What's your stance on "donating" blood plasma?

Firestorm Druid@lemmy.zip to Asklemmy@lemmy.ml – 160 points –

I've had a little of a debate with a commenter recently where they've argued that "donating" (selling, in their words, because you can get money for it) your blood plasma is a scam because it's for-profit and you're being exploited.

Now, I only have my German lense to look at this, but I've been under the impression that donating blood, plasma, thrombocytes, bone marrow, whatever, is a good thing because you can help an individual in need. I get that, in the case of blood plasma, the companies paying people for their donations must make some kind of profit off that, else they wouldn't be able to afford paying around 25€ per donation. But I'm not sure if I'd call that a scam. People are all-around, usually, too selfish and self-centered to do things out of the goodness of their hearts, so offering some form of compensation seems like a good idea to me.

In the past, I've had my local hospital call me asking for a blood donation, for example, because of an upcoming surgery of a hospitalised kid that shares my blood group. I got money for that too.

What are your guys' thoughts on the matter? Should it be on donation-basis only and cut out all incentives - monetary or otherwise? Is it fine to get some form of compensation for the donation?

Very curious to see what you think

117

Anytime we ask questions about poor people doing things to make a buck, you probably won't find me talking negatively or blaming the people with few to no options.

I've been in a financial situation where selling my blood plasma was an easy, safe, guaranteed amount of money that kept me from getting deeper into the hole. I'm not going to knock anyone who does it, only the shitty social services that fail people to the point they have to sell their plasma to survive.

I've been there myself too. I didn't necessarily have to donate plasma twice a week for a couple months since I could have asked my parents for money, but I'm very reluctant when it comes to asking for money and want to do things independently, on my own as far as possible. So yea, while between jobs, I was reliant on this steady source of income to be able to afford rent. It sucks but that's reality. And yea, I quite agree that this is an underlying systematic failure of the government and not necessarily a fault of the blood bank

In the past, I’ve had my local hospital call me asking for a blood donation, for example, because of an upcoming surgery of a hospitalised kid that shares my blood group. I got money for that too.

In the US, AFAIK you can't get paid for whole blood. If you did, you would have to be paid significantly more than they pay for plasma, given that you can only do whole blood every two months.

To the question, it's not a "scam" by any conventional definition. You are getting real money in return for the plasma.

The problem with the whole system is that if there was no payment for plasma, there wouldn't be nearly enough people donating plasma for the need that there is. (You're typically looking at 1+ hour per session, 2x/week.) That doesn't include whatever travel time is involved. That's a pretty steep time commitment every week for something that's a very nebulous public good.

I think a better question is, is the amount that you're being compensated fair and reasonable? Give the profit margins that are involved in products made from blood plasma, my inclination is that it is not a fair and reasonable amount. Plasma centers in my area vary in how much they pay, but it's typically in the neighborhood of $50-$75 (USD); in other parts it's lower, and in some areas it's significantly higher. It's clear that they can pay more, but choose not to because it increases their profit margin. That is something I have a problem with.

I'm in the US and the local blood centers near me give $20 gift cards for whole blood ($40 for platelets and "automation" whatever the fuck that means (that might be the whole blood donation idk (if that's the case then I don't know what specific donation the $20 is for exactly))). No idea about plasma though.

You get “compensated for you time” not paid so with whole blood it usually only takes 10 minutes so they don’t need to pay as much. With plasma it takes closer to an hour which is why they pay more. A lot of the plasma clinics don’t actually give the plasma to people but instead make drugs from them that they sell for a huge profit

You get “compensated for you time” not paid

That's what they say, but that's not what actually happens. If the phlebotomist fucks up the draw, and your flow rate is so poor that they can't get what they need, you don't get paid. (Ask me how i know this.)

And yeah, IIRC most of the plasma goes to create clotting agents for people with hemophilia.

That’s why I put it in quotes sinces it’s all bullshit but it’s how’s they draw the line

The problem with the whole system is that if there was no payment for plasma, there wouldn't be nearly enough people donating plasma for the need that there is.

