The Human Organ Transplant Act(HOTA) is a culmination of robbery and dealing. In this Act, all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents are automatically signed up for this Act, except for Muslims, unless they opt in. Everyone who is opted in may opt out, but the deal lurking is to practically give up the chance of an organ transplant should you ever need one when one opts out of the programme. This default opting in system results in foregoing consent to donate organs for most individuals in Singapore. However, is it viable to do so? To me, it is not viable at all.

Let us begin with the most fundamental principle of the human sanctity to life. This basic theory differentiates humans with animals, because we are of a higher calibre than them. It also implies that while the lives of animals may be used to satisfy our basic needs for life --food, water and shelter, the lives of humans must not be used in the same way, at least for meeting the needs of lives of humans and their counterparts of lower calibre. To put it in another way, we are the sole owner of our lives and no one can tamper with it to satisfy their own needs, which is the gist of the human sanctity to life. However, the HOTA contradicts this principle, because of the automatic conscription to this programme. Without the consent of the citizens and PRs, they are entered into the programme regardless. The ultimate finger of blame undoubtedly points to the government, because in doing so, the government is owning the organs of its citizens and PRs. When all the organs are collectively owned by the state, the individual is merely a container to hold the organs which ultimately is the property of the state. This may sound ridiculous, but it is indeed the implications of HOTA and the government is the owner of all the organs instead of the citizens and PRs.

This coupled with automatically opting in for the program makes HOTA no different from daylight robbery, especially for illiterate people and it is morally wrong in two ways. Firstly, by supporting HOTA, we get to jump the queue for an organ transplant. Jumping the queue may seem trivial, but in this case, it concerns life and death, which is no laughing matter. Cutting a queue for free stuff would mean robbing another's rightful chance to obtain the giveaway, but on a greater scale, cutting this queue would mean robbing another person's rightful chance for a new life. In a nutshell, by eliminating other's rightful chance for an item or service which we are unworthy of having, it equates to robbery and HOTA is parallel to this. Secondly, by joining this programme, one is consenting to the government authorities to take away one's organs to benefit others when one is cerified brain dead. However, without seeking deliberate consent from the citizens and the PRs and signing them up for this, it is no different from robbing them of their organs. This is analogous to a robber snatching your wallet and pours out all the money to a nearby beggar. Under common law, that robber is still convicted, even though his motive is to benefit other people. However because of human rights, that robber still infiltrated my human rights to property, so he is liable under the law. Similarly, is it right for the government to act as a robber snatching our organs to benefit other people without our explicit consent? This is even so for our illiterate counterparts. The most viable way for government authorities to spread this new amendment to the public is through notices, which are mainly words. Being illiterate, these people would not get the message and would not have a single hint that they are automatically enlisted into the program. Is it fair for government authorities to remove their organs when they are brain dead without their knowledge of it? Removing one's organs without one's explicit consent is immoral enough, removing one's organs without one's knowledge is even worse. Hence, HOTA is no different from daylight robbery.

To make matters even more unbelievable, HOTA is not just daylight robbery, but robbery with threat. In this Act, one can opt out of the program, but risk lagging behind the queue when one needs an organ transplant. It may seem perfectly logical for some, but this Act concerns life and death, not just any common commercial paraphernalia. It is similar to threatening a victim whom you are robbing not to retaliate or he would be killed secretly. Robbing a person is already against the law, but threatening the person is even more grave than pure robbing and the punishments would be harsher. By logical extension, would this not apply to the government robbing others of their organs and threatening them in doing so?

By imposing this deal there are many implications. Firstly, donating money should be from our sincerity and our heart and donating organs utilise the same theory. We all condemn donation drives which entitle a person to a lucky draw if he donates a certain amount to an organisation, because those people are donating for the sake winning more than they donate during the lucky draw, hence it contradicts totally with the rationale of donation, which is to help others. Similarly, donating organs should be due to the pressing urge to give another person, who is trapped in his illness, a crevice to escape such that he would gain a new life. However, HOTA encourages people to donate organs because they may get to cut to queue should they ever need a organ. People therefore donate organs should they be brain dead so they would get another organ first if they ever need an organ transplant, not because of a genuine urge to save other people's lives.

Secondly, donating organs should not serve as a ticket for people to board the express train to cut the organ transpant queue. Donating organs should be seen as an excellent moral deed, but degrading this act of love to simply a give and take exchange is unforgivable. It is similar to the donation drives which promise us an exclusive gift when we donate, but we all condemn it as being low class and crude. Should this not apply to donating organs as well? Hence, donating organs should be an act of love and the donor should not receive any form of benefit because it degrades the whole act and the donor himself also.

Lastly, by encouraging this Act, we are merely weighing a person's worth of receiving an organ transplant based on whether he would donate his organs if he is brain dead. By doing so, we are neglecting other factors. When this recepient who participates in HOTA is compared to another non-participant who is the sole breadwinner of the family, who should receive the organ first? According to the law, it is the person who participates in HOTA, but by our emotions, it should be the breadwinner, since the whole family depends on him for survival. If he cannot receive his organ, the family would continue to live in despair, depression, hopelessness and dejected. Hence, whether a person is taking part in HOTA should not be paramount over the other factors. Rather, it should be the last factor to be considered when two people are deemed worthy of receiving the organ because they are in the same circumstances.

To ensure that HOTA is fair and just, we should allow people to opt in rather than making them opt out. Opting in would be hard, because it requires civics and moral education to Singaporeans for them to be less ignorant about others in society, but it is still achievable. We should also abolish the priority to organ transplant to people participating in HOTA because they should be doing so out of love and concern and not of the benefits than this would bring them.

In conclusion, it is not viable to forego consent in harvesting organs because it is wrong morally and ethically. To make HOTA a better policy, we need to alter it such that it is fair and just by removing wrong elements of HOTA.