Saving Lives or Violating Rights? The Controversial Decree on Compulsory Organ Donation

The thought of the government decreeing the compulsory donation of healthy organs from a recently deceased person for the benefit of the sick will raise difficult ethical and moral issues. This controversial issue delves into the depths of individual autonomy, bodily integrity, and societal responsibility.

Image created using AI.

I will be writing simple but deep facts in this blog, and if you stick around that much, I will make you understand why I would be on the government side to some certain decree and some line they shouldn't cross, but before we go deep into the conversation we are about to have, it would be nice to know the blog of who you are about to read.

My name is Fashtioluwa, hive favorite alien. Yes, alien, and I am from Mars. I am a lot of things, good things, and it is nice to have you read my blog. Now let's get started.

The idea of utilizing healthy organs from the deceased to save the lives of those in need is undeniably noble. Tell me, wouldn't you be happy to save a loved one who needs an organ transplant without having to search for someone in the family to donate or outside the family, but the government is already providing it? The government giving such a decree has the potential to significantly reduce organ shortages and increase the chances of survival for patients awaiting transplants. Apart from saving the lives of innocent citizens, I believe such steps will reduce the organ trafficking organizations that are rampant now.

However, the implementation of such a decree raises concerns about the trampling on the rights of the citizens. The idea of the government mandating the removal of organs from the deceased without prior consent challenges the fundamental principles of bodily sovereignty and personal choice. Some people might want to be buried in full, while some people wouldn't want any part of their loved one to be tampered with. It feels so wrong and unethical to remove human organs for the benefit of all, but if we look deeply into it, it's going to benefit the human race.

On the good side of it, it may result in a significant increase in organ donations; people wouldn't have to die because there was no one to donate organs for them. This could also lead to advancements in medical research and technology as more organs become available for transplantation and scientific study.

On the other side of it, it could take a different turn when the organ needed does not suit any of the ones they have harvested from the corpse or might not be functional again. This can lead to compulsory or forced harvest on the side of the doctors. If paid well, some doctors don't mind killing a sick patient just to take their organs because the government has already made a decree that organs can be harvested from corpses.

As individuals, we might not be happy that the organs of our loved ones are removed, especially if they haven't benefited from the so-called government that's trying to take something from them. If there is no punishment for people who refuse to comply with this set of rules, a lot of people might refuse, which will make the decree weightless, and if there are punishments for breaking the law, the law that was made to protect the citizen might come back to hurt them.

In conclusion, I have seen a lot of people's thoughts on the matter, but I think I have a solution that will benefit both the government and the people. I have thought of this before, and I think some countries practice it, but I am not sure. The organs of criminals on death rolls can be harvested to save good and hard-working citizens. This will make people commit crimes less, thereby creating a peaceful and safe environment.

Just my thoughts, though. I am sure you have learned one or two things. Thanks for reading; I hope to see more of you.