4 ms·
The difference is who is harmed. A company may have to fire and replace a lying employee, so the shareholders lose some money, but a person contracting HIV from
by CamelCaseName 10y ago
The difference is who is harmed. A company may have to fire and replace a lying employee, so the shareholders lose some money, but a person contracting HIV from a bad blood transfusion is substantially more devastating.
- timv 10y agoSure, but as darawk argued in a sibling thread, that's not evidence that the poor are being exploited. As far as the "Low-Income Americans" from the article are concerned, all sorts of jobs give them an incentive to lie, why should donating blood be considered more exploitative because of it? The question of whether buying blood has a net positive public health benefit is a very real one, but it's unrelated to darawk's ancestor post arguing that selling blood is just another form of work.