5 ms·

Given the lack of blood donors, what is your personal stance on paying people to donate blood to blood banks? (to be used strictly for "trauma resuscitation, su

Given the lack of blood donors, what is your personal stance on paying people to donate blood to blood banks? (to be used strictly for "trauma resuscitation, surgeries of all kinds, and a variety of medical patients", not for voodoo science anti-aging treatments)

mannanj 8y ago
Wondering this as well. I used to donate blood, but why do it for free when technically speaking hospitals generate revenue off my blood? How hard would it be really to incentivize me to show up and compensate me for my time, after all, the doctors, nurses, etc who are handling our blood wouldn't do it for free so why should I?
- oligopoly 8y ago
  This always rubbed me the wrong way. Remember back in the day Red Cross doing this and this was before Haiti scandal. Could be a decent business to pay x amount for people to donate blood and sell it to hospital. People would be incentivised to donate blood, hospital would get more off it and given they are already paying for it.
  - killjoywashere 8y ago
    It significantly increases the risk of blood borne pathogens.
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  Paying for blood significantly increases the risk of blood borne pathogens.
  - CharlesColeman 8y ago
    > Paying for blood significantly increases the risk of blood borne pathogens. Because the money incentivizes those who shouldn't donate to donate (and attempt to bypass any controls that prevent them from donating)?
    - rv-de 8y ago
      I've also felt annoyed about the dishonesty of the blood donation market but that makes actually "some" sense. then again they should just register donors and extensively check them plus paying. then everybody wins.
      - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
        Running extensive checks before each donation would dramatically increase the cost, I would think.
        SilasX 8y ago
        You don't do it on each donation, you screen specific people and then disproportionately use them.
      - CharlesColeman 8y ago
        > then again they should just register donors and extensively check them plus paying. then everybody wins. That probably won't work. You want donors to voluntarily disqualify themselves when they become ineligible (like if they've started taking a prohibited mediation), and they're going to be less likely to do that if they're coming in to get paid. You can't monitor their lives 100% and I doubt it's practical to run screening tests for every problem. To use a software analogy: it's defense in depth strategy. Their polices screen for honesty, and then they do technical screening as a further check. Neither's perfect, but together they're probably more effective than either alone.
    - SilasX 8y ago
      That seems like an easily solvable problem. "We've tried the most security-hole ridden version of the idea ... and we're all out of ideas!"
killjoywashere 8y ago
It significantly increases the risk of blood borne pathogens

mannanj 8y ago

Wondering this as well. I used to donate blood, but why do it for free when technically speaking hospitals generate revenue off my blood? How hard would it be really to incentivize me to show up and compensate me for my time, after all, the doctors, nurses, etc who are handling our blood wouldn't do it for free so why should I?

oligopoly 8y ago
This always rubbed me the wrong way. Remember back in the day Red Cross doing this and this was before Haiti scandal. Could be a decent business to pay x amount for people to donate blood and sell it to hospital. People would be incentivised to donate blood, hospital would get more off it and given they are already paying for it.
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  It significantly increases the risk of blood borne pathogens.
killjoywashere 8y ago
Paying for blood significantly increases the risk of blood borne pathogens.
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  > Paying for blood significantly increases the risk of blood borne pathogens. Because the money incentivizes those who shouldn't donate to donate (and attempt to bypass any controls that prevent them from donating)?
  - rv-de 8y ago
    I've also felt annoyed about the dishonesty of the blood donation market but that makes actually "some" sense. then again they should just register donors and extensively check them plus paying. then everybody wins.
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      Running extensive checks before each donation would dramatically increase the cost, I would think.
      - SilasX 8y ago
        You don't do it on each donation, you screen specific people and then disproportionately use them.
    - CharlesColeman 8y ago
      > then again they should just register donors and extensively check them plus paying. then everybody wins. That probably won't work. You want donors to voluntarily disqualify themselves when they become ineligible (like if they've started taking a prohibited mediation), and they're going to be less likely to do that if they're coming in to get paid. You can't monitor their lives 100% and I doubt it's practical to run screening tests for every problem. To use a software analogy: it's defense in depth strategy. Their polices screen for honesty, and then they do technical screening as a further check. Neither's perfect, but together they're probably more effective than either alone.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    That seems like an easily solvable problem. "We've tried the most security-hole ridden version of the idea ... and we're all out of ideas!"

killjoywashere 8y ago

It significantly increases the risk of blood borne pathogens