In the contry I live in you cannot be paid for anything from your body for a medical purpose; blood, plasma, marrow, organs, whatever. Everybody gets those free if needed.

Then again, its one of the countries with the highest transplant rates in the world per capita, so donating to savw others is deeply ingrained in society.

Donate to a non-profit organization, that's well audited and regulated, that's not a problem.

Donating to a for-profit organization is a huge problem. The incentives are all misaligned. And should not be encouraged.

Theres also some nuance between non-profit and for-profit. Non profit still can / must make some income to pay for expenses, wages. And for profit might still not be cyberpunk style capitalists exploiting under the veil of medical care.

I'm not allowed to give blood since I'm gay and have an active sex life

It’s fucking discriminatory in my opinion and it has always made me uncomfortable filling out the blood donation paperwork.

We can reliably screen for HIV (all blood donations are) why the fuck are homosexuals discriminated against over this.

We can reliably screen for HIV (all blood donations are) why the fuck are homosexuals discriminated against over this.

except that the tests are (per cdc) up to 90 days late in detection. So you may get infected and spend 3 months testing negative.

And judging by OPs being german, where the rule (admittedly only since 2021) is "you may only have fucked one guy for the last 4 months", this seems like being on the safe side, but not completely excessive to me.

bigotry exists in all forms; but it's only the kind expressed by the uneducated & poor that gets rebuke and this one has been committed in plain sight since the 1980's by the wealthy and educated.

That's the worst thing. At this point, they shouldn't even be allowed to even ask that

Do they not just... test the blood before they use it anyway? You'd think they'd want to do that regardless

They do, but HIV infections can take a while to turn up positive while already being transmittable.

In addition to what @LwL said - It has to do with how testing is done, and that some diseases can't really be tested for. It is quite expensive, and is generally done on small samples from lots of people mixed together. If it is positive they split the batch and test again (look up binary search).

The lower the incidence rate of diseases, the larger batches can be done. Ditching certain denographics with significantly higher risks for certain diseases can make testing orders of magnitudes cheaper and faster. (Other groups, at least where I live, include people who recently changed partner, recently went abroad, have ever gotten a blood transfusion, have gone through a recent surgery, have recently been sick, etc. etc.)

tests have been available since the 1980's; they just don't want gays there.

Which is fucking hilarious at this point since the overwhelming AIDS demographic is the straights

Blatantly false. "MSM [men who have sex with men] accounted for 67% (21,400) of the 31,800 estimated new HIV infections in 2022 and 87% of estimated infections among all males."

When you consider that gay and bisexual men make up a small percentage of the overall population--under 5%--the fact that gay and bisexual men account for 87% of all HIV infections in men tells you just how alarming this is.

EDIT: For the people downvoting this - do you have statistics that you consider to be better, or more up-to-date? Do you want to refute them? Then post something and prove the CDC wrong. Downvoting because you don't like things that are factually correct isn't doing anything except making you look like a petulant child.

PS - wear a goddamn condom if you and your partner aren't 100% monogamous. Yeah, no one likes them, I get it. But that's a lot better than getting infected with HIV and needing to pay for expensive anti-retrovirals for the rest of your life.

i bet that the people who made this decision were dealing with the AIDS epidemic

I found out not long ago that I can't donate blood in the US because I'm British and lived here during the 1990's so could theoretically be carrying mad cow disease.

In the UK it's illegal to pay blood or plasma donors, and I think the only time we've had a shortage is due to a cyber attack.

I think they do give you a medal or something after donating a certain number of times.

Yeah you get different levels of rewards the more you do it but it's just stuff like fancy looking member cards, medals and pins

I first started donating blood when I read about shortages, but it turns out that was mostly other blood types. After the entry testing, they recommended me to switch to plasma donations because my blood type was common enough that they'd probably never need my full blood.

If you have a relatively rare blood type, you may be able to help people even if they have enough blood to help most people.

I think the larger issue is that the blood supply is for profit in the US. Everyone is getting exploited, including the people that require the transfusion.

I donate regularly in Canada and give it away for free as does everyone else. I don't donate plasma because it's not especially useful with my blood type (AB+ is universal for plasma, O- for other products).

