Even if it is for profit, it can still be used to save someone's life.
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
155 points (96.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43396 readers
1399 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't have a problem with a for profit model as we live in a monetary system and every donation requires a paid staff and medical supplies as well as a donor's time and willingness as donating is not without some risk.
It is the infinite profit model that is a problem. The immoral example would be sucking every penny out of patients for blood coming from completely free donations. Or worse, requiring people to pay to donate and manipulating them into doing it.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I think paying for blood or other bodily fluids is bad. It provides incentive for desperate people (addicts etc.) to lie on the safety forms to keep getting paid.
I know a few people who donate blood despite not getting anything in return. I personally stopped donating plasma after a few times for health reasons (nothing dangerous in the plasma itself, luckily). To me, being able to help a hospital or a person by simply sitting back and watching shows on my tablet is probably the easiest, laziest charity you can support. The snacks are nice, too.
Not everyone can donate blood, but everyone who is able to, you should consider it, even if you won't get paid for it. You can doom scroll and browse Lemmy like normal, except you're sitting in a weird chair and get free food.
I suppose in the shittier countries, where all blood donation stuff is run for-profit, you should let them pay you if they're making a profit off of you, but I still think it brings a bad incentive.
U.S. here. I "donate" blood regularly to Vitalant. I enjoy the way they do it. You get "points" or often something free for donating (shirts, your name in their sweepstakes to win something large, etc.). You can use the points to redeem gift cards or choose to "donate" the gift card amount back to the organization.
My thoughts: I think these organizations have more donors when they offer compensation, even small vs if they did not. I saw Red Cross offer a chance to win a PS5 once and I'm quite sure it caught some peoples attention and earned them more first time donors -> potential long-term donors.
Never heard anyone getting payed for donating anything in Germany. You can get an compensation for expenses, yes. But this is not supposed to be a payment for your donation, it is supposed to compensate for your expenses. For example: Finding a babysitter or paying for bus, train, gas. Sometimes you have to make a medical examination beforehand, which also can take some time.
The German Red Cross for example explicitly doesn’t pay the donors so nobody gets the wrong idea and tries to donate as much and often at the cost of their own health.
I think the idea that a compensation is equal to a payment is flawed beyond reason. If someone has a problem with any organisation misusing donations for profit, they should (rightfully) engage in changing the law. Categorically not donating at all is…well it’s just selfish and stupid.
Both from Germany:
I remember that in my high school time many in my year went to plasma donation as often as it was allowed to collect the compensation. So while you are right that is legally never called payment, people with a need for cash for sure sell their plasma for money.
Oh and in the public sector there is or at least was in the past also the possibility for donating blood and you get the 2 hours or so for that paid as normal. So the government donated the money for a good course.
I am also from Germany and get payed for donating thrombocytes at my university hospital. The compensation is actually quite substantial imo at (up to) 75€ per session, which can be done every two weeks. The money is however mean to offset the time required, not the thrombocytes donated. So it is correlated to how long it takes.
You get 15€ (?) for up to 15min (if they have to abort very early for some reason or at your first visit where they just draw blood to test), 50€ for up to 1h (which equals to 1 instead of 2 pack of thrombocytes, usually done at your first real donation or if you maybe dont have enough for 2 on this particular day), and 75€ for anything over 1h (which is the norm).
Timewise the hospital is on the outskirts of the city, so most will have to travel a bit, then you have to fill out forms, have a quick talk with the doctor, and finally depending on your parameters it takes anywhere from ~55-70min to extract, during which you are tethered to a machine (which takes out some blood, then seperates out the thrombocytes with a centrifuge, pumps back the rest, and repeat).
One could get philosophical about the topic, but from a practical perspective the money makes a lot of sense imo:
-
It costs them a lot of money to investigate new prospects, so you want reliable repeat donors
-
Each donation already has other costs associated with it. Like for example the kit used during extraction, the staff handling everything and so on. So even those 75€ are just one more expense among many, and from donation to usage probably vanish in the overall costs.
-
For the donor it is quite a substantial time commitment, especially when done regularly every two weeks. Unlike for example full blood donations you'd maybe do twice a year. And you should be reliable and not randomly cancel at the last second, so ideally it also has priority over some other things in your life.
