 2002, 29). Dahl (2002, 29) wrote that “according to Hinduism, a man who has failed to sire a son cannot achieve salvation. Only a male descendant can perform the last funeral rites to ensure the redemption of the departed soul”. To me, this is a ridiculous premise regardless of which religion it comes from. Although it may promote the use of PGD for sex selection instead of the other more brutal procedures, the practice should be limited for ‘family balancing’ rather than to satisfy the nonsense attitudes based on religious faith.

Some reject the practice of sex selection because they consider it as ‘unnatural’ and hence immoral. This objection also seems to be a spontaneous emotional reaction as opposed to a clear reason-based response. Any human intervention, including PGD, which is unnatural, does not imply that it is immoral (Dahl 2008, 24). Today, many medical interventions such as heart and liver transplantations, work against the natural process. Dahl (2008, 24) stated that “ if we have to decide whether an action is morally right or wrong we cannot settle the issue by asking whether it is natural or unnatural”.

The dominant objection to sex selection is that it may distort the natural sex ratio which has occurred in China and India (Dahl 2008, 25; Mahowald 2000, 118; Steinbock 2002, 26). However, this situation may not be true in western societies. In fact, a survey revealed that 30% of Germans, 68% of British, and 50% of Americans prefer to have an equal number of boys and girls (Dahl 2008, 26). Moreover, only 6% of Germans, 8% of Americans, and 21% of British are interested in sex selection through sperm sorting (Dahl 2008, 26). In addition, 90% of American couples wanting to perform sex selection had the idea of ‘family balancing’ (Savulescu 1999, 374). It is clear that the widespread fear of a sex ratio distortion is unwarranted. There is no empirical evidence to support that there is a significant preference for children of a particular gender and a considerable interest in employing sex selection technology (Dahl 2008, 25). Furthermore, the threat of sex ratio distortion, particularly in Asian countries, may be addressed by proposing the scheme of ‘family balancing’ as the only reason for couples to undergo gender selection.

In conclusion, it is morally permissible for parents to select the sex of their child using, at least two methods, the sperm sorting and the PGD. The moral objections based on the moral status of an embryo, women’s autonomy, ‘playing God’, ‘unnatural’ processes, and sex ratio distortion seem to be unjustified. Moreover, gender selection may be good and it may be bad. It probably depends on the social, cultural, and economic aspects within the society. The question must not be greeted with an intuitive reaction based on religious fundamentalism and highly speculative sociological or psychological assumptions, but decided through empirical evidence and clear reasoned moral responses. We as human beings require less emotion and more thought because no God has the monopoly of the X and Y chromosomes.

References

Dahl, Edgar. 2008. Sex selection: sorting sperm as a gateway to the sorting society? In The Sorting Society: The Ethics of Genetic Screening and Therapy, ed. Loane Skene and Janna Thompson, 21- 35. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. London: Bantam.

Gilbert, Scott F., Anna L. Tyler, and Emily J. Zackin. 2005. Bioethics and the new embryology: springboards for debate. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.

Harris, John. 1999. The Concept of the Person and the Value of Life. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal (9): 293-308.

Mahowald, Mary Briody. 2000. Genes, Woman, Equality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sandel, Michael J. 2004. The Case against Perfection. Atlantic Monthly (April): 51-62.

Savulescu, Julian. 1999. Sex selection: the case for. The Medical Journal of Australia (171): 373-375.

Steinbock, Bonnie. 2002. Sex Selection: Not Obviously Wrong. Hasting Center Report (32): 23-28.

Warren, Mary Anne. 1985. Gendercide: the implications of sex selection. New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld.

Human Cloning: Never or Perhaps Later

Should reproductive cloning be permitted?

-Brianada Koentjoro-

People are familiar with the word “cloning” since an explosion of media reports on the famous Dolly the sheep. However, people often do not aware that there are two types of cloning: therapeutic cloning, which is to make cells for medical treatments, and reproductive cloning, which is to create another whole organism. The majority of the concerns are in the human reproductive cloning. Should we allow humans to be cloned? A 2002 survey by the Pew Research Center found that more than 75 percent of Americans were against human cloning. Most of them thought that human cloning is fundamentally immoral and a few of them felt the cloning technology is unsafe (Pew cited in Gilbert, Tyler, and Zackin 2005, 136). Moreover, this short discussion will concentrate on some of the arguments for the human reproductive cloning.

            Several arguments in favor of human reproductive cloning signify that cloning is morally acceptable. Indeed, cloning could potentially be beneficial. Gilbert, Tyler, and Zackin (2002, 126-127) provide six supporting arguments, which include:

1. Cloning can be used to overcome an infertility problem. For instance, cloning would offer a chance for a man, who was unable to produce viable sperm, to have a biologically related child.
2. It has an ability to avoid passing along certain genetic diseases. If a couple both carry a recessive gene for a genetic disease (such as cystic fibrosis or sickle-cell anemia), cloning would get around the problem of producing a child with the genetic defect.
3. It could be used to design a saviour child. A genetically designed individual could serve as an organs and tissues donor of a dying member of the family.
4. Cloning has an ability to replace a loved one who, for example, died in a car accident. The DNA can be extracted from the dead child’s cells.
5. Cloning has an ability to reproduce individuals who are considered superior genetic endowments, such as scholars, athletes, and creative artists.
6. It is a matter of woman freedom. If no actual harm is reported, there is no need to restrict the desire for a biologically related child.

Those major arguments really present a strong justification to why we should allow human cloning. However, for some of these, less controversial procedures can be employed to circumvent the practice of cloning, such as the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select for an identical embryo who can serve as an organ or tissue donor. Moreover, it is a scientific fallacy that cloning could create one who acts the same as the original person (Gilbert, Tyler, and Zackin 2005, 127). A clone, indeed, would never be a perfect identical twin because of different mitochondrial DNA, different exposure of maternal gene product, and being developed in different womb. Furthermore, not only that they are different genetically, but also personally. Personality and identity are not based on the genome alone.

