this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
94 points (96.1% liked)

News

31023 readers
3212 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
94
Red Cross facing severe blood shortage (thehill.com)
submitted 2 years ago by HurlingDurling@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 42 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Maybe if our healthcare industry wasn't designed to profit capitalists off death and suffering, there would be no such shortage.

I say this as someone who used to donate regularly until I learned how my donated blood was then being ransomed for private profit against sick people that need it.

I won't knowingly support such a system, where genuine charity (not that shit corporations do for tax breaks and marketing, that's called a transaction) is bastardized and betrayed into serving the profit motive.

[–] EtherWhack@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You can try cutting out the middle man and donate to a hospital. I know UCSF has their own blood collection, many other hospitals should be the same

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 3 points 2 years ago

The capitalist ransoming is done by the hospital.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago

Red cross charges $150 a pint to hospitals. Covers overhead and paying staff.

Then the hospital turns around and charges $1,500 for it. A ten fold increase. For nothing.

[–] Tujio@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The system is fucked, yes. But the solution isn't to stop donating. Doing that reduces supply and exacerbates the exact problems you're describing.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If you keep giving into the hostage taker's demands, they'll just keep taking new hostages, and continue to increase their demands over time.

Forever.

[–] Poxlox@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Don't they just sell most of what's donated?

[–] _wizard@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

How else am I getting that sweet insulated tote back?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe -2 points 2 years ago

You're welcome to establish a blood bank operation funded solely on monetary donations, let us know how that goes.

[–] PlasmaDistortion@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Blood transfusions cost a patient $1k-$4k and none of that money is given back to a donor. If they want people to donate, they need to either make transfusions cheap, or pay the donors.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Do you think it is Red Cross that is charging for transfusions?

There's plenty of reasons to dislike the ARC, but this isn't one of them.

Hell, if you'd stopped to think for half a second you'd realize all that will do is increase patient costs and endanger the blood supply.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What is the relevant difference between unpaid whole blood donation and paid plasma donation?

I would argue that the price of blood is inflated due to low supply. Increasing the supply by paying blood donors could very well reduce the unit price of blood, and thus patient costs.

I reject your insinuation that paying people for donating blood poses a threat to the blood supply. The risks to human life posed by an insufficient blood supply are far greater than the risks arising from compensating donors.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Your uninformed opinion on proven medical fact is irrelevant, especially when you don't even know that paid plasma isn't directly transfused into patients, unlike actual donated plasma, and you think there's supply and demand in action for fucking blood transfusions.

Paid plasma is used for the manufacture of various products, anything from makeup to clotting factors. Which, as it happens, are notable for being an increased infection risk over directly transfused blood because their sources can't be trusted to tell the truth about their risk factors.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Quantify the risk, please.

Blood can only be donated every 8 weeks, plasma twice a week. After donating blood, you can't donate plasma for 8 weeks.

The hypothetical "untrustworthy" plasma donors you're talking about are earning about $640 in 8 weeks. I don't see them switching to whole blood donation for $50 or $100 compensation. I'm not seeing how the risk to the blood supply is going to increase at all, let alone significantly enough to exceed the risk of critical shortages in the blood supply.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

Nice try, but no.

Defend your claim that established practice is safe to change. Defend your assertion that the only solution is to open up paid transfusions because the donations are down, compared to efforts to increase those donations instead.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hell, if you'd stopped to think for half a second you'd realize all that will do is increase patient costs and endanger the blood supply.

Still waiting on you to quantify that risk. This is the third time I've asked you to support your initial assertion.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yes, that is exactly what you are doing. Still waiting on you to demonstrate your initial claim that paying donors would endanger the blood supply.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

From the article:

The organization added there was a 7,000-unit shortfall in blood donations between Christmas Day and New Year’s Day alone.

One of the most distressing situations for a doctor is to have a hospital full of patients and an empty refrigerator without any blood products,” Pampee Young, chief medical officer of the Red Cross, said in a statement.

I leave you with two options:

  1. Demonstrate that your claimed threat to the blood supply is more dangerous to patients than a shortage of 7000 units per week; or,

  2. Drop this claimed threat as an argument against paying donors.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yes, exactly:

Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim.

In your initial response, you made a claim that needs justification:

Hell, if you'd stopped to think for half a second you'd realize all that will do is increase patient costs and endanger the blood supply.

You are now demanding that I either accept your unsubstantiated claim, or prove it false. As the link you have spammed in response demonstrates, your argument is fallacious, and the burden of proving your initial claim rests with you.

The only claim arising before yours is the idea that paying people for blood could increase the blood supply. Technically, that claim does require proof, and technically, that proof has not been provided. But, the concept of "basic economics" has been so well demonstrated that refusing to accept that premise would be a profound exercise of intellectual dishonesty.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You think paying ~~donors~~providers would reduce the number of people willing to ~~give~~sell blood?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

No. I think you'd rapidly find yourself in a situation like in West Africa, where the blood sellers typically have 3x the rate of having a blood born illness than the general population.

There is one thing countries that refuse paid transfusables have in common, and that is a near-zero infection risk from blood transfusion. Something that is not true for countries that accept paid "donors."

And the dumbest thing of it all is it still wouldn't reduce costs. It would increase them for patients, so why the hell do it at all?

The problem is not that "donors" aren't getting a cut. The problem is the boomers are the last generation that got massive public awareness campaigns about the importance of donating blood, and they're aging out of the health requirements or just, you know, dying.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 years ago

The very least they could do would be to place a dollar value on the blood, and allow you to claim that value as a charitable donation, reducing your income tax burden.