Economics Questions

Re: Economics Behind Blood Donation

Prashanth Perumal — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:35:28 GMT

I am a regular blood donor, and everytime I get to the hospital the scene I come across is, even when people are ready to pay huge amounts for a particular group of blood, there is no blood available. The blood bank authorities are as careless as you could ever get. The last time there was a requirement for blood to help in a surgery, and the authorities were so frivolous that they just took my word on the group of my blood, and didn't care to make a cross-match before transfusion. That's how desperate things are.

So yes, commercializing blood donation can take us miles forward, but personally I'd like to add blood donation into my list of personal charity acts.

Re: Economics Behind Blood Donation

JAlanKatz — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:11:12 GMT

cherrydarkchocolate:
So you think as long as these people find a different occupation and stop snatching bodies, that would be enough punishment for them? Just punishments from the market is enough, these folks shouldn't be jailed?

Actually, I don't think any one belongs in cages, but you'll remember that this wasn't the topic under discussion, that was whether or not it is appropriate to shoot people for paying others for blood. And no, I don't think that is appropriate.

Re: Economics Behind Blood Donation

cherrydarkchocolate — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:31:01 GMT

JAlanKatz:

And the market should, without current interferences in market operation, punish such hospitals. There are people who think alll kinds of things - there are even people who think governments are necessary! That's no argument.

So you think as long as these people find a different occupation and stop snatching bodies, that would be enough punishment for them? Just punishments from the market is enough, these folks shouldn't be jailed?

"Body was sold with plastic pipes instead of legs, ghoul admits"

Re: Economics Behind Blood Donation

JAlanKatz — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:13:42 GMT

cherrydarkchocolate:

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

And the market should, without current interferences in market operation, punish such hospitals. There are people who think alll kinds of things - there are even people who think governments are necessary! That's no argument.

Re: Economics Behind Blood Donation

cherrydarkchocolate — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:11:22 GMT

Another URL about the stolen bone:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4552742.stm

"I'm most shocked... that my stepfather's ancient and cancerous bones should have been passed off as healthy tissue to innocent patients"

Re: Economics Behind Blood Donation

cherrydarkchocolate — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:07:25 GMT

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

Re: Economics Behind Blood Donation

Zach_the_Lizard — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:04:47 GMT

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.

Re: Economics Behind Blood Donation

JAlanKatz — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:54:31 GMT

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.

Re: Economics Behind Blood Donation

cherrydarkchocolate — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:53:52 GMT

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".

Re: Economics Behind Blood Donation

cherrydarkchocolate — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:49:01 GMT

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.

Re: Economics Behind Blood Donation

cherrydarkchocolate — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:41:12 GMT

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.

Re: Economics Behind Blood Donation

cherrydarkchocolate — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:34:26 GMT

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...

Re: Economics Behind Blood Donation

JAlanKatz — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:27:54 GMT

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?

Re: Economics Behind Blood Donation

JAlanKatz — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:25:17 GMT

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?

Re: Economics Behind Blood Donation

cherrydarkchocolate — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:24:16 GMT

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?