            I believe that human cloning should be banned not because of “playing God”, but the safety aspect of reproductive cloning. Some might argue that cloning is immoral because it is unnatural process of creating living beings. However, most medical interventions; for instance, the use of defibrillators to cope heart attack, are unnatural and people consider them as morally acceptable. If cloning is just something that against God then does God provide a perfect natural process? In fact, a reasonably high number of miscarriages mean that God does not seem to be serious about human conception. Is God a benevolent killer?

            In conclusion, a quote by Richard Dawkins (cited in Gilbert, Tyler, and Zackin 2005, 109) stated:

“Cloning may be good and it may be bad. Probably it’s a bit of both. The question must not be greeted with reflex hysteria but decided quietly, soberly, and on its own merits. We need less emotion and more thought.”

At the end of the day, it is up to us to decide whether we should never permit human reproductive cloning or perhaps allow it later when cloning is safe and effective.

Reference

1. Zackin, Scott F. Gilbert; Anna L. Tyler; and Emily J. 2005. Ethics and Policies for Human Cloning. In Bioethics and the New Exbryology: Springboards for Debate. Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.

Bibliography

1. Kitcher, Philip. 2000. There Will Never Another You. In Human Cloning: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy, edited by B. MacKinnon. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

2. Melo-Martin, Inmaculada de. 2005. Taking biology seriously: what biology can and cannot tell us about moral and public policy issues. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield

When God Plays a Chromosomal Lottery

When genetic engineering confronts the idea of life as a “gift”

-Brianada Koentjoro-

Worried about science “playing God”?  Why not worry instead about the Mighty Angus burger from MacDonald’s? Science, particularly genetics, has a long history. In 1953, Watson and Crick solved the double helix structure of DNA. The structure allows DNA to store genetic information, replicate and evolve. In 2003, the Human Genome Project has revealed the human genome to be 3 billion base pairs long, and contains 30,000 genes.  The outcome of the Human Genome Project has influenced several areas, such as molecular medicine, DNA forensics, agriculture, livestock breeding, and bioprocessing. Furthermore, despite the benefits and appealing promises of genetic engineering, our knowledge of genetics has inevitably brought us ethical dilemmas.

People often fear that the power of genetic engineering could lead humans to override the supremacy of God who designs and creates all living things. Michael J. Sandel (2004) provides some examples of genetic intervention, such as muscle enhancement, memory enhancement, growth-hormone treatment, and reproductive technology that enables babies to be selected based on sex and certain genetic traits (52). In muscle enhancement, the majority would agree to employ gene therapy to cure muscular dystrophy. However, it is far more controversial whether the technology should also be used to improve athletic performance. In a similar way, memory enhancement would be an excellent treatment option for people suffering from Alzheimer’s and other serious memory disorders, but it can also serve nonmedical purposes such as improving one’s memory before an exam. In height enhancement, it is argued that the growth-hormone treatment should only be made available to shorter-than-average children due to a hormone deficiency, and not to children of average height who want to make the basketball team. In reproductive technology, it is possible for parents to select the sex of their child. Parents can also choose a child with desirable characteristics, such as height, eye colour, and even reject an embryo carrying genes that are associated with obesity and haemophilia. However, some people may raise an objection to killing the unwanted embryos. The latest technology, called MicroSort, has overcome the issue of an embryo’s moral status. MicroSort allows us to choose the sex of one’s child before conception by separating the X-bearing sperm, which produces girls, from the Y-bearing sperm, which produces boys (Sandel 2004, 53).

Sandel (2004) claimed that genetic engineering or enhancement undermines the idea of life as a “gift” (60). However, he did not distinguish between genetic engineering and genetic enhancement in his article. I believe that this is an important distinction to make when considering the ethics of genetic manipulation, and the two terms should not be used interchangeably. In my essay, I will first explain the distinction between the two. Then, I am going to discuss the idea of life as a “gift”.

Genetic Treatment vs. Genetic Enhancement

Sandel in his article did not demonstrate a clear distinction between genetic engineering and genetic enhancement. As can be seen in Figure 1, Ronald M. Green divides gene modification into four categories: somatic treatment, somatic enhancement, germ line treatment and germ line enhancement (Green 2007, 55).

The top left side represents genetic intervention as a treatment to people who carry disease-causing genes. Gene therapy, which targets somatic (that is, non reproductive) cells, is employed to cure or avoid the genetic disorder without being able to pass on the changes to descendants. Most people would agree with the application of somatic gene therapy because it serves a similar purpose as any other medical intervention. In fact, many somatic cell gene therapy trials have been approved in the United States (Green 2007, 56). A person or the parents of a child with genetic defects is seeking for a treatment so that they have an equal health status to the rest of the healthy people.

On the top right side, the term enhancement implies that the genetic intervention is used to improve upon the normal functioning of a person. The goal is obviously to generate a human being that is “better than well” (Sandel 2004, 51; Green 2007, 55). This quadrant raises strong, difficult ethical questions because the aim is no longer to cure disease but merely to provide additional benefits (Green 2007, 57). One of the best examples is the genetic modified athlete. Andy Miah (2004, 151) raised an argument against genetically-enhanced athletes saying that “sport is valuable because it is a test of natural human capabilities, not the capabilities of technology to augment humans”.

The lower left quadrant, germ line gene therapy, is also controversial. The fact that it is still prohibited by the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee in the United State suggests a fear of introducing a new form of genetic disease to the subsequent generation, if a clinician makes a mistake in the genetic modification of the germ cell lines (Green 2007, 57). I believe that the issue with this category is more about the long term safety of the technology rather than its ethical aspects. However, if the technology is perfectly accurate, then ethical issues may arise as to whether we should treat the disease only in existing people or whether we should prevent the disease from propagating from generation to generation.

