Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The man with the golden blood

mosaicscience.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 105 posts

Re: The man with the golden blood

#61

Post by Gracana »

Nzen wrote: post #51
dandelany wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting point, but for me at least there is a significant difference between earnings and reimbursement . One might be more likely to donate if they're not being paid , but if they knew that donating involved spending a non-trivial amount of money that would not be reimbursed I think it would be a deterrent.

I had trouble parsing this. "People are okay with not being paid (for charitable effort). People dislike not being reimbursed (for charitable effort)." Reimbursement seems a non-sequitur in the context of donating blood. Without an alternative market for blood, framing it as foregone reimbursement would be actively antagonistic on the part of the charitable recipient [within the culture in my area]. eg, "we could pay…

I think the situation is about travel expenses, as that's the major issue that the article brings up. It's not an issue for people with common blood types. Just donate anywhere. But for dealing with rare blood types, it might help if rare donors didn't have to pay their own air travel bills.

Re: The man with the golden blood

#62

Post by SolarNet »

ars wrote: post #56
tnorthcutt wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is allowed his own stash. Source? The article seemed to indicate that he must permit any blood he donates to be used for other people, thereby implying he may not reserve any of it for himself.

No, I read it as that he donates for himself, but if someone needs blood, and he allows it, they take from his pool reducing what is available for himself.

No it clearly says that if donates blood he "has to allow anyone" to use it. Which is clearly backed up with the next line stating: He must rely on other Rh_null donors if he needs blood.

Re: The man with the golden blood

#63

Post by georgemcbay »

IvyMike wrote: post #48
mrfusion wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get a postcard whenever they use my donated blood. I wonder how that works, does everyone in a given pool get the postcard?

Just to be clear: when I said "pool", they don't like, blend the blood--I just meant that your bag of blood is available for general usage. They can and do track individual packs. Regarding the postcard: I have donated in Illinois and California and have never gotten one. But I haven't been able to donate for a few years now because of trips into malaria zones, so if this is a recent thing, that would explain it.

I donate blood to Red Cross in California (most recently about a month ago) and have also never gotten a postcard, but they do have a pretty cool app now (called "Blood Donor") which tracks your donated blood through the various stages of their system (processing->testing->storage->distribution).

I'd assume any postcards sent out probably happen at the distribution stage, when the blood is shipped out to a hospital as that is a close enough approximation for the time when it will be used.

Re: The man with the golden blood

#64

Post by scott_s »

x0x0 wrote: post #53
niels_olson wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It costs money to keep the lights on and pay employees, refrigeration, databases, transportation (we get blood shipped from ARC three hours away twice a day), etc. And if you're not making money, you're losing money. Money is how societies manage these costs. Most blood banks are associated with a hospital or university. Some centers are free standing, like Blood Source or American Red Cross (ARC), and they are often…

The ceo of the red cross makes $600k, with plenty of the execs making over $400k (form 990 available [1]; page 49). I don't know if I can draw a bright line, but I think that's excessive compensation for running a medical charity.

Let's say that we put a cap in there: no executive in the Red Cross can make more than $200k. Let's further say that, over time, the quality of the executives goes down as a consequence, to the point that the Red Cross is less effective at its mission. So, we have a compensation cap that "feels" more appropriate for a medical charity, but the charity is now less capable of accomplishing its mission. Do you think this is an improvement?

Now, I am not saying this is necessarily what will happen, but it's certainly possible. I also assume that executives at the Red Cross are already making less than what they could at for-profit companies. Non-profits have to compete with for-profits when it comes to employees; that's just a natural consequence of how labor and capital exist in our economy. I think this means that we will sometimes have to pay employees at non-profits more than what "feels" right in order to have good, competent employees.

Re: The man with the golden blood

#65

Post by smsm42 »

Zaephyr wrote: post #10

Fascinating article. I was only aware of the 4 major blood types plus Rh±, it's also inspiring the efforts people will make to help others.

Same here. I was vaguely aware there are more but nowhere nearly realized how complex and varied the real situation is. Very illuminating article.

Re: The man with the golden blood

#66

Post by dandelany »

Nzen wrote: post #51
dandelany wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting point, but for me at least there is a significant difference between earnings and reimbursement . One might be more likely to donate if they're not being paid , but if they knew that donating involved spending a non-trivial amount of money that would not be reimbursed I think it would be a deterrent.

I had trouble parsing this. "People are okay with not being paid (for charitable effort). People dislike not being reimbursed (for charitable effort)." Reimbursement seems a non-sequitur in the context of donating blood. Without an alternative market for blood, framing it as foregone reimbursement would be actively antagonistic on the part of the charitable recipient [within the culture in my area]. eg, "we could pay…

I am referring to eg. being reimbursed for travel expenses, or any other expenses which would not have been incurred by not donating. Being "made whole" on money you spent.

Re: The man with the golden blood

#67

Post by mkeener »

davegardner wrote: post #24
TheBeardKing wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think they could just screen frequent donors with rare blood types for infections. Once the donor is known safe, compensate however is needed to get their blood. I believe there are private industries doing this. This one will be opening soon in my town, though I guess just for plasma: http://www.biolifeplasma.com/become-donor/compensation.html

I'm a regular whole blood and plasma donor and I'm quite sure that I'd be much less likely to donate if I was being paid for it. I'm not really sure exactly why I feel that way, but I guess that if you put a dollar value on it I'd be calculating whether it really was worth my time. Right now, because there is no compensation (aside from a muffin and a cup of tea afterwards), I get the emotional benefits of having per…

Well, truly altruistic until you tell someone that you're a regular blood and plasma donor. But, like said before, you could simply refuse the compensation.

Re: The man with the golden blood

#68

Post by x0x0 »

scott_s wrote: post #64
x0x0 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ceo of the red cross makes $600k, with plenty of the execs making over $400k (form 990 available [1]; page 49). I don't know if I can draw a bright line, but I think that's excessive compensation for running a medical charity.

Let's say that we put a cap in there: no executive in the Red Cross can make more than $200k. Let's further say that, over time, the quality of the executives goes down as a consequence, to the point that the Red Cross is less effective at its mission. So, we have a compensation cap that "feels" more appropriate for a medical charity, but the charity is now less capable of accomplishing its mission. Do you think this…

Let's say we can the glibertarian nonsense, because anything is possible (under your metric of oh, it may not happen... but it's possible). Why, we should pay the executive $10m/year -- because otherwise, the quality of the executives will go down, to the point that the Red Cross is less effective at its mission. I'm not saying this is necessarily what will happen, but it's certainly possible.

Re: The man with the golden blood

#69

Post by averell »

mkeener wrote: post #67
davegardner wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a regular whole blood and plasma donor and I'm quite sure that I'd be much less likely to donate if I was being paid for it. I'm not really sure exactly why I feel that way, but I guess that if you put a dollar value on it I'd be calculating whether it really was worth my time. Right now, because there is no compensation (aside from a muffin and a cup of tea afterwards), I get the emotional benefits of having per…

Well, truly altruistic until you tell someone that you're a regular blood and plasma donor. But, like said before, you could simply refuse the compensation.

If that would disqualify then so would feeling good about it without telling people, it's the same kind of compensation. And he could even tell people the same thing without really donating, so the act itself is actually altruistic after all.

Re: The man with the golden blood

#70

Post by gohrt »

csdrane wrote: post #11
sosuke wrote: post #7

Really interesting situation, and very frustrating that none of the rare blood donors costs can be paid for by hospitals. Seems like there should be some loop hole to get them compensated.

I would have guessed that the reason for prohibiting payment for blood would be the same as the reason prohibiting payment for organ donations. Interesting that in this case it is blamed on trying to minimize donations from people with HIV.

Organs don't regenerate like blood does. Blood is very valuable and blood is paid for all the time. The only restriction is on paying the original creator. Once the blood is extracted, it is sold and re-sold for high prices.
Post reply on HN