I'm just surprised there isn't a shadow industry of selling blood products fed on people altruistically donating for free (like, as far as I can tell, every country with public healthcare does) with corrupt pseudo-legal marketing ensuring that blood products are not sold for profit (because they sell the bag, not the blood, or they sell the service of delivering blood, or some bullshit like that)

Donating blood plasma is good as it helps people in need. Sure, it sucks that there is a company in the middle making a profit, but not donating is not the solution to that problem, as it hurts the people in need more than the corporation in the middle.

I think its kinda similar to the tipping situation. Yes it sucks that restaurants don't pay their employees properly and that you have to tip to support the employees. But not tipping hurts the employees rather than the restaurant owner.

In both cases, if we want change, we need to change the legislation.

The US has laws that bans paying for blood, but they can pay for plasma. All healthcare in the US is a for profit venture.

If you donate blood in the US, you are the only one in that process who is making a donation. Every other organization in the chain between your donation and the patient who receives it will add a markup for their own profit.

Organ donations work the same way. If you get killed by a car, and your heart is used to save someone's life, they will be charged nearly two million dollars for the operation. Not only does your next of kin not get a cut of that two million, your estate will still get a bill for whatever treatment failed to save your life.

I can think of little that is more unethical than being the only one donating. Plasma is better because the donors are paid. If healthcare is for profit, at minimum the profits should go both ways. Plasma is the one time it does.

In France you're not paid for your donation, well, it is a donation, but the organization collecting it is kind of for profit as they are not entirely relying on public funds. The blood and plasma are still going to save lives so I'll continue

If your blood plasma helps save somebody’s life, either directly as an infusion or indirectly in research, that’s not a scam. The monetary reward is compensation for time and an incentive to try to meet demand. The donation is free, but the time and energy required to make the donation are an expense. That’s what the compensation covers. It’s only a scam if your donation goes to feed a literal or wannabe vampire or their bathing fetish.

My disorganised thoughts in no particular order:

In Australia, donation of blood products is not paid. I think you get a cup of tea and a few biscuits (“cookies”).

I don’t have a problem with that, and I’m very grateful to those anonymous people who volunteered their time and blood so that I could have blood during my stem cell transplants.

I also don’t have a problem with people in other countries who are paid for their blood products; I understand what it’s like to be in dire straits, and blood is a renewable resource. However, I feel that if a company is making money from selling blood, they should be paying a fair price to donors.

Ethically, I feel that any donation of blood (or organs) should be completely anonymous, altruistic, and uncompensated in order to remove any hint of obligation between donor and donee. The idea of being paid for donations makes me personally uncomfortable, even though I just said that I don’t mind other people being compensated.

I’d like to contribute and save lives and whatever, but I have incurable blood cancer (multiple myeloma) and they won’t allow me to donate.

youguysgetpaid.jpg ?

Here if you go donate you get a sandwich and a day off work

Do you get paid for the work day? I used to donate plasma twice a week because that $240 a month was the only money I had. I stopped because now I don't need that money and I work too much to have time for it.

If I got a paid day off work for every donation I would be there as often as they let me.

Depending on what you donate, you may have to wait 3 months between one donation and the next, we often donate whole blood; Plasma donations must be at least two weeks apart I think. I'm pretty sure there must be a limit to the numbers of days off you can get. It's all managed through the national mutual assitance org, the employer must seek reimbursement through them as they would for sick days.

I'm assuming you're in Germany? So envious of your labor rights there and in the broader EU.

We were allowed to donate plasma eight times per month. $25 first donation of the week $35 second.

Italy, actually. It's bonkers to me how the labor movement, so strong in the USA at the start of the past century, is so weak nowadays.

For example it's outrageous to me that you hold voting on a work day while not making it a national holiday or day off of some sort.

The thing about making it a holiday is interesting. Everyone in the service industry would be forced to work, probably extra hours as well. Because here any holiday means people who are lucky enough to be middle class and above will be consuming, especially eating out or ordering food in.

