Out of intellectual curiosity, how the reasoning about the following concept differ from reasoning about other public health mandates, especially vaccination? Each of the questions represents some model of collective contribution where 100% participation is desirable and every refusal to participate will lead to some bad outcomes earlier or later.

If all people in US give only $10 to cancer research charity, it would be a whopping $3.3bil. Surely it could result in hundreds or, possibly, thousands lives saved. Even more impressive if we count life-years. $10 is a measly sum for most people, not even too inconvenient, especially considering a compounding effect it can produce. It is as "little to no effort to reduce their potential harm to those around them and society in general" as possible. Some people can give more. Society where 100% of people are donating to good cause will be quite thriving, I'd imagine.

1. Should we make charitable donations, to approved institutions, of course, mandatory? On top of existing tax structure, because clearly many people have excess capacity to give? Exceptions to be approved only by qualified financier after thorough audit, because almost nobody can be trusted to assess own financial position fairly.

2. Should charitable donations be made public as a matter of policy?

3. Should hospital triage decisions be made with consideration to the past charitable donations of the patient? What if they did not donate at all? What if they donated to cancer fund, but hospitalized with diabetes? What if they donated regularly but cancelled?

4. Should we ban voluntary cancellations of regular charity payments? Only exceptions validated by commitee of experts are possible.

5. Should we run a shaming campaign branding everyone who refuses to donate "a selfish one"? After all, if they don't donate, they clearly don't care about their fellow citizen and effectively killing them? And their choices, surely attributable exclusively to irrational reasons, must have consequences? And how is it different from parent punishing their child for forgetting to brush their teeth, for example?

And a few more.

6. Should "organ donor" consent be opt-in or opt-out? Should the consent even be considered at all? Aren't those non-consenting "endangering" the society at large?

7. Should blood donation be made mandatory, only excepted by valid medical reason, validated by a doctor guided by central policy? Same questions apply as for charitable donations. I understand blood donation is a huge problem, there aren't enough donors everywhere.

8. Should autopsy be done solely at the discretion of authority, without relatives' consent whatsoever?

And a grotesque one, I have to admit, but would like to hear reasoning.

9. High testosterone level is known to be linked to aggressiveness, drive for power and domination. T influences the "lizard brain", which causes a lot of second-order harm to society, including capital crimes. It has been proven that de-sexing is beneficial for dogs, it lowers the dominance drive, aggression, makes them more mellow and convenient. It raises life expectancy as well! It is not unfeasible that it may be statistically proven, taking guidance from animal models, that overall lowering of T level in society does more good than bad and lowers overall crime and "toxic masculinity". Should we mandate full neutering of human males upon reaching 40yo? Or routinely cut one testicle from every male infant? Or only do the operation to those showing "abnormally" high T level? Should we brand "selfish" those who refuse to contribute to such scientifically-solid model?

The last one is extreme, but would help to perceive where exactly the line between socially acceptable and unacceptable violation of one's body is.