论文部分内容阅读
A policy adopted in Pujiang county， east china’s Zhejiang Province， has triggered an online debate as it says students can get additional scores in the high school entrance examination if their parents donate blood to the local blood bank.
According to the controversial regulation， students can receive additional one to three scores if their parents donate 4，000-8，000 milliliters of blood.
the practice is expected to encourage more people to donate blood and ease the shortage of blood supply. however， it began to get controversial after a netizen wrote a blog stating： “My future son， you can take your high school entrance exam with an easy mind， as i have donated enough blood to get bonus points for you.”some argue that donating blood as an act of charity shouldn’t be connected to children’s education. that will interfere with the fairness of educational opportunities. But others contend that such a policy has nothing to do with examination fairness， and will encourage blood donation.
PRO
Chen Yuhang www.cnhubei. com
Some critics believe that the new policy will create unfairness by allowing the reward to be passed from one generation to the next. Speaking of unfairness， is the preferential policy favoring children from rural， remote and poor areas a fair practice for those who are not？ For example， children from a poor urban family？ By donating blood or paying for tuition， parents seize any opportunity to give their children a better education， which is reasonable behavior in my eyes. In many parts of the country many students have no access to high-quality education resources. Does that mean all the tutoring schools should be shut down to ensure equality？ Blood shortage occurs frequently in Pujiang County where people’s awareness of voluntary blood donation is still weak. The gap between the demand and supply must be filled in a certain way. So after many fruitless attempts， the local government is seeking a solution by connecting donation with education. After all， it’s an innovative method and more effective than getting blood donors through television， newspapers and radio when there’s an emergency.
PRO
Cai Yan www.cnhubei.com
People used to give blood without any reward； now they can earn extra points for their children， who might just need one or two points to get a better chance in education. If donating blood can really help them， this cannot be a bad idea.
Speaking of fair education， there is no limitation on the qualifications of the donor. Anyone， rich or poor， has the right to donate. It’s totally voluntary， depending on personal choice. If one parent donates blood， many others will follow. In the end， all parents will become donors， which will put all the students at the same starting point. Nothing will change except the fact that the blood bank can be filled so that injured people don’t have to wait too long for blood when something catastrophic happens CON
Liu Siyuan www.cnhubei. com
Blood donation is an act of charity， for which the donor should seek no reward. Now China is facing a problem of blood shortage and increasing medical demand. Against this background， donation is a noble and unselfish act.
But it’s not any more when it becomes a trade with a price tag – larger volume， more points. And people’s scorn toward this ridiculous policy will create a situation where few would want to donate. According to the official statement， the original intention of this policy is to encourage more people to donate blood voluntarily. But it’s obviously going in the wrong direction by turning it into a competition at the cost of harming examination fairness
CON
Li Yingfeng Meizhou Daily
Obviously， the original intention of the policy is to encourage people to donate blood， but things may go in the wrong direction when it’s implemented. The donation threshold for bonus points is 4，000 milliliters. It will take five years to meet that requirement if one donates twice in a year， 400 milliliters each time – the maximum volume. Parents may donate as much as they can regardless of their physical condition， to earn extra points for their children. The whole thing will become pathetic. Children should earn points with their own efforts. If some get a better chance because they gain an advantage from their parents’ act， educational equality will be affected
PRO
Fu Weijia www.shangdu. com
When the new policy is put into practice， I hope the public can see the good intention and endeavor behind the regulation. It’s suggested in both the national and local regulations concerning blood donation that the donor who“makes outstanding contribution” should be cited and rewarded. The new policy is arguably reasonable based on that concept. It’s especially so given that the requirement is in accordance with that for the golden， silver， and bronze prizes for national voluntary blood donation set in a document released by the then Ministry of Health in 1999.
There is skepticism about the fairness of the practice， but this quantified metrics is obviously better than a competition between parents’ social status. The result is nothing but increased blood donation， which obviously does no harm to society and the public.
