21 ms·
> Paying for blood significantly increases the risk of blood borne pathogens. Because the money incentivizes those who shouldn't donate to donate (and attempt
by 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 agoI'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 agoRunning extensive checks before each donation would dramatically increase the cost, I would think.
- SilasX 8y agoYou 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 agoThat 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!"