I'd prefer mandatory voting like Australia but with ballots mailed to everyone automatically. Make it as easy as possible.

Idk, we've got Ferragosto for example as a national holiday where EVERYTHING is closed..

People are getting paid to donate plasma?! The only scam here is that I've been giving it away for free!

I donate to the Red Cross here in America. Honestly, I'm happy to donate. I get to sit and relax for a couple hours, the Red Cross I go to has TVs attached to the chairs so I can watch a movie while I donate, and I get free drinks and snacks afterward.

They're always hurting for plasma donations and you can donate every 28 days, so I visit frequently. I don't really see how it could be a scam. They always tell me plasma is more important than blood donations. Blood goes bad quickly, but they can keep plasma for a long time. And pretty much everyone can use it. Unlike blood, which you need a compatible type to use.

I donate because I enjoy helping others. I'm not looking for a way to personally benefit from it, so I don't really care if they offer to pay or not. I feel like that should be the default mindset going in. But I understand there are people who are hurting financially, and donating blood or plasma is an easy way to make a buck. So I'm fine with them offering to pay for donations.

Donating blood and donating blood plasma isn't the same thing.

Where did he say this?

They didn't say that, but the other commenter still speaks about a point that also caught my eye:

It doesn't matter if donating blood or plasma is able to be longer stored. When you need one of them, you can't substitute with the other. So the medical area still needs both. So you still need people donating both. If a medical institution is telling me they only collect plasma, I would question their motives, because both are needed for helping people.

Maybe the donating place just gave the short explanation and they meant, that for blood donations there are other better places, but it could also mean, they don't earn enough money with that. And THAT is I think what the other commenter meant with their admittedly short comment.

I read it in the sense that they were hurting for plasma donations in particular, and that because they can store it for longer, a single donation has more potential impact, not that they only took plasma donations.

Yes, this is what I meant. The Red Cross said my blood type is rarely needed in my area so they don't care about me donating blood. But they're always needing plasma donations, and you can donate them more frequently than blood, so they recommend I do that instead.

Blood is just as bad, but yes, the markup is insane in the US, compared to the machinery and time to collect plasma.

Blood, for instance gets sold by the red cross to hospitals for around $215 per unit. Hospitals in turn will charge anywhere from $580 to $3,000 for it.

Also, most blood is used for elective surgeries that are not life critical. Any time you hear about their being a blood shortage that could effect what hospitals can give, what they actually mean is that there's plenty for emergency and necessary use, but they may have to postpone elective and cosmetic surgeries.

Obviously, the issue would be solved easily by paying people enough to be worth it to donate. People would be lining up if they got something like $100 to donate a pint. Something that only takes about 30 minutes to do.

Worth remembering that a lot of serious life-changing surgeries are 'elective'

By which i mean shit like joint reconstruction, endometriosis removal, ear grommets, cataract removal, etc.

Yes, but no one dies if they get pushed back 2 weeks. Also, the cosmetic surgeries are first on the chopping block.

And again, it's supply and demand. The hospitals want the profit. They don't want to pay any overhead for the product.

Actually people notoriously do end up becoming critically comorbid due to blown out waiting lines for elective surgeries

I've donated plenty of times, because it makes sense that there is no other way to save lives than to donate.

On the other hand, I've been wondering for years, that while I've been told a million times that "blood reserves are low - donate blood now!", I've not ever heard that a single person died due to lack of available blood.
Why would something like that not be reported if you want to motivate people to donate?

My personal guess is that this comes because "lack of avaiable blood donations" isn't a valid cause of death, the cause of death is whatever else (gun shot wound, knife severed artery / complication during surgery etc), thus it's hard to pinpoint. Also Doctors may try to "save" blood, when they know little is available, and people may die that may have lived if they had gotten (more) blood, but also they may not have and it is hard to tell.

1 more...

You can donate blood in 20 minutes. It takes an hour plus to donate plasma

Am I going to sit in a chair for an hour plus without any compensation? Maybe once or twice here and there. But you can donate plasma at least twice a week.