The last quadrant, germ line genetic enhancement, seems to double the controversy of the somatic enhancement. It is not only raising the same ethical issues that somatic enhancement does, but it also receives the ethical burden of being a type of germ line intervention (Green 2007, 58). The risks associated with passing on the enhanced characteristics do not seem to have any ethical support. Many have suggested that any medical genetic engineering upon human beings should stay within the area of somatic gene therapy (ibid.). Furthermore, the opposing arguments on gene manipulation often lie on the blurring distinction between treatment and enhancement. Green (2007, 58-59) stated clearly that “treatment aims at bringing people up to a level of relative normalcy, enhancement at making them supernormal”.

Is it true that life is a “gift”?

I wish to challenge Sandel’s idea that life is a “gift” in relation to the issue surrounding genetic engineering. I begin by raising the question: if life is a gift, then shouldn’t it be within our right as the recipient of the gift to make our own decisions about what we do with our life? Sandel (2004, 60) stated that “one of the blessings of seeing ourselves as creatures of nature, God, or fortune is that we are not wholly responsible for the way we are”. Sandel’s argument that we should not be wholly responsible for our lives as our lives are gifts from a supernatural being, such as God, is controversial and flawed as it is based upon an idea (God) which in itself requires many explanations. Ronald M. Green (2007, 171) wrote that “gene manipulation represents human pride and arrogance at its worst, threatening to put human beings in direct opposition to God’s will”. A central part of religion is the creation story that places God as the creator of all living things. The creation story has indoctrinated believers’ minds. I believe it plays a significant role in shaping people’s responses to genetic intervention.

Is it true that genetic manipulation is too close to “playing God”? The former Pope John Paul II stated that any medical intervention, whether genetic or otherwise, is acceptable as long as it aims to cure or prevent disease (Pope John Paul II cited in Green 2007, 173). Those who reject the idea of genetic intervention are the ones who are too conservative in their approach towards life as a gift. If we are not allowed to make the decision to genetically intervene, then life is not truly a gift that we have received, as we do not fully own and control it. Is it morally good to let people with disabilities live without trying to cure the disease? What is the purpose of God creating a genetic disease in the population? Why does God give us a brain to think of genetics if we can never apply it to solve the problem that God created in the previous question?

We are all expecting a “healthy” gift. For the sake of our arguments, pretend that we all believe in God. The God that we are referring to must be the one who plays a chromosomal lottery simply because there are many people, including foetuses, suffering from genetic diseases. It seems that our God is not serious in setting up everyone’s genetic makeup. God has used his supremacy unwisely.  Therefore, that kind of God is the one who undermines the idea of life as a gift. If God does not seem to be doing it right, genetic engineering potentially provides the solution. Moreover, we should be aware that our genetic knowledge is indeed the reason why we see ourselves as more than a link in the chain of evolution (Robert L. Sinsheimer cited in Green 2004, 62). The only moment for genetic intervention to undermine the idea of life as a gift is when God does it all right and humans seek for an improvement beyond that of normal well-being.

Conclusion

No one wants to be born with genetic defects. The somatic gene therapy is too good to be refused. For those who do not want to see life as a gift from God, nature or others, an alternative is the famous view of human beings as survival machines for genes, by Richard Dawkins (cited in Dan Bradley 1999, 72). Moreover, I can assure you that a world with the virtue of genetic engineering would be very different to a world without it. The difference is that one without genetic engineering accepts an individual with a genetic defect to have no choice other than to live his/her life as an imperfect “gift”. If God plays a chromosomal lottery, ought we to choose our lucky number?

References

Bradley, Dan. 1999. Designing life: the role of inheritance. In Designing Life? Genetics, Procreation and Ethics, edited by M. Junker-Kenny. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Green, Ronald M. 2007. Drawing Lines. In Babies by design: the ethics of genetic choice. New York: Yale University Press.

Miah, Andy. 2004. Genetically modified athletes: biomedical ethics, gene doping, and sport. Edited by M. M. a. J. Parry, Ethics and Sport. New York: Routledge.

Sandel, Michael J. 2004. The Case against Perfection. Atlantic Monthly (April):51-62.

Berikut adalah salah satu assignment ku semester ini. Baru saja aku submit. Topik nya menantang, pertanyaan nya simpel, tapi berpikir jawabannya itu yang bikin kepala cenut-cenut… Selamat membaca…

When Personhood Matters

An approach to define the moral status of a human embryo

            People often use the terms human and person interchangeably. In fact, being a human is not necessarily being a person and vice versa. The biological meaning of being a human is to belong to the species Homo sapiens.On the other hand, being a person has an emphasis on a moral or normative aspect. Although most persons are human beings, some persons are not. Nonhuman persons may include gods, ghosts, angels, aliens, and perhaps Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse. It is also true that most human beings are persons, but some humans are not. This is normally referred to as human nonpersons,which may account for embryos, individuals suffering from “brain dead”and infants born with anencephaly disorder. Moreover, a person has to possess a set of characteristics that provides an underlying reason to give an embryo a particular moral status. The characteristics are rationality, autonomy and the ability of valuing life. Furthermore, defining the moral status of a human embryo using these characteristics might give an indication as to whether an embryo is or is not a person.

            Rationality implies that a person is capable of developing rational thinking through reason and reflection. It raises the notion that a person is a conscious entity; one who is not only capable of logical thinking, but also one who has self-awareness. Moreover, self-awareness refers to an individual who recognizes his/herself as being in existence, as a thinking being, in the dimensions of time and space. A person is also an autonomous being. Autonomy is the capacity to use reason, to live a self-directed life, to have desires and ultimately to live based on those desires. In addition, a person is capable of valuing his/her own life. This psychological continuity means that a person not only has experiences in the past, but is also capable of thinking about and looking toward the future.

An embryo does not possess rationality, self-awareness, autonomy, or the capacity to value its own existence; therefore, it is not, or at least not yet, a person with full consciousness. In addition, it does not have the same moral status as that of a human adult. Having thepotential to gain those characteristics does not imply that the embryo has a privilege to receive the rights of being a person. Furthermore, a human embryo has neither a future-directed desire nor an identifiable wish to live. Therefore, any sort of manipulation upon human embryos, including abortion and stem cell research, should not be considered as depriving an embryo from a life, as it neither values nor is aware of the possible future it may have had.

Sudah lama rasanya tidak menulis blog. Memang akhir-akhir ini aku agak sibuk dan banyak pikiran, jadi belum sempat meng’update blog.

Baru-baru ini begitu gencarnya berita tentang bom JW Marroit - Ritz Carlton dan perburuan teroris di Temanggung, Jawa Tengah membuat aku ingin ikut-ikutan buka suara meramaikan, hehehehe.. Semoga ulasanku ini membawa aroma baru di tengah berjuta-juta berita yg berisi tentang ”dugaan dan dugaan”.

Lagi-lagi polisi, termasuk sistem pertahanan nasional kita, kebobolan dengan diledakkannya bom bunuh diri di dua hotel ternama Jakarta tersebut. Padahal sudah cukup meningkat baik strategi dan kemajuan teknologi anti teror yang kita miliki. Begitu juga dengan dibentuknya satuan khusus anti teror Densus 88 yang sudah banyak mengenyam latihan khusus di luar negeri. Tetapi mengapa setelah kurang lebih 7 tahun ini bom masih saja meledak di mana-mana?

Bekaca dari kasus sebelumnya, yang terkenal adalah Bom Bali I, polisi kita masih terfokus pada teroris “bawahan”. Densus 88 baru berhasil menembak mati salah satu di antara dua ‘otak’ terorisme di negara kita.

Tidak mudah memang untuk memburu yang ‘terakhir’, yaitu Noordin Moh. Top. Apakah Densus 88 masih kalah dari Top? Segitu ngetopnya pelarian dan sistem persembunyian Top? Seperti yang di koran-koran sering dibahas bahwa tidak mudah untuk sampai pada Top, polisi hanya mampu mencapai lapisan di bawah Top. Waktu 7 tahun agaknya masih belum cukup untuk menangkap otak no.1 tersebut. Terlepas dari segala kemajuan yang sudah diraih polisi dan Densus 88, bisa jadi kegagalan demi kegagalan itu disebabkan oleh 2 faktor mendasar, yaitu kepiawaian Top dalam menyusun strategi pertahanan dan lemahnya sistem kependudukan di Indonesia.

Pertama, bisa saja memang Top ‘pandai’ dalam menyembunyikan dirinya. Badan intelijen belum mampu mengungkap taktik yang dijalankan Top. Saya menduga sampai detik ini pun badan intelijen baru mampu mengerti 85%, sebab taktik yang digunakan Top selalu ‘bermutasi’ alias berubah-ubah dari waktu ke waktu. The inconsistent pattern inilah yang acap kali mengelabuhi polisi. Agaknya tidak ada pola yang baku dalam dunia terorisme.

Ingatlah bahwa segala ilmu anti terorisme muncul atau dibuat berdasarkan terorisme itu sendiri. Ibarat sebuah virus di mana scientist harus mempelajari dan menemukan antidotenya, namun ketika komposisi virus itu telah berubah maka antidote itu tidak ampuh melawan virus tersebut. Seolah-olah Top lah yang membuat ’soal’ dan polisi hanya mencoba untuk men’solve soal tersebut dengan rumus-rumus yang ada. Jika demikian halnya, agaknya polisi akan terus menerus dalam posisi yang tertinggal, sebab yang membuat soal sudah tentu tahu jawabannya lebih dahulu! Maka, polisi lah yang seharusnya ganti melemparkan soal dan biarkan Top kebingungan dengan langkah polisi.

Yang kedua adalah rapuhnya pola kependudukan di negara kita mulai dari tingkat desa, RT/ RW, kabupaten, kecamatan, hingga provinsi. Hal ini mungkin terkesan sangat-sangat sepele dan simple. Namun pada kenyataannya, seorang kepala desa tidak tahu berapa jumlah penduduk di desanya dan tidak tahu siapa mereka. Begitu pula halnya dengan yang di perkotaan, seorang ketua RT tidak lagi mendata dengan baik orang-orang yang tinggal di lingkungannya. Saya berpendapat bahwa jika hal kecil seperti ini diperhatikan dengan serius, maka kita sebagai masyarakat ikut membantu kinerja polisi dalam mempersempit ruang gerak para pelaku teroris.

Polisi memang sudah berupaya mengantisipasi dan menggeledah sejumlah tempat yang dinilai menjadi sarang teroris. Namun, negara ini perlu adanya suatu gerakan nasional anti terorisme sehingga semua elemen masyarakat ikut berperan aktif melawan terorisme. Cukup memalukan sebenarnya bahwa seorang the most wanted (no.1) bisa bererak bebas merencakan aksi-aksi teror bom dan bersamaan dengan hal itu ia bisa menikah sampai 3x di negara ini.

Saya kira selama 7 tahun kiprahnya di Indonesia, tidak hanya polisi yang mempelajari pelaku terorisme, namun sebaliknya pun terjadi bahwa teroris mempelajari perilaku polisi. Lebih lanjut, sangat mungkin jika dalam 7 tahun ini Top sudah mempersiapkan bungker-bungker bawah tanah yang tidak mudah dilacak oleh polisi di berbagai lokasi. Kiranya wacana ini yang belum banyak dikembangkan pihak intelijen negara.

Sampai saat ini, Densus 88 baru bisa dikatakan setengah berhasil. Akankah Top semakin ngetop? Ataukah Densus 88 yang lebih ngetop pada akhirnya? Biarlah waktu yang menjawab siapa yang pantas menerima predikat TOP!

“Ingat! Kejahatan terjadi bukan hanya karena ada niat pelakunya, tapi juga karena ada KESEMPATAN. Waspadalah…Waspadalah!” - Bang Napi.

Sekian lama tidak menulis blog. Akhir-akhir ini agak busy dan memang belum ada topik yg bagus untuk dibahas, juga belum berhasrat untuk menulis.

Sesuai judulnya, kali ini saya kembali ingin menyoroti perkembangan bulutangkis tanah air, Indonesia.