CON
Yang Xingdong www.caijing.com. cn
Blood donation is a moral act. The compensation and reward for this action should not affect the legitimate interests of others. If one is rewarded for doing good in a way that hurts the interests of others， it will not only destroy the moral intention but also cause safety problems for blood banks. If ineligible donors conspire with doctors， tainted blood can go into the blood bank. Isn’t that much more terrible than supply shortage？ Before a public policy is introduced to solve problems， more thought should be given to its efficacy. Blood shortage cannot be solved by profitdriven endeavor but by a rational and efficient mechanism
According to the controversial regulation， students can receive additional one to three scores if their parents donate 4，000-8，000 milliliters of blood.
the practice is expected to encourage more people to donate blood and ease the shortage of blood supply. however， it began to get controversial after a netizen wrote a blog stating： “My future son， you can take your high school entrance exam with an easy mind， as i have donated enough blood to get bonus points for you.”some argue that donating blood as an act of charity shouldn’t be connected to children’s education. that will interfere with the fairness of educational opportunities. But others contend that such a policy has nothing to do with examination fairness， and will encourage blood donation.
PRO
Chen Yuhang www.cnhubei. com
Some critics believe that the new policy will create unfairness by allowing the reward to be passed from one generation to the next. Speaking of unfairness， is the preferential policy favoring children from rural， remote and poor areas a fair practice for those who are not？ For example， children from a poor urban family？ By donating blood or paying for tuition， parents seize any opportunity to give their children a better education， which is reasonable behavior in my eyes. In many parts of the country many students have no access to high-quality education resources. Does that mean all the tutoring schools should be shut down to ensure equality？ Blood shortage occurs frequently in Pujiang County where people’s awareness of voluntary blood donation is still weak. The gap between the demand and supply must be filled in a certain way. So after many fruitless attempts， the local government is seeking a solution by connecting donation with education. After all， it’s an innovative method and more effective than getting blood donors through television， newspapers and radio when there’s an emergency.
PRO
Cai Yan www.cnhubei.com
People used to give blood without any reward； now they can earn extra points for their children， who might just need one or two points to get a better chance in education. If donating blood can really help them， this cannot be a bad idea.
Speaking of fair education， there is no limitation on the qualifications of the donor. Anyone， rich or poor， has the right to donate. It’s totally voluntary， depending on personal choice. If one parent donates blood， many others will follow. In the end， all parents will become donors， which will put all the students at the same starting point. Nothing will change except the fact that the blood bank can be filled so that injured people don’t have to wait too long for blood when something catastrophic happens CON
Liu Siyuan www.cnhubei. com
Blood donation is an act of charity， for which the donor should seek no reward. Now China is facing a problem of blood shortage and increasing medical demand. Against this background， donation is a noble and unselfish act.
But it’s not any more when it becomes a trade with a price tag – larger volume， more points. And people’s scorn toward this ridiculous policy will create a situation where few would want to donate. According to the official statement， the original intention of this policy is to encourage more people to donate blood voluntarily. But it’s obviously going in the wrong direction by turning it into a competition at the cost of harming examination fairness
CON
Li Yingfeng Meizhou Daily
Obviously， the original intention of the policy is to encourage people to donate blood， but things may go in the wrong direction when it’s implemented. The donation threshold for bonus points is 4，000 milliliters. It will take five years to meet that requirement if one donates twice in a year， 400 milliliters each time – the maximum volume. Parents may donate as much as they can regardless of their physical condition， to earn extra points for their children. The whole thing will become pathetic. Children should earn points with their own efforts. If some get a better chance because they gain an advantage from their parents’ act， educational equality will be affected
PRO
Fu Weijia www.shangdu. com
When the new policy is put into practice， I hope the public can see the good intention and endeavor behind the regulation. It’s suggested in both the national and local regulations concerning blood donation that the donor who“makes outstanding contribution” should be cited and rewarded. The new policy is arguably reasonable based on that concept. It’s especially so given that the requirement is in accordance with that for the golden， silver， and bronze prizes for national voluntary blood donation set in a document released by the then Ministry of Health in 1999.
There is skepticism about the fairness of the practice， but this quantified metrics is obviously better than a competition between parents’ social status. The result is nothing but increased blood donation， which obviously does no harm to society and the public.
CON
Yang Xingdong www.caijing.com. cn
Blood donation is a moral act. The compensation and reward for this action should not affect the legitimate interests of others. If one is rewarded for doing good in a way that hurts the interests of others， it will not only destroy the moral intention but also cause safety problems for blood banks. If ineligible donors conspire with doctors， tainted blood can go into the blood bank. Isn’t that much more terrible than supply shortage？ Before a public policy is introduced to solve problems， more thought should be given to its efficacy. Blood shortage cannot be solved by profitdriven endeavor but by a rational and efficient mechanism