That we should pay people to donate blood

The world is facing a very serious crisis right now. I'm delighted I'm able to talk it out. Those who miss out on blood donations aren't so lucky.We need blood in hospitalsThe average person has a ton of blood in their body (well, that's a hyperbole, but still) - loads more than they actually need to stay healthy. When somebody's blood level drops, however, hospitals need to give a transfusion. Car accident victims often require around 100 pints of blood to stay alive, which is an impressive amount given that a healthy adult body only contains around 10 pints [1]. Cancer and certain blood diseases are also common reasons why people lose blood.The point that I'm trying to make is that blood is valuable and necessary. I don't think my opponent will strongly contest this. The question in this debate is whether we should be held ransom to the alturism of others, or if we should be allowed to offer them something.We're running outIn the third world, they've never had enough blood, partly because of the prevalence of blood diseases, and partly because of traditional cultural beliefs discouraging donation. In the first world, there is a bigger problem - although more than in the third world, only about 3% of the population gives blood [1]. When you recognise that the population of these countries is aging, reducing the pool of eligable donors while simultaneously increasing the demand for blood (due to the diseases that old people get), you can recognise that the world is facing a major problem [2]. The US Red Cross blood bank has around 7 days supply (as of the time of writing this) of all blood types. That means that even under the status quo, if supply stops or demand increases for even just one week - perhaps because of a major disaster - then the country has no more blood to go around. If that gets any worse, then death due to surgeons running out of compatible blood is a very serious and very troubling issue. