Blood donation is a big deal at the company I work for. Some of the people I work with get really involved in planning committees and what not. Mainly I think this is because its a way to get out of doing actual work. But I digress. They do anger me though when I get grilled on why I don't want to freely give my blood away. Somehow, arguments like 'Why don't they just pay me for it?' come off as childish or greedy (in their eyes, not mine). That used to get to me, but now, I'm thinking differently.
Blood is one of the most important substances that my body makes on a regular basis. It takes time and resources to produce and its absolutely essential for my survival. Without it, I die, and without the proper time and inputs, it doesn't get made.
So why on earth should I freely give away my blood? If there's such a high demand for it, then how come there isn't a market for buying and selling it? There's markets for other necessities: food, clothing, shelter, gasoline, medicine. If we took it to an extreme, we could easily say that farmers should donate their produce, clothing companies their clothes, construction companies their nice new houses, etc.
Between people and blood banks, there is no traditional market, at least not in the sense that value is exchanged for value on a rational basis. The basis relied upon is some sense of civic, or even human duty, goodwilll, etc. And I'll bet dollars to dimes that blood banks don't donate their collected blood to hospitals out of the same sense of "duty to humanity". I know for a fact that hospitals don't donate it to patients either. If I remember right, a pint goes for a couple hundred dollars. Additionally, employers offer tiny perks for the service. In the military, we used to get the day off. At this company, we get a cute little pin to where. I'd prefer getting compensated for the blood my body has to do double duty to make up for.
Anyone know why a normal "blood market" doesn't exist. With all the fuss made over the scarcity of it, you would think someone would have said to hell with the good will, lets make some money off of it.
BTW, this is my first post.
cherrydarkchocolate: There is a constant shortage of blood because blood don't keep fresh forever. A regular supply of blood is vital red cells last only 35 days and platelets only five days. If nobody donates any blood for 5 days - then that's it. And you need to have blood products on hand because people who need blood transfusion usually didn't plan it. So part of the shortage is driven by logistic.
There is a constant shortage of blood because blood don't keep fresh forever. A regular supply of blood is vital red cells last only 35 days and platelets only five days. If nobody donates any blood for 5 days - then that's it. And you need to have blood products on hand because people who need blood transfusion usually didn't plan it. So part of the shortage is driven by logistic.
Ok. I don't see how this wouldn't be improved by having more donors.
cherrydarkchocolate:There are also considerations with regards to diseases. There is moral hazard / self selection problem. By offering to pay for blood, you attract people who are motivated to give blood for money. What kind of people give blood for money, you might ask? Could it be people who have nothing else to give?
I'm sorry, I'm not good at judging people by their financial situation, and deciding that people who have a few hours to spare for no money are better people than those who don't. I'm really not good at this skill.
cherrydarkchocolate:You also need an honourable type of person to give blood - e.g. detection of HIV viruses is not 100% (at least not until 90 days after a person has contracted it), they take a sample (a few ml) of blood to test for diseases etc., but what about the other 500-odd ml of blood that are actually used for transfusion? You need blood givers who aren't willing to lie for the money offered. By providing no money you provide no incentives to lie about risky sexual behaviour / drug taking.
I find it odd to think that it's likely that a few mls of blood will be free of some problem that the entire sample has. Maybe, but this has to be incredibly rare, especially if you test for antibodies rather than for pathogens themselves. Meanwhile, the motivation not to lie is simple. The person, by your assumption, wants money. Write him a post-dated check, and cancel it if you find the sample to be useless, then blacklist him.
It might be free to obtain blood, but the processing, testing, storage aren't free. The money the sellers received aren't just for the blood per se, but also that it is safe to use.
Say someone received a transfusion of a blood donor who didn't know that they have hepatitis . This patient who received the transfusion lateron discovered that they became infected. The infected patient wouldn't be going after the blood donor for compensation, they would be going after the hospital and the blood provider for compensation.
If people are selling blood directly to patients for transfusion, they blood givers would take out an insurance to insure themselves against causing medical problems to the receivers. Given that people are only supposed to give (supply) blood four times a year max, would such a market for blood giving insurance survive? In the words of Alvin E. Roth, would this market be "thick" enough?
Your solution only works if the medical tests are 100% works. Like I said before, there is a window period with regard to HIV tests. Even infected blood can sail through the HIV test and be transfused to people. Blood is only fresh for 35 days, HIV window period is 90 days, people can only give blood four times a year at max (three times a year is recommended).
If you use backdated cheque method, the first blood giving will have to be discarded. And you must be certain that since the first blood donation, the person hasn't engaged in any risky sexual behaviour or had intravenous drug injection. So there are two solutions, have blood givers being locked up in solitary confinement with no possibility of interacting with other people. Or two, don't give them incentives to lie.
cherrydarkchocolate:If you use backdated cheque method, the first blood giving will have to be discarded. And you must be certain that since the first blood donation, the person hasn't engaged in any risky sexual behaviour or had intravenous drug injection.
I don't see why. We presently draw some volume, using most of it for transfusion, and testing the rest before using it. So do the exact same thing, and along with the cookies, give them a check dated 5 days out.
cherrydarkchocolate:Or two, don't give them incentives to lie.
So it would follow that you believe this to be a rational market outcome. So you have no need to have laws enforcing it. Correct?
With regard to
"I'm sorry, I'm not good at judging people by their financial situation, and deciding that people who have a few hours to spare for no money are better people than those who don't. I'm really not good at this skill."
You don't want attract blood givers who give because they need money. People would lie for money, especially if they cannot obtain money via other forms, e.g. by engaging in employment. Give them no money and they don't lie for it.
Well you agree with me that the nasties could be contained in the portion of blood that are used for transfuion but absent from the portion used for testing. Backdating cheques for 5 days isn't good enough, you need to backdate cheques for 90 days, by which time the given blood is well past its use-by date (35 days).
If you are rational (and all knowing, as all rational beings must be), you would have came to my conclusion already, so why don't you already accept my point?
cherrydarkchocolate:You don't want attract blood givers who give because they need money. People would lie for money, especially if they cannot obtain money via other forms, e.g. by engaging in employment. Give them no money and they don't lie for it.
Or just don't go. But this premise, that you only attract people with no other way to get money by offering money, flies in the face of marginalism. People can have a well-paid job and still want more money. The question to be asked, for a person, is whether the money being offered (at present, 0) exceeds the value of the next-best alternative. How much other money they have is irrelevant to their decision.
But, speaking of this, I do have some problems with the questions you ask. I was excluded for years for an incident which I had no control over, which I would have preferred not to happen, and which certainly did not lead to any exposure to disease. But at least I understood the fears prompted by my situation. But a legal prostitute in Nevada, whose blood is checked regularly? They are at less risk than the average person, I would think. Certainly it seems a bit presumptous to exclude gay men - didn't we stop calling it "gay cancer" for a reason?
cherrydarkchocolate:(and all knowing, as all rational beings must be),
Interesting definition of rationality.
cherrydarkchocolate: Well you agree with me that the nasties could be contained in the portion of blood that are used for transfuion but absent from the portion used for testing. Backdating cheques for 5 days isn't good enough, you need to backdate cheques for 90 days, by which time the given blood is well past its use-by date (35 days).
Yes, but I also said it's quite unlikely, especially if you check for antibodies. In fact, do you have a peer-reviewed paper that claims this ever happened?
Now my question was simple. Most of us have some trouble believing that this is really the best way to collect blood. You say it is. Ok. So if this is the best way to collect blood, it's a market outcome, and would still be how it's done without laws mandating it. So wouldn't you agree that we really could get rid of those laws?
I think the incentive to lie is proportional to the amount being offered. There is almost no minimum requirements to be being a blood donor or giver apart from being alive and kicking.
About the gay men thing - I agree with you that it's sad that they are asked to exclude themselves from blood giving. I am guessing that it is purely statistical discrimination. It's no different from some employers preferring not to hire women because they might fell pregnant, get married and quit...