-
the small amount of blood that remains inside the machine is sometimes used for other research (if you agree to it, which i do)
From my own experience i can say that i might still do it without, but certainly not at the same frequency. And considering the time and effort required i don't think anyone could be blamed for doing it less frequently without the incentive. So at least in this case it imo is a fair trade and net positive. Although it does also help that this is a university hospital that directly uses it themselves, rather than a for profit company.
TBH, it was a crucial life line for me at a tough time in my life economically.
I didn't have the energy to work a part-time job and just 90 minutes a week translated to an extra $400-$500 bucks a month.
At its core, it shouldn't be necessary for people to sell blood and plasma, but Americans vote for for-profit health care and their own impoverishment every two years, so regardless of one's thoughts on the matter, your very blood is now commoditized at the consent of the voters.
In germany - I think - blood and plasma donations are most commonly done with the DRK (German Red Cross). I might be wrong, but DRK is not a for profit organization, but "gemeinnützig". Organizations with that status get controlled by the government for it, so they are non-profit. I think the 25€ are an incentive to come and donate, just as the chocolate and drinks and the small goodies, that you get there. And you only can get the money, if you go to one of the fixed DRK locations. If the DRK comes to somewhere near you (as they often do with churches, town halls, schools and universities) you don't get any money. I can at least believe, that these two are monetarily similar for the DRK. If you come to them, they don't need to pay for getting the equipment and people to you. And providing incentives for donating blood is in effect a good thing, as they are working, thus we have more blood to save lifes.
Ofcourse actors later in the chain are probably profit oriented. Though there I would see the discussion disconnected from the donation. It is more about if we want profit oriented actors in healthcare.
And - as always - the US healthcare system seems to do the worst thing possible every time. Sorry, americans, don't want to bash you, but capitalism...
It's actually a separate company - a joint venture I think - not related to DRK. It's octopharma + TMD (Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH), apparently, so probably a private company. The other place I can donate at in my city is the local Uniklinikum (it's like a hospital that's closely linked our university where med students can work). Both provide a monetary compensation for the donation.
Yea, the US is kinda fucked, ngl
O- here. I frequently get called up when the red cross needs donations. We don't get paid either but it's an hour I'm off work and it does save lives.
Hello fellow universal donor. I'm blessed with the same blood type, so I donate the blood when I can at my local hospital. Usually 3x a year.
At first there was not much thought behind it, as both my parents went there too. When I turned 18 they just asked: "Do you want to go too?" And my answer was obviously yes, because why not? It was day off school, after all.
Now it's just automatic. Since I only donate in my local hospital (small town, 15k people) I believe my blood gets to help people. They don't pay for it, it's volunteer, organized by red cross. They used to cover bus ride, but lately switched that for "food stamp" instead. We also get juice, coffee and snack once donated. The good part is, it's still day off work where I live.
If they see it as a scam then they seem to expect certain financial gain from donating. In my opinion this is bad as donating life-saving goods should not be done just for the money.
You can't be scammed if you are doing it for saving lifes (except if they sell the blood to some shady labs instead hospitals).
In order to answer this, I'd need to compare the efficacy of both the for-profit and the non-profit organizations. In some countries you don't get paid, and I don't know if that leads to blood shortages.
Maybe it should be like other charitable donations and there should be a set tax deduction per ml or better yet how about they take enough for donation and decanter a portion out an do blood testing both to make sure the blood is clean but alsoso the individual is aware of they are free of X. You could get like a qr code you can use to identify the results later.
better yet how about they take enough for donation and decanter a portion out an do blood testing both to make sure the blood is clean but alsoso the individual is aware of they are free of X
This is already how they do it here (India). They'll test all donations for a number of infections, and you can give them your mobile number / e-mail / postal address to inform you if they find something.
When people start getting paid for their blood, overall quality of the blood in such country suffers.
Because less rich and more poor people start donating blood. Due to how much health correlates with social status and money.
The mere existence of such buying blood organization has such effect on a whole country.
In my country you can only donate blood for free. But however for your charity government pays you a meal and day of work.
This "compensation" must be low enough and presented in a way people still consider it a charity. Otherwise it has described effect, and people who actually donate blood feel cheated. Also in my country healthcare is "free" and you can receive blood for "free" which seems "fair" to a person who is donating blood.
Source: a book "things you cannot buy with money"