Why can't you be paid for donating blood?

[fleabag]

I sort of understand not getting money for organs but what about blood? Everybody has blood, I don't see why they shouldn't be compensated.. At least that way we'd have an ample supply of it to feed the vampires.

 

[gooseman]

Ask the FDA, it is their rule.

 

[Xylitol]

because then, the number of donators would vastly shrink (dunno why chrome says donators is spelled wrong)

 

[tasmanian]

Originally posted by: Xylitol
because then, the number of donators would vastly shrink (dunno why chrome says donators is spelled wrong)

How so?

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: tasmanian

Originally posted by: Xylitol
because then, the number of donators would vastly shrink (dunno why chrome says donators is spelled wrong)

How so?

Because no one wants to make money. duh

 

[eits]

because the definition of a donation is to give something without any reward

 

[Superrock]

It's a bad system imo because they make money off of the blood you donate. Because of this system they're constantly harassing you with phone calls if you donate once.

 

[tasmanian]

Originally posted by: eits
because the definition of a donation is to give something without any reward

They give you cookies and juice. So is it really donation?

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: tasmanian

Originally posted by: eits
because the definition of a donation is to give something without any reward

They give you cookies and juice. So is it really donation?

they offer you cookies and juice. it's not a reward or an obligation to take them.

i've given blood plenty of times where i'd pump it out, get taped up, then hit the pavement running because i was late for something. didn't take any nasty famous amos cookies or grotty non-pulp having, made-from-concentrate orange juice. blech...

 

[Freshgeardude]

Originally posted by: Superrock
It's a bad system imo because they make money off of the blood you donate. Because of this system they're constantly harassing you with phone calls if you donate once.

i think the point of donating is to save lives, not for someone to make money. while at a hospital they may charge it on a bill to your insurance, the cost of the process from taking your blood to separating it to the different occasions it will combat it.

plus, people need to eat

 

[Andrew1990]

I never gave blood before, but do you get as many cookies as you want or is there a limit? Also, on the orange juice, is it the good stuff or the concentrate? I may consider giving blood depending on these questions.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
I never gave blood before, but do you get as many cookies as you want or is there a limit? Also, on the orange juice, is it the good stuff or the concentrate? I may consider giving blood depending on these questions.

there's a limit, usually, of 1-3 bags per person on cookies... 1-2 on juice.

the juice is horrible (i.e. it's made from concentrate)

 

[Scouzer]

i'd also imagine they don't pay because they don't want junkies donating blood.

 

[Newbian]

Why bother with blood when the money maker requires no needles? 😉

 

[benzylic]

Originally posted by: Scouzer
i'd also imagine they don't pay because they don't want junkies donating blood.

this

and people strapped for cash would just go from blood bank to blood bank and donate blood, and eventually mess up their bodies.

getting paid for it just seems like an all around bad idea, imo

 

[paulney]

I donated blood a lot, and always wondered - with all the money they make off of the blood (they resell the blood to cosmetic industry once it expires for medical use), how come they can't afford some decent food for donors.

Back in the days of the Soviet Union if you donated blood, you got a voucher for a free breakfast before donation and a free hot meal afterward for lunch. I think you also received a day off the next day (if you wanted). You also received a bunch of benefits for being a constant donor, and I don't mean lame license plate frames or key holders.

Don't think this system is in place any more though.

 

[episodic]

I've often thought it was bogus too - not to get any money for blood donations. Heck, I'd give all the time for an andrew jackson. . .or 2.

 

[Mardeth]

Sime reasons. Money would effect peoples honesty. More lying about sicknesses and stuff.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: mxrider

Originally posted by: Scouzer
i'd also imagine they don't pay because they don't want junkies donating blood.

this

and people strapped for cash would just go from blood bank to blood bank and donate blood, and eventually mess up their bodies.

getting paid for it just seems like an all around bad idea, imo

That could be largely prevented by issuing a doner(seller?) card that works like a credit card, and tracks when/where you've donated(sold). That would help prevent people from over donating blood.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: tasmanian

Originally posted by: Xylitol
because then, the number of donators would vastly shrink (dunno why chrome says donators is spelled wrong)

How so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...d_vs._A_Friendly_Favor

People are actually more inclined to donate for free than to donate for a small amount of money. The payment would have to be fairly high to encourage enough people to donate to offset this strange facet of human nature. Yes, it's totally counter-intuitive, but if blood banks gave small payments to donors they would likely receive fewer donations, not more.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: tasmanian

Originally posted by: Xylitol
because then, the number of donators would vastly shrink (dunno why chrome says donators is spelled wrong)

How so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...d_vs._A_Friendly_Favor

People are actually more inclined to donate for free than to donate for a small amount of money. The payment would have to be fairly high to encourage enough people to donate to offset this strange facet of human nature. Yes, it's totally counter-intuitive, but if blood banks gave small payments to donors they would likely receive fewer donations, not more.

while that could be true, in this economy people out there are willing to do many things for money, so that example of the lawyer in that wiki article wouldnt happen. lawyers in most cases, such as my dad, wont do work that wouldnt provide income. reason being, he is allways busy in his office so if he could be working on something that provides income vs something that wont, he would take the one that gives him money

 

[DayLaPaul]

You can get money for selling plasma, which is better than selling blood since your body replenishes it much faster. More trips = more money.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: DayLaPaul
You can get money for selling plasma, which is better than selling blood since your body replenishes it much faster. More trips = more money.

But won't that one dude from Spiderman try to steal it from you on your way there???

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: DayLaPaul
You can get money for selling plasma, which is better than selling blood since your body replenishes it much faster. More trips = more money.

I sold my plasma in Amsterdam, but the money didn't last long. It was all gone in a night under embarrassing circumstances.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Freshgeardude

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: tasmanian

Originally posted by: Xylitol
because then, the number of donators would vastly shrink (dunno why chrome says donators is spelled wrong)

How so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...d_vs._A_Friendly_Favor

People are actually more inclined to donate for free than to donate for a small amount of money. The payment would have to be fairly high to encourage enough people to donate to offset this strange facet of human nature. Yes, it's totally counter-intuitive, but if blood banks gave small payments to donors they would likely receive fewer donations, not more.

while that could be true, in this economy people out there are willing to do many things for money, so that example of the lawyer in that wiki article wouldnt happen. lawyers in most cases, such as my dad, wont do work that wouldnt provide income. reason being, he is allways busy in his office so if he could be working on something that provides income vs something that wont, he would take the one that gives him money

Sorry, but I tend to trust Dan Ariely's published and peer reviewed research over your intuition and second-hand anecdotal evidence. The whole point of Ariely's work is to show that the human mind is governed by fundamentally irrational patterns of thought.