It requires two donations for a single unit. If you donate once and don't donate the second, then your first donation is unusable. You have to get them to donate twice.

When I was donating plasma, it paid about $75 for each donation. 50 first, 100 for second. The money is pretty good. $300 a month is a lot for a lot of people.

If you didn't compensate people for plasma donations, a lot wouldn't do it. They currently need more people to donate.

Plasma "donation" is a good thing.

I do in fact sit down for an hour once or twice a month to give plasma without compensation and many other people do so as well, given that it’s illegal to be paid for blood or plasma here in the Netherlands, but I can see why paying people a bit would help.

The reason people can’t get paid for it here is to avoid perverse incentives, mainly people donating when they shouldn’t, lying on the form or to the doctor to pass the pre-donation check.

Donating blood/plasma is a good thing. Economic conditions in which poor people feel obligated to give blood just to make enough money, whilst rich people don't feel this same pressure, are bad.

I don't know how exactly private blood banks work (in plenty of countries blood banks are public and presumably non-profit), but regardless, I assume nobody can get blood transfusions if nobody donates. So until the political system is overhauled just keep donating? Your blood donations aren't the root cause of capitalism

I get around $120 a week to sell my plasma in the middle of the US at a BioLife center. Payment varies a little depending on the center you go to and various promotions, but it's usually pretty close. It's about 2-3 hours a week commitment.

In college, the money was necessary, but now I do it for extra side cash. My wife and I own a home, two vehicles, and are doing well, so I don't need the money. I do it to supplement non budgeted items for fun, like weed, one or more snowboarding trips to actual elevation, and bass guitars and bass guitar accessories to name a few. Could it pay more? Probably, but I don't feel like I'm getting ripped off for the time I'm giving.

I used to double dip, and do my hourly job while donating, which got me out of the office earlier, and got extra money. Now I'm salary and have meetings and shit.

Holy shit, 120$ per week? Now I definitely feel like I'm being ripped off 🐧 I thought we were having it good with 25€ per donation plus the odd additional promotions.

It used to be like that for me too - extra money to spend on leisure time. Mostly video games, in my case. Nowadays, I can't go that regularly, sadly, because my new apprenticeship is full-time and doesn't leave too much time to go donate plasma. But 120 sounds amazing

Well, that's a new thought. Donating blood is necessary, so we get paid by the Red Cross to do it, in money or a small meal. But the Red Cross then immediately upsells that blood to the hospitals that need it. In a sense, we are exploited workers without a contract.

The real reason donating blood is unethical is because we cannot unionize.

I wouldn’t mind it for that reason. The Red Cross do good work that need to be financed.

Here in the Netherlands they do that by contracting out volunteers for first aid services to events like fairs and runs. The volunteer donates their time, gets trained for free, the Red Cross gets paid by the organiser and makes money for their mission and an small army of experienced first aid people and EMTs to help out when disaster strikes.

I’m such a volunteer and it’s a great distraction from my normal job. I also get to use my skills outside of the Red Cross, e.g. as an action medic at protests.

Cool sidenote: there’s this network any CPR certified person can join to get alerted by emergency dispatch when CPR is needed close to your home or work. This has helped massively to get CPR started within 6 minutes mostly anywhere in the country, even when ambulances can’t get there that quickly.

Even if it is for profit, it can still be used to save someone's life.

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.

Preaching to the choir, bud

I'm agreeing with and expanding on what you said. It's an open forum; that's how conversations work.

Did what I say offend you? I wasn't being snarky. I was agreeing with you and had nothing further to add

I donate plasma regularly - at least once per month. It’s illegal to pay people for blood or plasma here in the Netherlands so I’m just in it for the good feels. I also like the downtime and relaxed chatting and joking with the people who work there.

The same worries exist here too though. The blood bank isn't allowed to pay you for your plasma, but it's absolutely a for-profit organisation that runs on selling your plasma to pharmaceutical companies.

I still believe it's a good thing to donate, but sometimes it feels a little icky that there's also a businessmodel around it

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

You lack the cultural lens of America. About half of our country governs from the perspective of "why should I?" with the most negative and self-preserving mindset possible.

