> I agree because blood donation is safe. If it weren't, or we were talking about kidneys or something, it gets more complicated. Unsafe procedures provide eve

> I agree because blood donation is safe. If it weren't, or we were talking about kidneys or something, it gets more complicated. Unsafe procedures provide even more justification for compensation. Otherwise, there's a shortage of people who will be willing to go through it for free, leading to even more exploitative incentives - peer pressure in the best case[0], or outright trafficking in the worst. Remember that you can't prevent market activity from happening; you can prevent it from happening out in the open, and hope that the inconvenience and other risks are enough of a deterrent (look at the war on drugs, or sex work). But for an individual, there is no situation in which the stakes are higher than being denied a lifesaving treatment. That's the point at which, in the extreme case, even kidnapping or organ harvesting seem like viable options (to them), because they are literally the only option, other than death. You might think I'm being hyperbolic, but this literally happens. But if you can ensure an adequate supply from people who are properly informed about the risks and capable of consenting, there is no incentive to engage in that sort of activity. [0] for example, pressure from an infertile relative who wants to use your eggs to conceive