101–110 of 110 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not an expert on the subject, but I recall hearing somewhere that selling blood gives people an incentive to lie about their health history. "Do you shoot up illicit drugs with shared needles?" "Um... No. No I do not."
True, but that is the system being exploited by those individuals, not the other way around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but that is the system being exploited by those individuals, not the other way around.
I don't want a tainted blood transfusion, so it does affect me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the window between an infection by the HIV and the production of antibodies ? Parent's argument doesn't seem to be irrelevant, otherwise, if the screenings were totally reliable why would we bother asking for risky behaviours ? Lying is one of the arguments against paid blood donations in France, the other being that poor people may be incentivized to put their health at risk by donating to often (donation…
First of all, we're talking about plasma and not whole blood - the difference is important. > An adequate and reliable supply of safe blood can be assured by a stable base of regular, voluntary, unpaid blood donors. An adequate and reliable supply of plasma cannot be assured by a stable base of unpaid plasma donors - countries that pay for donations run a surplus and end up supplying it to countries that don't, becau…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who cares? The only relevant question is "Do their actions make the world a better place?" Or perhaps, "Are they improving these people's lives, or making them worse?" And yes, they are improving their lives, if only slightly. They are making the world a better place. The people who claim to care about these poor people, have done nothing to help them. Their revealed preferences show they don't actually care at all.…
Are they improving their lives? They don't think so, and I don't think so either. $40 twice a week is not a substitute for self respect or a job that you can admit to your children. > "Do their actions make the world a better place?" Do they? Is a "better" world a one in which people are forced to sell their plasma to survive? In your dimly utilitarian view, you've neglected to consider whether such a state of affair…
>Do they? Is a "better" world a one in which people are forced to sell their plasma to survive? In your dimly utilitarian view, you've neglected to consider whether such a state of affairs is truly a good one
You twist my words. Is the world optimal? Of course not. Does that have anything to do with the plasma industry whatsoever? Again, the plasma industry did not create poverty. They are not "forcing" anyone to sell plasma. They are not making the world any worse than it otherwise was. The people who sell plasma are better off - otherwise they wouldn't continue to do it voluntarily.
>Whether or not people choose to give to your pet injustice (there are many of them, after all) is not indication that they passively abide by it.
If you want to know what someone really believes - what they really value - you need to look at their actions, not their words. People lie about their beliefs and values, even to themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If what you say is true, and child labor is keeping children from starving to death, then how could you possibly oppose it? The main objection against child labor is that it is extremely detrimental for the children. If you literally believe the children benefit from it, then I can not understand your objection.
Did you know some slave owners granted their slaves semi-autonomy as long as work got done?
Slaves work because if they don't, the slave master will beat or kill them. The plasma industry isn't going to beat or kill you if you don't sell them blood.
You may have problems in your life that make you so desperate, you need to sell your blood. But the plasma industry didn't create those problems, and they aren't making your life any worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you know some slave owners granted their slaves semi-autonomy as long as work got done?
Are you seriously comparing selling blood to slavery? What does that have to do with anything? Slaves work because if they don't, the slave master will beat or kill them. The plasma industry isn't going to beat or kill you if you don't sell them blood. You may have problems in your life that make you so desperate, you need to sell your blood. But the plasma industry didn't create those problems, and they aren't makin…
No, I just see the metric as a particularly weird line to draw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"In principle it's the government's job to take care of society's needs, not the charities'." I disagree strongly. Concentrating responsibility concentrates power, which is dangerous. Governments should share power internally, share between levels (federal, state, local), and leave a lot of the power with the people (who may use it for private enterprises, NGOs, etc.).
Unfortunately, in the history of the world, charity hasn't even come close to helping as many of those in need as successful government programs. The incentives to provide enough support to different charities aren't there. Charity follows trends and whims, not needs. For example, the top cumulative donations went to charities that do not serve the needs of the poor, despite how many people are still in need of assis…
You imply government policy does not follow trends and whims, which is observably false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, in the history of the world, charity hasn't even come close to helping as many of those in need as successful government programs. The incentives to provide enough support to different charities aren't there. Charity follows trends and whims, not needs. For example, the top cumulative donations went to charities that do not serve the needs of the poor, despite how many people are still in need of assis…
> Charity follows trends and whims, not needs. You imply government policy does not follow trends and whims, which is observably false.
What I am implying is that, unfortunately (again), government is the one entity that the common person is given a say in. They aren't a member on any boards, they don't manage philanthropists' thoughts or funds and they own no capital from which to generate their own wealth.
What I am implying is that they can influence the government into addressing their needs, even if superficially.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but don't many job applications have equivalent incentives for lying? - Have you ever been charged with a criminal offence? - Do you use recreational drugs? Etc. I don't think that the blood donation questionare is especially problematic on that regards.
The difference is who is harmed. A company may have to fire and replace a lying employee, so the shareholders lose some money, but a person contracting HIV from a bad blood transfusion is substantially more devastating.
As far as the "Low-Income Americans" from the article are concerned, all sorts of jobs give them an incentive to lie, why should donating blood be considered more exploitative because of it?
The question of whether buying blood has a net positive public health benefit is a very real one, but it's unrelated to darawk's ancestor post arguing that selling blood is just another form of work.