Why should I pay for others healthcare, even if it means they pay for mine? Why should I donate my blood if it doesn't benefit me?

Solve that problem by giving you $25-100 for your "donations"

100% and I'm sure you know this too but just to add to your point, I believe the US government spends more money per capita on healthcare than anywhere in Europe, so even under the "Why should I?" lens, the current approach costs individuals more because they have to pay for it in taxes and then also in insurance premiums, copay etc.

It's not just for the benefit of society as a whole, "you" as an individual would also be financially better off under a socialised system.

The important part is that the individual people spend more per capita for worse healthcare, too. You, private citizen reading this, are worse off and are paying more than you would be with socialized medicine in this country. Pretty much no matter what level you're at, too.

As someone from the US i always saw it as people can't afford to take time off to donate, so compensating them for their time makes it so they can afford to donate.

A few states make it illegal to be monetarily compensated for your blood or plasma, but others it's completely fine.

I'm sure.its a bit of that too, but I do feel like the ultimate reason is still, "well why are you taking time off to do something that isn't only benefitting you?"

basically the same mindset that created this culture is what developed compensation for our time, as opposed to just taking the loss for the day to do a good thing.

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.

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.

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.

Considering you said you're german, I think the whole Idea of "Ehrenamt" and subsidiaries of it runs counter to the entire system that has been built. If we monetize everything, I think it's fine that people get paid for taking time out of their day and bodies to do good shit.

Basically, don't do unpaid labour in this system?

I donated blood for many years, starting the first day I was allowed (mom took me). I’ve been an organ donor from the day I was able and am loud about that. And for a few months after college I sold plasma for money. It definitely felt scummy, but I think it’s ultimately a good thing, though it is selling part of your body to a for profit company at a rate that’s pretty bad. So the cons are really that it definitely feels seedier than whole blood donation and that the phlebotomists are worse. I can’t donate blood anymore because they gave me a track mark and I can’t risk my other elbow’s veinous access.

But it got me through a rough time

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).

I side with you. I've donated over a gallon of blood and blood products throughout the years. You're helping someone. The reason they pay you is to incentivize coming and doing it. It's painful for the donor, and it takes a while for your body to recover. The company doing so is (in my experience, anyway) a non-profit organization. They exist to help people. They do make money, but that's because they have to pay their employees and donors, as you've mentioned.

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.

I think it's fine to pay some for it.

I don't know how your healthcare system is structured. But let's assume there is a profit motive in getting you to donate blood. Let's also assume profit is a problem. So we want to reduce profits.

  1. If you get €25 per donation that is €25 less profit for them per donation.

  2. The demand for blood is going to stay the same. No one will decline a live saving surgery because it's a bit expensive and will pay anything to get it. Increasing supply will decrease profit margins.

If it’s an adult doing the selling, then it’s a consensual interaction.

Exploitation in the negative sense requires a violation of consent.

I think that the commenter lives in a country with for-profit hospitals. In Europe hospitals get subsidized so they all make good money and aren't driven to pursue profits. Prices are being kept low because of taxes and social health care. There are some for profit hospitals, but not many.

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.

How could selling something you naturally produce be a scam? I can see how easily you could get ripped off on the price, but in the end you're still making money and automatically replacing the plasma lost. Even if they're not actually using the plasma for their stated purpose, I'd still argue the donator is not the one getting scammed. I guess it really comes down to your definition of "scam".

I've donated blood and plasma and each time I've been offered rewards but don't bother claiming them. I do it to help others. My job pays me enough to live on.

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"

The only way you're getting blood out of me for any reason other than medical purposes is if you pay me or commit a crime. That goes for the plasma too.

That's a terrible sword to live by. How do you expect to get blood, then? If you're unconscious you can't take it by force.

If you get paid it ain't a donation. It is trading human body parts

Getting a flat rate compensation of expense isn't really selling though. I think thats a bit too polemical.

Yeah, it's technically illegal to sell blood and plasma but they get around this by paying you for your time instead. Gee, I wonder why this loophole doesn't work for prostitution.