Siapa bilang Indonesia adalah salah satu negara besar untuk bulutangkis? Saya kira itu DULU!!!!!! Beberapa tahun belakangan ini kondisinya sungguh memprihatinkan. Saya rasa medali emas tahun 2008 oleh Markis Kido & Hendra Setiawan adalah sebuah keberuntungan.

Hari berganti, bukannya semakin baik tetapi selalu mengalami kemunduran. Kondisi yang hampir kiamat ini sudah dirasakan sejak adanya beberapa pemain senior yang tidak lagi memperkuat pelatnas dan memilih untuk mandiri. Di situlah saya telah melihat adanya ketidakkompakkan dalam memajukan ataupun memperjuangkan bulutangkis ke depan.

Masalah klasik PBSI adalah pendanaan. Untuk olahraga yang favorit satu ini, PBSI masih kesulitan mencari dana, apalagi ditambah dengan prestasi yang kembang kempis. Ketika China sudah mulai lepas dari produk Yonex (Brand name no. 1 di olahraga bulutangkis) dan pindah ke produk dalam negeri Li Ning, Korea menggunakan setengah Yonex (raket) setengah Victor (pakaian), Indonesia tidak bisa lepas dari sponsor utamanya Yonex dan tidak bisa berkembang dari sisi pendanaan. Bahkan China untuk pemain junior nya menggunakan merk Kazon.

Terlepas dari tidak berkembangnya soal sponsor, eksodus pelatih ke luar negeri juga ikut ambil bagian dalam mundurnya prestasi atau pembinaan bulutangkis di Indonesia. Banyak pelatih Indonesia yang memilih melatih di luar negeri karena mendapat bayaran 4-5x lebih banyak dari pada melatih di Cipayung. Yang paling baru adalah kasus Hendrawan yang hengkang dari pelatih tunggal putra Cipayung menuju Malaysia. Tidak ada yang bisa disalahkan karena setiap orang berhak mencari penghasilan. Hal perpindahan pelatih, terutama pelatih-pelatih muda inilah yang saya kira sangat disayangkan. Sigit Budiarto juga dikabarkan melatih di Russia. Menurut saya, justru pelatih-pelatih muda inilah yang memiliki ambisi lebih dari pada pelatih-pelatih senior. Bukan masalah kualitas, tapi masalah motivasi! Lihat saja China, tidak hanya regenerasi pemain, tetapi juga regenerasi pelatih! Pelatih tunggal putra China misalnya, Xia Xuanxe, yang seangkatan dengan Hendrawan dan bahkan pernah melawan Taufik Hidayat. Pelatih ganda putra Korea, Ha Tae Kwon dan Lee Dong Soo. Mereka semua adalah pelatih-pelatih muda yang masa jayanya masih sekitar 5 tahun yang lalu. Sedang Indonesia masih saja senang dengan pelatih-pelatih “tua” nya. Saya rasa ini yang membuat Indonesia tidak berkembang dari segi kepelatihan. Sudah saatnya posisi pelatih diserahkan ke mantan pemain yang masih muda-muda, dan yang tua-tua tinggal duduk di pos penasehat teknik atau sebagai pelatih kepala dan manager tim.

Tidak hanya itu, dari segi pemainnya sendiri. Terlepas dari besarnya gap kualitas antara pemain senior dengan pemain junior, Indonesia tidak mempunyai sistem pelatnas junior yang baik. Hanya baru-baru ini saja mulai dibentuk dan semoga masih disempurnakan lagi. Pemain-pemain muda digembleng di pusat angkatan darat dan mendapat pelatihan militer. Saya kira ini langkah yang sudah sangat baik. Namun, mengutip pernyataan Richard Mainaky baru-baru ini, Indonesia masih terlalu mengandalkan bakat untuk perkembangan pemainnya, bukan teknik. Saya kira ini juga ikut memberikan kontribusi pada mundurnya prestasi bulutangkis Indonesia. Indonesia terlalu mengandalkan talenta, seperti Susi Susanti dan Taufik Hidayat, bukan karena hasil didikan atau latihan. Taufik Hidayat itu pemain yang memang memiliki bakat alami dan jelas sangat sulit kalau kita hanya berharap akan munculnya orang-orang seperti dia. Seharusnya pemain lebih banyak dihasilkan dari produk latihan yang sungguh-sungguh dan keras. Sudah bukan saatnya Indonesia berharap pada bakat alam.

Sebagai ringkasan, keterpurukan bulutangkis Indonesia disebabkan oleh beberapa faktor sbb:

1. Pendanaan. Pemerintah tidak memberikan perhatikan lebih dalam hal pendanaan. PBSI pun tidak cukup berani untuk mencari sumber dana yang lain.

2. Perpecahan pemain senior dan junior. Terjadi gap kualitas antara pemain senior dan junior. Pemain senior enggan memberikan masukan-masukan untuk pemain junior nya. Tidak adanya dorongan moral. Sehingga ketika pemain junior diberi beban yang besar, bukannya mereka berkembang tetapi malah bagai anak ayam kehilangan induknya.

3. Perginya pelatih-pelatih muda bertalenta untuk melatih di luar negeri. PBSI tidak hanya kurang perhatian pada pemainnya, tetapi juga pelatih-pelatihnya. Terlalu mengandalkan pelatih senior.

4. Sentralisasi, pelatnas hanya ada di Cipayung padahal jelas-jelas pelatnas tidak sanggup mengakomodasi semua “anak-anaknya”.

5. Terlalu mengandalakan talenta seseorang dari pada hasil latihan.

6. Terlalu mengandalkan pemain senior di setiap kerjuaraan, sehingga pemain junior minim jam terbang. dll.

Oleh karena itu beberapa solusi yang saya pikirankan, sbb:

1. Menggunakan lebih banyak pelatih muda, dan setiap pelatih hanya menangani 3-4 orang untuk tunggal atau 3 pasang untuk double.

2. Lebih banyak mengirimkan pemain muda ke kejuaraan internasional. Pemain senior yang tidak memenuhi target bisa “diparkir” terlebih dahulu.