The 90 days window period is a well known fact. People who goes to sex clinics to check if they are HIV positives are asked to return to take another test 3 months later.
About peer reviewed paper - you are asking for the impossible. For the paper you are looking for you need the following things:
(1) A group of HIV negative people who willingly contract HIV
(2) these people then have 500ml of blood taken from their within their first 90 days
(3) these blood is then transfused to a second group of people are also HIV negative
Such an experiment will not pass through any ethnics committees.
If people don't know EVERYTHING they will make decisions that would appear rational from a limited point of view, but rather generate a suboptimal outcome. If you agree that people are not all knowing - e.g. you didn't know that there is a 90 days window period and 35 days fresh period - then there is a need for such laws.
cherrydarkchocolate: The 90 days window period is a well known fact. People who goes to sex clinics to check if they are HIV positives are asked to return to take another test 3 months later. About peer reviewed paper - you are asking for the impossible. For the paper you are looking for you need the following things: (1) A group of HIV negative people who willingly contract HIV (2) these people then have 500ml of blood taken from their within their first 90 days (3) these blood is then transfused to a second group of people are also HIV negative Such an experiment will not pass through any ethnics committees.
Ooops typos. I meant "ethics committees".
cherrydarkchocolate:If people don't know EVERYTHING they will make decisions that would appear rational from a limited point of view, but rather generate a suboptimal outcome. If you agree that people are not all knowing - e.g. you didn't know that there is a 90 days window period and 35 days fresh period - then there is a need for such laws.
Well that seems odd. I am a mathematician. It is not necessary that all mathematicians know all the relevant data about blood transfusions to maintain safety, since mathematicians are not participants in that market. It would be required that hospital administrators, surgical coordinators, and people involved in blood transfusions know these things. If not, then the market will punish their decisions. Suppose I decide tomorrow to open a company to complete with the Red Cross for blood delivery, and I act in complete ignorance to how to test for infections. What hospital will choose to buy my blood? Ok, maybe one without much medical knowledge - which on the market is not a hospital many will choose for surgery.
Plus, to claim that the laws are needed, you'd need to presume that politicians know more and act more carefully in this area than doctors, hospital owners, and so on. This is absurd.
There is a market for blood; there are some outfits that will buy it. One of my classmates made money this way, and that was, like, 2 years ago. He'd go sell his blood as often as he could. I don't know where he sold it to, only that he did. It could have even been illegal, so far as I know. Hmmm....
A quick search suggests that you can only legally sell plasma. This might explain the blood shortages that they have. It was British author Richard Titmuss who argued that paying donors was unsafe, as it "lured" the poor, and thus America banned the practice. But because plasma can be sold, the US collects 60 percent of the world's plasma. The blood banks themselves can sell the blood, but the donors cannot be compensated.
JAlanKatz: cherrydarkchocolate:If people don't know EVERYTHING they will make decisions that would appear rational from a limited point of view, but rather generate a suboptimal outcome. If you agree that people are not all knowing - e.g. you didn't know that there is a 90 days window period and 35 days fresh period - then there is a need for such laws. Well that seems odd. I am a mathematician. It is not necessary that all mathematicians know all the relevant data about blood transfusions to maintain safety, since mathematicians are not participants in that market. It would be required that hospital administrators, surgical coordinators, and people involved in blood transfusions know these things. If not, then the market will punish their decisions. Suppose I decide tomorrow to open a company to complete with the Red Cross for blood delivery, and I act in complete ignorance to how to test for infections. What hospital will choose to buy my blood? Ok, maybe one without much medical knowledge - which on the market is not a hospital many will choose for surgery. Plus, to claim that the laws are needed, you'd need to presume that politicians know more and act more carefully in this area than doctors, hospital owners, and so on. This is absurd.
You can use the "rationality" argument to argue why these laws should exist. They exist because there are people who think they are necessary. About hospitals buying blood - I think you will be surprised how readily hospitals buy organs or bits of bones that are falsely certified. OK the law still doesn't eliminated all criminals stealing bones and organs from corpses but a least they get the offended jailed. See the following news article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7192462.stm