It seems pretty obvious to me when it comes to blood donation that if you can, you should. It’s much like digital television in that respect, but not as entertaining.
Thing is, not everybody does, quite obviously. Excuses range from the perfectly valid (“I’m not allowed to”) the vaguely reasonable (“I have a lecture”) to the positively intriguing (“I didn’t think they needed it”).
Ultimately though, there are clearly plenty of people out there who just can’t be bothered to get off their arse and give blood, and technically there is no real reason why they should, assuming they aren’t phobic.
If you believe that we have some sort of fundamental right to decide what happens to ourselves then you probably fundamentally agree that we own our own bodies, after all, if somebody else owns them then they have a right to decide what happens to us, which amounts to slavery: the ownership of one human being by another.
You would therefore agree if I say that, were the government to tell you to cut your arm off for the benefit of someone you don’t know, you’d quite possibly say no, and you’d have a fundamental right to say no since its your arm, not the government’s.
Running with this theory, your blood also belongs to you, therefore, however selfish it may be, you have a fundamental right to not give it to the government, even if a poor innocent little girl needs it, if you can sleep with yourself at night for not doing it.
If you can’t then you would give blood, for free, out of the goodness of your heart.
However, lets think on. Not enough people are doing this. Neither are enough people giving bone marrow, or a number of other vital things. Far too many are attached to their bone marrow, a number are lazy, and a good deal are probably too scared but won’t admit it.
So how can we tempt them? How can healthy people be made, without infringing anyone’s rights to choose what happens to themselves, to help their fellow man?
We can’t make it a legal requirement for a number of reasons. Firstly, it wouldn’t be practical unless you were willing to criminalise someone just for not wanting to give blood. A touch draconian, I would say. Secondly, people who can’t do it (those with a phobia of needles) just can’t, its not really their fault however you rationalise it, and I reckon there would be a rise in trypanophobia cases with a few blaggers trying to evade the carpet measures. Thirdly and most importantly, it is an infringement of rights and theoretically, state endorsed theft.
An article in the Economist a few weeks ago outlined a way of legitimately and simply solving the shortage of kidneys, and, as anti-intuitive as it is, I think it could be applied to blood and bone marrow as well.
Pay the donors.
Don’t be too surprised, it may be incredibly anti-intuitive but it could be the simplest way to solve a gap in the donation/reception cycle.
Those who didn’t want pay (I wouldn’t take it if I was earning) don’t have too, but there are people out there (a number of them students) who would gladly sell their blood, even though they probably wouldn’t be bothered to go down to the blood bank in the first place. Hell, its how they maintain sperm stocks.
If altruism isn’t a good enough reason for you to give you’re blood then a cool, crisp tenner might be. You could head up to the pub afterwards and get a couple of pints in (I’m not endorsing this but it does save money if you’re looking to get trashed, although the hangover is a killer) or maybe go and buy a certificate to show what a brave mercenary sod you were.
It’s not a necessarily nice thought, but on the whole people aren’t always that altruistic. And if you are in any way a believer in a liberal society, you can’t force them to be a good Samaritan.
Indira Gandhi once said “People tend to forget their duties but remember their rights.” When people equalize their recognition of those two things we won’t need the free market to regulate something which ought to be readily available. Until then, it’s possibly the best way.