3. Menggunakan sistem pelatnas desentralisasi. Artinya wilayah Indonesia bisa di bagi menjadi 2 sampai 3 pusat pelatihan tim nasional. Bisa juga bekerjasama dengan klub-klub yang tersebar di tanah air. Sehingga ke depan setiap klub besar yang ditunjuk sebagai pusat pelatnas di daerah boleh mengirimkan atlet-atletnya ke luar negeri untuk mengikuti pertandingan Internasional dengan demikian regenerasi jalan, pemain junior memiliki kesempatan lebih besar untuk bermain ke luar negeri, dan beban PBSI dalam hal dana bisa terbantu.

4. Mengadakan pusat pelatihan di angkatan militer seperti yang sekarang sudah dijalankan. Saya kira ini lah yang positif.

5. Pengadakan seminar-seminar kepelatihan untuk pelatih-pelatih di daerah.

6. Pemain diperbolehkan mencari tambahan sponsor. Selama ini pemain dilarang menggandeng sponsor sendiri padahal jelas-jelas PBSI tidak sanggup mencukupi dananya, ini akibat dari kerjasama dengan Yonex.

Sementara sekian dulu. Mungkin jika anda memiliki masukan, silahkan comment.

Layak kah saya menjadi ketua PB PBSI? hehehe…:P

Sudah lama rasanya aku tidak nulis blog. Mungkin karena frenster sudah tidak terlalu digemari lagi oleh kebanyakan orang. Anyway.. Kali ini aku mo bicara ttg salah satu makanan favorite ku, yaitu Sushi!

Semua orang tahu apa itu sushi dan rata2 kalian tahu rasanya bagaimana. Tapi yang belum anda ketahui adalah bagaimana behind the scene nya..hehehe.. Di sini aku akan sedikit membahas tentang apa dan bagaimana sushi yang sempurna itu.

Aku suka banget makan sushi (ikan mentah + nasi) dan sashimi (potongan ikan mentah doank tanpa nasi). Beberapa waktu yang lalu aku sempat berpikiran untuk memperlajarinya dan membuatnya sendiri. Alhasil aku pergi ke toko buku Japanese namanya Kinokuniya. Beberapa buku ttg Japanese Food sempat aku baca.

Ternyata membuat sushi itu tidak semudah saat kita memakannya! Makannya si uenak, tinggal “mak lhEppp!”, yummie… Tapi aslinya sangat susah, bahkan master chef yang asli Japanese cuisine aja rata-rata perlu tahunan untuk manjadi sempurna di bagian sushi…!

Kenapa begitu sulit membuat sushi yang perfect:

1. Memilih bahan-bahan dasar yang benar-benar fresh. Memilih ikan nya yang emang sushi quality. Tidak bisa pilih salmon apalagi ikan tuna sembarangan. Untuk ikan tuna ya harus pilih daging tuna nya yang benar-benar merah segar.
2. Cara memotong ikannya ketika mempersiapkan. Teknik nya harus benar, terutama gerakan atau stroke nya, begitu juga dengan angle atau kemiringan pisaunya ketika memotong. Pisaunya juga khusus untuk filleting alias pisau untuk potong ikan, bukan pisau buah, pisau daging, dll. teknik memotong ikan inilah yang menjadi salah satu kunci dasar nya! Kalau tidak dilakukan dengan benar maka daging ikannya akan rusak alias hancur atau sobek. Lebih lanjut, ada 4 teknik dalam memotong ikan, tergantung jenis daging ikannya.
3. Untuk sushi tingkat ke-empukan nasinya juga harus pas. Tidak terlalu keras juga tidak lembek. Texture butiran nasinya harus tetap terlihat ketika digumpalkan menjadi nasinya sushi. Ada beras khusus yang tersedia. Belum lagi nasi nya perlu diberi campuran rice vinegar dll.
4. Cara membuat sushinya sendiri. Menyatupadukan daging ikan dengan nasinya, sehingga presentasinya sesuai yang karakteristik sushi yang benar.
5. Sushi itu harusnya segara dimakan sesaat setelah dibuat. Sebab sushi yang benar haruslah memperpadukan antara hangatnya nasi dan freshly cool nya ikan-ikan mentah di atasnya.
6. Membuat sushi tamago (nasi + telur kuning di atasnya) ternyata tidak semudah yang dibayangkan. Membuat telurnya itu yang sampai sekarang belum berhasil saya kuasi. Telur dadarnya itu tidak sekedar telur diceplok, tetapi dibuat layer per layer, satu per satu lapisan hingga menjadi tebal. Dan aku selalu gagal ketika membaliknya, mesti rusak! Jengkel, hehehe…:P
7. Sushi dari sono nya memang disajikan sepasang, alias dua-dua per satu macam. Dan sebuah restoran sushi train harus menyediakan berbagai jenis sushi, sehingga akan ada banyak warna saat penyajiannya.
8. Dsb. Tidak habis dibahas, mending beli bukunya aja ya..hehehe…

Sudah 3x ini aku praktek membuat sushi. Berikut ini hasilnya… Bikinan pertama kali di sebelah kiri, dan bikinan yang paling terakhir yang menurutku paling baik hingga sekarang adalah yang kanan.

Senang rasanya bisa berimprovisasi dalam hal membuat sushi. Yang terakhir aku buat itu aku pake sedikit kreatifitas dan browsing beberapa hal di internet, sehingga ide-ide tersebut keluar. Yang terakhir itu aku bikin banyak banget karena lagi bikinin untuk sekitar 18 orang, temen-temen komsel.

Mungkin yang terakhir ini sudah lbh baik dari yang pertama kali bikin, tapi tetep aja masih jauh dari sempurna, mungkin kalo di nilai antara 1-10 dengan 10 adalah sushi bikinan Japanese chef yg asli, mgkn punyaku baru di angka 4, hiks4… Tapi aku akan terus mencoba dan menyempurnakan nya lagi. Beberapa hari yang lalu sepulang dari gereja aku mampir ke restoran japanese langganan ku, sambil makan sushi sambil mencuri ilmu, hehehehehehehe.. Padahal ya, dulu kalau lagi makan sushi tidak pernah memperhatikan secara detail baik orang yang sedang bikin maupun hasil sushinya. Tapi kali kemarin itu, bener2 aku bedah dan aku perhatiin mulai potongan sushinya, texture-nya, nasinya, dll.. This is the way we respect the art of Japanese sushi, hehehe…

Aku merasa semakin jatuh cinta saja sama makanan satu ini, hehehe..

