On most days there is not a life-threatening shortage of blood on hand, so this is really a non-issue.
But let us suppose for the sake of discussion that blood were just as scarce as organs.
Many people aren’t allowed to donate blood because of various risk factors. A lot of those risk factors are just “shit happens” kind of stuff, but many of those risk factors come down to voluntary activities (e.g. recently getting piercings or tattoos, travel outside of the US that puts you at risk of various diseases like malaria or CJD). Should people be put at the end of the line for blood transfusions if they were excluded from donating?
And then there is a pool of people for whom blood donation is extremely traumatic. They are eligible to donate, but the nausea and/or fainting they experience makes most of them choose to never donate again, despite their strong desire to be of service. Would we put them at the end of the line too?
The biggest chunk of last sunday’s cover in one of my regional newspapers was celebrating 50 years of our kidney donation program. Every single kidney transplant in that program has been and shall continue to be free at point of delivery (or prepaid with taxes, if you prefer). The double-recipient grandmother playing with her grandbaby on that cover with daughter, son-in-law and son looking on didn’t have any out of pocket costs unless you want to count the cost of flowers delivered to her room from the hospital’s flower shop.
I disagree with the idea of punishing donors, but this isn’t a good analogy. The last time I donated blood, my fellow donors were alive and thus did not have to decide about donating in advance.
OTOH, when I started donating at least you got blood free if you needed it if you were a donor, but had to pay if you were not. That was just about 50 years ago.
That’s how our present opt-in system works, and if you register you get a “registered donor” card to carry in your wallet in case you don’t look properly before crossing the road. But there’s still a shortage.
They still say they will, after the change, consult family members in the (statistically unlikely) event of asking for organs, but presumably, in law, only strong religious objection would have much effect in the absence of a prior registered opt-out. Squeamishness or “grandad wouldn’t have liked it” won’t work. And I suppose the register will carry forward existing registered opt-ins.
Even with opt-out there will continue to be a shortage. Simply not enough people healthy enough to be donors die in a manner that allows for donation. The waiting list will be shorter, but there will still be a waiting list.
I am a blood donor and I was a registered organ donor already before the opt-out system was announced - but I think there is an important difference between organ donation and blood donation.
Blood donation is not risk-free to the donor. When you donate blood, you choose to accept those risks. I don’t believe it would be fair to have those risks imposed upon you (even though they are mostly both mild and fairly unlikely)
Agreed. There is no point in punishing non-donors, and I personally thing it would be morally and ethically wrong to do so. Healthcare (within the system we are discussing here) should be something to which everyone has fair access without qualification.