Blood Commerce- Ethics and Economics in the Global Blood Industry

Blood Commerce- Ethics and Economics in the Global Blood Industry

Q1: Is Sol Levin Running a Business “Just Like Any Other Business,” or Is His Company Open to Moral Criticism?

Plasma International faces both moral and corporate dilemmas in selling donated blood to deserving clients. From the business perspective, the company is justified since it sold safe blood. After unsuccessfully searching for potential donors locally, the company settled on rural West Africans whose blood was deemed safe for human transfusion. Previously, the company was getting blood from individuals addicted to drugs and alcohol, which led to cases of hepatitis being reported among the recipients. The company also followed the correct procedure by acquiring the affirmation of tribal chieftains in West Africa who approved the sale of locals’ blood to the company at a relatively low price (90 cents per pint). The existence of commercialized blood trade is not new in the US (Shaw, 2012).

Q2: Did Plasma International Strike a Fair Bargain With the West Africans Who Supplied Their Blood to the Company?

Plasma International, however, is guilty of exploiting naïve and poor Africans into selling their blood at a critically low price. The company went ahead to charge exorbitant prices, thus benefiting from others’ pain. Although the company followed all the legal procedures needed, including approval by the State Department and the US national government, paying West African donors per pittance was utter exploitation. In its defense, the company argued that additional costs were incurred, including screening, transportation, and storage costs.  Plasma International was merely defending itself since it did not provide the exact cost incurred to disapprove exploitation allegations.

Q3: Contrasting Ideals of the British and U.S. Blood Systems

The UK blood transfusion system is reputable for safety and voluntary blood transfusion.  The system is controlled by a unit within the National Health Services (NHS). The system allows altruistic donors to freely donate blood to assist in the medical treatment of unknown patients. On the other hand, the US blood transfusion comprises many organizations with different ideals. Some collect blood based on referrals by medical facilities. However, other organizations have adopted a commercialized system, collecting blood to resell at a profit (Leveton, Sox & Stoto, 1996). Without a centralized system, the US blood supply is vulnerable to abuse by those seeking profits. That is unlike the UK, where blood collection is free and targets predetermined individuals.

Q4: Pros and Cons of Commercial Transactions in Blood From the Egoistic, the Utilitarian, and the Kantian Perspectives

Commercialized blood transfusion has its advantages and disadvantages. One primary benefit of the process is that it helps donors discover unknown health risks. Once donors donate blood, the feedback helps them discover previously unknown medical conditions such as blood pressure and hemoglobin levels. Transfusion, though commercialized, helps the donor provide positive service to the community. The realization that one might have saved a life improves their sense of wellbeing. On the flip side, organizations that focus on profits risk supplying unsafe blood. Besides, commercialized collectors may ignore the ramifications on the health of a donor.

Q5: Does the Buying and Selling of Blood reduce altruism?

A voluntary blood transfusion is a pure form of altruism. People seeking to help others are motivated to donate blood freely, as long as someone gets help. However, commercialization may deter those with true altruistic intentions from donating blood. Besides, those who donate blood targeting monetary compensation may stop once the compensation stops (Archard, 2002). Altruism and money should not be mixed; hence collectors conducting donation exercises should declare their motive from the outset, such that only willing donors can. Personally, being an altruist, I am discouraged from donating blood if it is commercially driven.

Q6: Singer Suggests That Although the Right to Sell Blood Does Not Threaten the Formal Right to Give Blood, It Is Incompatible With “The Right to Give Blood, Which Cannot Be Bought, Which Has No Cash Value, and Must Be Given Freely if It Is to Be Obtained at All.” Assess That Idea. Is There Such a Right?

Little is known about the interaction between the willingness to donate blood and the right to sell blood. However, one may argue that buying and selling blood discourage altruistic motives, which is not always the case. For instance, in the US, the majority of blood comes from those motivated by monetary gains. Monetary incentives are used to make the process more effective and maximize donors who show up. Besides, research shows that the primary motivation for blood transfusions in the US is money.

Q7: Is Commercialization Something to Be Applauded or Condemned

Organ transplants save lives, whether donated or commercialized. Organ trade has gained traction, especially in the US. There is an option to get donated organs from dead people, but research shows that such organs do not last as long as live organs. For instance, a live kidney lasts between 12-20 years from the time of donation, while kidneys obtained from dead individuals have a lifespan between 8-12 years. The commercialization of these organs does not prevent those who are willing to donate from doing so. Given the benefits that come from treating organs as commodities, the practice is justified. Besides, those who cannot afford these organs have access to organ banks from dead people.

Q8: Do We Have a Moral Duty to Donate Blood?

Donating blood is a voluntary offer and not a moral obligation, save for a few exceptional cases. The exercise is not deemed a moral duty since it involves some costs on the part of the donor. Obvious costs such as time, physical pain, and occasional side effects such as nausea are costly on the part of the donor (Murray, 1991). However, people are naturally obligated to donate to their family members. For instance, a parent whose blood type matches their child is morally obligated to donate as long as they have no underlying health conditions.

References

Archard, D. (2002). Selling yourself: Titmuss’s argument against a market in blood. The journal of ethics, 6(1), 87-102.

Leveton, L. B., Sox Jr, H. C., & Stoto, M. A. (1996). HIV and the blood supply: an analysis of crisis decision making. Executive summary. The Institute of Medicine, National    Academy of Sciences Committee to Study HIV Transmission Through Blood and Blood Products. Transfusion, 36(10), 919-927.

Murray, T. H. (1991). Are we morally obligated to make gifts of our bodies? Health Matrix, 1, 19.

Shaw, W. H. (2012). Business Ethics and Military Ethics: A Study in Comparative Applied Ethics. Journal of applied ethics and philosophy, 4, 22-33.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Sol Levin founded Plasma International. He recognized the profit of selling safe and uncontaminated blood. The business was going smoothly until Tampa paper exposed the purchase price of the blood and how much it was being resold for. Blood marketing is nothing new in the U.S. However, an important study compared and contrasted it to the National Health Service in Great Britain which relies on a voluntary system of blood donation. Economist Richard Titmuss argues that the commercialized blood market is wasteful of blood and plagued by shortages. Philosopher Peter Singer has elaborated on this point and has established a conflict between financial incentives and moral or altruistic conduct in other areas. Read Case 2.3 “Blood for Sale” in the textbook on pages 80-82 and address the following questions in a paper that will be submitted to Dropbox:

Is Sol Levin running a business “just like any other business,” or is his company open to moral criticism? Defend your answer by appealing to moral principles.
Did Plasma International strike a fair bargain with the West Africans who supplied their blood to the company? Or is Plasma guilty of exploiting them in some way? Explain your answer.
What are the contrasting ideals of the British and U.S. blood systems? Which system, in your opinion, better promotes human freedom and respect for people? Which system better promotes the supply of blood?
Examine the pros and cons of commercial transactions in blood from the egoistic, utilitarian, and Kantian perspectives.
Are Titmuss and Singer correct to suggest that the buying and selling of blood reduces altruism? Does knowing that you can sell your blood (and that others are selling theirs) make you less inclined to donate your blood?
Singer suggests that although the right to sell blood does not threaten the formal right to give blood, it is incompatible with “the right to give blood, which cannot be bought, which has no cash value, and must be given freely if it is to be obtained at all.” Assess that idea. Is there such a right?
Many belive that commercialization is increasing in all areas of modern life. If so, is it something to be applauded or condemned? Is it wrong to treat certain things- such as human organs- as commodities?
Do you believe that we have a moral duty to donate blood? If so, why and under what circumstances? If not, why not?