I worked for a blood bank as a delivery driver for several monthes back in 2000. This “blood bank” was in Jackson, Mississippi, and more or less served the entire state.
This company is a “not for profit” company, but they undoubtably make a lot of money. Why? Because they will not pay doners one cent for giving blood. Then they turn around and sell the blood to the hospitals, and the hospitals sell the blood to the patient. So you are giving something away for free to a concern who is making a profit, and a large one at that.
When asked why they will not pay for blood instead of begging the community, I was told that if they paid money, every crackhead, drunk, homeless person, and lowlife will enter their doors, and they would have to throw away more bags of blood due to HIV and venereal disease. I think that this is a bullshit arguement because when anyone gives blood in the first place, they are going to check for disease anyway, no matter who you are.
I think that them “begging” to the community and acting like a non profit charity brings in the people who think that giving blood is a moral responsibilty. Well, if I am giving them an hour of my time, having the end of my finger pricked (hurts worse than the needle) then getting stabbed in arm is worth about 10 bucks.
So, the rate of disease in the “normal” population is the same as in the “lowlife” population? Come on!
What you’re suggesting is: they dish out money, use more equipment and resources than they do now, and end up throwing a larger percentage of their potential product out? What the hell kind of sense is that supposd to make?
No doubt, if more people had the view of the business that you do, they might be more careful to donate blood to the Red Cross, who as far as I’m aware, give it free for emergencies, rather than donating to a for-profit outfit. If this knowledge were more general, that blood bank would probably be out of business soon enough.
Your reasoning is good, and while I can’t give blood, it probably would induce good donors to donate, but consider this:
The Red Cross announces that they will start paying people $15 if they come in and donate, bout like the plasma people do. So every Tom, Dick and Harry crackhead/drunk/lowlife begins to file in to their local donor center. They’re a high risk group, but the Red Cross is gonna take their blood anyway because there is a thingy at the end where you give them the sticker that says “use my blood” or “don’t use my blood,” that way you can pretty much tell them that you lied about your risk factors, and they won’t yell at you or anything, right?
So the Red Cross starts getting a lot more people showing up to donate blood. Those needles, tube thingies and bloodcatchers cost money. They may have to extend their hours and hire more needlestickers to make up for the heavy workload. Then they’ve gotta pay the donors, some of whom they KNOW will be screened out when their blood is tested, which also costs money, and suddenly there’s a whole lot more work for the labs to do, and so the Red Cross starts getting bigger and bigger bills from the lab. And so on and so forth.
Paying people to donate blood would cost the RC more money in the long run because of the kind of people it will attract, namely drug addicts who need cash for their next fix. Lots of wasted blood that they can’t sell, meanwhile Harry the heroin addict is coming in every 50something days for his next cash payment.
Making people donate for free screens out seedy types who may not have the purest of motives.
Maybe the RC should give the donors a cut. $250 and the donor doesn’t see a damn dime and the recipient is probably charged at least $100 more than what the hospital paid?
Maybe the RC could pay you only if your blood was accepted to be used?
In the UK, blood donation is voluntary. There’s no reward, except for a cup of tea and a biscuit
I regard donating as a thing of good community spirit, like organ donation. It’s something I can do, and as I may be in need of someone else’s blood one day, I was very happy to donate on the few occasions that I did.
Were that blood to be sold to a private hospital, well, never mind. If the blood banks end up with an excess of a particular blood type, I have no real problem with it being on-sold rather than wasted. It’s enough for me that the majority of UK donations are not for profit, but go to NHS (National Health Service) hospitals, and are used for sick and needy people in the public healthcare system.
I give blood for free at Hema-Quebec (the agency that took over blood collection from the Canadian Red Cross in my province) but I hit them hard for donuts and soda afterward.
Eh… at the blood bank I go to (LifeSouth), you get discounts if you ever need a blood transfusion. And that discount can be transferred to whatever person or institution you designate.
Your entire argument is based on this one point, and you evidently are just guessing it. Until there’s something to back this up there is nothing to debate.
Absolutely! Only recently did I find out that they pay you for donating in other countries. It’s sad if people actually need monetary reward in order to help out their fellow people…
Back when I was in the Army I used to donate whole blood in on of the surrounding towns and get paid for it. Anyone could come in and donate blood. The catch was though that you needed a valid picture ID. Also, they kept your info in a database and you were flagged if your blood ever came back as no good. That way if you came back and were flagged they wouldn’t allow you to donate and they wouldn’t waste money by paying for bad blood.
It’s sad if people actually need monetary reward in order to help out their fellow people…
Kinda like how it’s sad that the RC needs a monetary reward of about 250 bucks before they’ll turn over the blood to hospitals, who need it for their patients?
I’m guessing the $250 isn’t a monetary reward as much as it helps cover the costs of the many things the Red Cross does for free, disaster relief, for example.
Not for profit simply means shareholders don’t see a profit. The Red Cross still has to pay its employees, maintain its vehicles and pay its utility bills, etc. As far as I know, they can’t do any of the above with their good looks and donations only go so far.
What JuanitaTech said and more. I’ve heard that the cost to the Red Cross for each pint of blood is quite high once you add in all the employee costs, testing and storing of the blood, etc. So, I am not even sure they have much money left over to pump into their other programs.
Mind you, there are certain aspects of the Red Cross blood donation process that I find annoying. (I am currently not giving on doctor’s orders because I ended up quite anemic after giving about 4 times a year for the last few years.,.And to get them to stop calling me was a challenge!) But, unless shown otherwise, I don’t believe it is any sort of money-making scam for them.
At any rate, as I understand it, the plasma centers are distinct from the Red Cross–they do pay for plasma, but their blood products never go to patients. It is sold to companies who do research.
I’m sure the Red Cross does have many things that it needs money for. They do alot of good work. However, most employees, except maybe at the upper levels, are usually volunteers. Even in their blood drive centers. I had several Lab tech friends that would donate their time doing the blood draws.
In America where you have to pay for your medical treatment etc, I see nothing wrong with you getting paid for donating blood, when it will get sold to someone else anyway.
Being a regular blood donor for 12 years and being a bit informed about it… I would say firstly that voluntary blood donation seems better. Certainly “capitalistic” mindset of get money for everything when it relates to blood is bad. Even if you flag the guy as having bad blood like they do in some countries.
Some people might donate from financial necessity and become ill afterwards. You dont want people passing out due to money for blood scheme.
Finally from what I asked and read... the exams done to those paltry 400-450 ml (pint more or less ?) of blood cost an awful lot ! Those people making question, taking out the blood and handling it cost a good amount too. Roughly estimating in US dollars its probably close to 80-100 dollars the cost in the US to test for various diseases, blood problems and labour. Doesnt leave much for "profit" for blood banks.
So please do donate blood whenever possible... I feel its one of those things that define a good citizen and person. You never know when someone in your family might need it too.
As AngelicGemma said, in a for-profit medical system why should the “suppliers” be a charity? At the very least they should get some kind of tax reciept if it is charity. I don’t produce blood for free you know, it costs food!