“Food is not all about taste, smell and presentation, but it also about art, creativity and passion.”

Artikel berikut ini diambil dari Kompas.com…. Berpikirlah positif untuk sesuatu yang negatif…hehehehe….

_________________________________________________________________________

Nasi Goreng Jancuk? Apa Itu?

Film produksi dalam negeri tidak selamanya buruk. At least ada dua film yang aku kagumi dan bisa aku rasakan makna-makna yang ingin disampaikan. Pertama adalah film Ayat-Ayat Cinta. Dan yang kedua yang baru saja aku tonton beberapa menit yang lalu lewat youtube adalah Laskar Pelangi.

Mungkin beberapa dari kalian sependapat dengan saya bahwa film Laskar Pelangi menawarkan tema yang berbeda dari kebanyakan film bertemakan cinta. Sejak premier waktu itu, aku belum sempat menontonnya. Aku memang mendengar dari beberapa temanku kalau filmnya bagus. Sampai-sampai aku kepingin banget nonton dan berusaha cari vcdnya, tapi belum keluar vcdnya waktu kemarin pas aku di Surabaya. Dan syukurlah ternyata di youtube ada. Nontonlah diriku, hehehehe..

Film ini menggambarkan betapa pentingnya motivasi atau semangat dalam mengenyam pendidikan. Sikap rela, setia kawan, dan guru yang benar-benar sebagai pahlawan tanpa tanda jasa bisa kita jumpai lewat film ini. Jujur aku terharu dengan film itu. Terlebih kalau film ini dibuat benar-benar based on true story! It’s unbelievable!

Semangat, sikap pantang menyerah, dan menginginkan sesuatu yang lebih merupakan aset penting yang harus dan sudah semestinya ditanamkan pada generasi muda bangsa ini. Pendidikan menjadi kunci sebuah negara menuju kesejahteraan dan kesuksesan.

Banyak anak baik mereka yang dari keluarga mampu ataupun dari yang kurang mampu meremehkan arti penting pendidikan! Tanpa pendidikan bangsa ini akan terus tertinggal.

Banyak hal yang bisa aku tangkap dari film ini. Salah satunya adalah pentingnya menanamkan rasa tanggung jawab dan membiasakan diri untuk pantang menyerah. Apa yang tertanam dalam hati akan lebih awet. Seperti kalimat yang terucap dalam film itu, “pintar atau tidaknya seseorang bukan diukur dari angka-angka (atau nilai yang dicapai), melainkan ada perlunya diukur dari hati!”

Memang dalam sistem pendidikan modern sekarang ini, prestasi siswa diukur lewat angka. Namun, pembentukan hati dan cara pandang yang benar akan pentingnya pendidikan adalah yang utama. Siswa akan lebih semangat, lebih bertanggung jawab, dan tidak bolos jika ia memahamii betul kewajibannya.

Ada scene di film itu yang menggambarkan siswanya tetap datang ke sekolah untuk belajar ketika gurunya tidak masuk. Betapa semangatnya anak-anak itu. Dan hal demikian ini yang tidak lagi dijumpai di kehidupan modern, dimana “terlalu mudah” rasanya pendidikan bisa dibeli.

Rasa kebersamaan dan setia kawan adalah point penting lain dalam pendidikan. Mengapa? Dalam film itu digambarkan bahwa antara satu siswa dengan yang lainnya saling membantu, saling mengajari (bahkan ada 1 org siswa “Harun” yang butuh bantuan khusus”). Bukan seperti sekolah-sekolah di perkotaan yang guru dan orang tua siswanya selalu menanamkan persaingan! Pakai sistem rangking-rangking segala.

Aku yang mendapat mendidikan yang layak sejak TK sampai sekarang merasa salut dengan apa yang digambarkan di film itu. Andai kita semiskin mereka dan hanya bisa masuk ke sekolah ‘pinggiran’ seperti itu, apakah kita mau? apakah kita memiliki motivasi seperti mereka? apakah kita akan bisa terus mengejar cita-cita?

Generasi penerus bangsa ini butuh penanaman akhlak yang kuat, pemahaman pentingnya pendidikan, serta pengembangan sikap diri positif yang lebih konkrit dan menyeluruh. Bukan sekedar penyisipan mata pelajaran budi pekerti yang tidak ada tujuan dan landasan nya itu! Lebih-lebih PPkN yang najis tralala..

Semuanya itu harus berawal dari pendidikan gratis! Dan rasa tanggung jawab serta kemulian tenaga pendidik. Berangkat dari dua hal itulah nantinya kita bisa meningkatkan kualitas pendidik dan anak didik secara bertahap! InsyaAllah…Anak-anak bangsa ini telah menonton dan mengambil hikmah dari film Laskar Pelangi, film yang buat aku wajib diputar untuk semua siswa tingkat TK-SMA. Lebih-lebih mereka bisa mewujudkan semangat itu! Amin.

Di akhir cerita film itu, lihatlah contoh dua orang hasil didikan bu Mus, si Ikal dan Lintang! Walaupun mereka punya jalan yang berbeda. Si Ikal berhasil mendapat beasiswa ke Paris. Sedangkan Si Lintang, yang kecerdasannya diakui Ikal sendiri,  hanya tinggal di Belitung membesarkan anaknya. Akan tetapi hasil didikan dan semangat seorang Lintang menurun ke anaknya. Dan itulah yang disebut tidak hanya mengasah otak, tetapi melakukannya dengan hati! Semangat itu muncul dari hati dan akan terus tertanam dan terbawa sampai kapan pun. Hanya “Chance” yang membedakan mereka. Dan itu ditangan Tuhan! This is called “luck”! Tetapi mereka berdua akan sama-sama memiliki dasar kemauan untuk maju yang kuat!

