“Have you thought about it thoroughly?” was what I heard the most when I told people that I registered to be an organ donor after death, followed by “Maybe you should consider cancelling your registration.” Although the reason I told people was not to receive praise, but to inform them to donate my organs before cremation, I have to admit that such negative responses were discouraging.

Donating blood is another story. I have donated a total of seven times after I turned 16 and became eligible. Unlike my organ donor registration, most people supported my blood donation journey, seeing it as a “brave act” and “selfless act.” However, the online community seems to have a different perspective.

Since last autumn, movie tickets have no longer been offered to blood donors due to the Korean Red Cross’ failed negotiation with theaters. This sparked outrage from netizens, with some saying they would no longer donate blood, and others saying the Korean Red Cross is seeing them as “Ho-gu.” Ho-gu is a Korean word similar to “sucker,” meaning a gullible or easily deceived person. Since then, a storm took over the internet, with some comments arguing “people who donate and give in the current society are mindless ho-gus,” and “we must stop donating blood so blood donors can receive better benefits in the future.”

Here, I must ask: why is a life-saving act labeled as being “exploited” and “deceived?” Is it right to see donors as “gullible” and “mindless?”

People have different reasons for donation. Some do it for social credit, some do it for the small rewards, and some want to do something meaningful. For me, it is because the “weight” of a life is greater than anything else. If we “stop donating blood so blood donors can receive better benefits in the future,” how many must die waiting for blood donations? If benefits are improved through such extreme measures, it can be said that the new benefits are practically built upon lives that could’ve been saved had people not boycotted. Maybe it’s time for our society to reconsider what we value the most: is it lives or incentives?

It is true that Korea, compared to other countries, has fewer benefits for blood donors; this is why some people suggest “boycotting.” However, is blood something we sell and buy in the market? There is a reason it’s called “blood donation,” not “blood selling.” Yes, it is possible to wish for “better benefits.” Yes, it is possible for someone to not donate if they feel that it “isn’t worth it.” But telling someone that they’re a “sucker” for donating blood “practically for free?”

Rumors and gossip are other factors that fuel the “ho-gu” claims and discourage people from donating. For example, some believe “your broken corpse will be returned to your family after your organs are harvested.” While this was true in the past, posthumous recognition has since improved. Other rumors, such as “doctors won’t save you in case of an emergency if you are an organ donor,” or “if you choose to donate, you can’t opt out,” are simply false.

I do not believe all people are obliged to donate, whether it be blood, organs, or something else. Whether to give or not is up to each person. However, looking down cynically on someone who chooses to donate isn’t just.

So, if donating is seen as “mindless” or “gullible,” I would willingly carry that label. If society chooses to define people like me as “suckers,” let it be. I will gladly be a “sucker.”