by Michael Zerger
Interplanetary News Service, Nov. 1, 2032 — To the sound of muted protests outside Gandhi Memorial Hospital, the activist Adam Clay was executed by vivisection (Directed Donation) at noon on Tuesday for crimes against humanity. The procedure, popularly known as ‘Community Service’, produced a broad array of organs, blood products, and reconstituted DNA to be made available to the public at auction.
In an unexpected reaction, the sentencing provoked outrage and a review in federal court when the use of mild anesthetics and mind-numbing drugs was permitted during the Donation procedure. In what could become a landmark decision, judges agreed with doctors that the trauma suffered by organs would reduce their effectiveness and thus devalue them.
The World Broadcasting Company argued in a “friend of the court” brief that the use of drugs would reduce audience interest and viewing of the reality episode and would violate the First Amendment right of viewers to see whatever they want to see. Separately, WBC sued the court under the Inherent Right to Profit by a Large Corporation rule of the Public Security Act claiming that the reduced cable revenues would be contrary to the interest of an informed and solvent society.
In a counter-suit, insurance companies representing the recipients of the Donated products obtained from the auction supported the decision, arguing under the same Public Security Act that they too had a right to secure a profit. Attorneys for the insurance companies state that the companies believe that the increased revenue received for better functioning products would more than offset the cost of drugs mandated by the court. The insurance companies obtained the Donor products in regulated bidding with the Donor Division, Repeat Offenders section of the Federal Online Auction.
Since its inception, the Directed Donation program has received mixed but generally favorable reviews from various segments of society. The program has had a positive effect on federal revenues as it generates taxes on the procedures, royalties from the broadcast by the WBC, and direct revenue from the auction of organs and related products. Civil libertarians argue that the program has no measurable effect on unsocial conduct.
Conservatives counter that no Donor has ever been a recidivist. The few religious figures that directly opposed the program are now themselves awaiting Community Service for violation of the First Amendment, their comments being construed as a violation of the separation of Church and State.
Copyright © 2007 by Michael Zerger