——————————————————————

Lagi-lagi aku merasa beruntung sebab aku dibesarkan dalam keluarga yang sangat menghargai arti dan pentingnya pendidikan. Dan telah ditanamkan juga sikap disiplin dan tanggung jawab sebagai seorang pelajar sejak kecil. Terima kasih ayah, terima kasih ibu. Mereka yang selalu mengingatkanku untuk gigih berjuang sebab tidak ada yang tidak bisa. Semoga!

“Setinggi apapun pendidikan yang anda tempuh, tidaklah ada artinya jika tidak diaplikasikan dalam kehidupan sehari-hari, dengan hati yang jujur dan mulia.”

Waktu ini berjalan begitu cepat, tak terasa dulu kita yg masih duduk di bangku sekolah dasar, sekarang sudah lulus kuliah ataupun kerja.

Pertama kali menginjakkan kaki di universitas, aku sempat berpikir ‘wah… masih lama nih perjalanannya sebelum akhirnya lulus’, namun tahun kemarin 2008 akhirnya aku menyelesaikan study selama 3 tahun, fiuhhh…

Beberapa waktu yang lalu aku menerima surat dari uni yang isinya pemberitahuan tentang wisuda (graduation ceremony). Buat kebanyakan orang, inilah moment yang ditunggu-tunggu. Mereka menyiapkan segala sesuatunya dengan se’perfect mungkin. Mempersiapkan bajunya, make up, merencanakan kedatangan orang tua dan keluarga ke acara wisuda, membayangkan foto-foto yang buanyak. “Sebab momentnya tidak bisa diulang, hanya sekali seumur hidup”, kata mereka. Hampir semua orang excited dengan wisuda nya. Mereka merasa bangga, senang luar biasa, lega, dan yang lebih penting lg menurut kebanyakan orang adalah sudah jadi sarjana alias punya gelar.

Tapi hal itu semua tidak pernah benar-benar aku rasakan. Aku merasa easy aja dengan acara wisuda. Bahkan aku anggap gak penting banget graduation ceremony, nambah-nambahi kerjaan dan bikin sibuk aja, hehehe… Gak praktis. Toh ikut acara wisuda atau tidak juga sama-sama menerima ijazah yang sah dan diakui. Ya nggak? hehehe…. So, i decided to graduate ‘in absentia’. Maksudnya tidak mengikuti acara wisudanya. Jadi ijazahku dikeluarkan lebih awal dari tanggal wisuda nya. Mestinya wisuda tanggal 17 April, tapi aku males hadir, hehehe, gak penting juga, toh aku dapet juga ijazahnya, nih….

Papa ku juga gak bisa mendadak datang ke Sydney, alhasil ketika aku ngomong ke papa ku kalau aku nda mau ikut acara wisuda, beliau mengijinkan…hahahaha.. Tetapi beliau mewanti-wanti, nanti kalau selesai master harus ikut graduation ceremony nya, dan aku ‘iya-iya’kan padahal dalam hati juga menganggap gak perlu, gak ikut juga gak apa-apa, sama-sama lulus, hehehehe…

Buat aku lulus dari bachelor itu bukan sesuatu yang melegakan, lebih-lebih kalau harus sampai dibangga-banggakan gimana gitu, rasanya kok nggak banget. Biasa aja lah. Aku merasa I’m just a lucky person, in the sense that I have the chance to study in such a highly respected university. Namun tidak ada yang istimewa dari gelar S1! Semua orang di jaman sekarang ini punya gelar S1. Dan andaikan mereka yang tidak bisa bersekolah pun diberi kesempatan untuk sekolah, mereka juga pasti bisa lulus. Lulus itu tidak ada istimewanya, hanya menyatakan kalau kita pernah belajar. Sehingga bukan berarti orang lain tidak mampu meraih yang kita raih.

Aku malah merasa terbebani, sebab lulus S1 ini tidak ada artinya, tidak bisa untuk “mencari sesuap nasi”! Malahan aku merasa harus terus belajar dan belajar. Dan aku beruntung bisa melanjutkan study ke Master of Applied Science tahun ini. Begitu pula nanti ketika kelulusan S2 (moga-moga lulus ya), bisa dipastikan aku juga bakal merasa biasa2 aja. Tidak akan ada perubahan apa-apa dari diriku.

Di Indonesia, banyak orang yang salah kaprah dan menurutku berlebihan terhadap gelar yang mereka raih. Hampir semua orang selalu mencantumkan gelarnya yang puaaaanjangggg banget ketika menulis nama. Sering juga kita mengamati deretan gelar-gelar saat kita melihat kartu nama dan papan nama seseorang di atas meja kerjanya. Buat apa?????? Nakut-nakutin tikus?hehehehe.. Di negara maju, gelar S1 bahkan S2 sekalipun hampir tidak pernah dituliskan. Jadi malu-maluin banget lah kalau gelar sampai ditulis berderet-deret.

Kadang aku memang agak sedikit idealis dalam hal ini. Aku tidak akan menyertakan gelar S1 dan S2 (kelak kalau punya) ketika menulis nama di manapun. Aku hanya akan bangga dan mencantumkan jika gelar itu Prof. atau Dr. atau PhD. Oleh karena itu, aku sedang berusaha mempersiapkan alias membuka jalan menuju tercapainya salah satu gelar itu, biar nantinya akan ada gelar yang melekat di nama ku! Kalau tidak ya tidak akan punya! hiks4… Yang paling realistis adalah PhD dan semoga tahun depan aku bisa meneruskan ke jalan itu untuk 4-5 tahun yang akan datang, jadi at least 2013 aku selesai program PhD nya dan tahun 2014 aku bisa mencantumkan gelar itu dengan bangga. Doakan.

“Tingkat keilmuan seseorang bukan diukur dari banyaknya gelar yang diraih, melainkan seberapa besar kontribusi orang itu terhadap dunia ilmunya”.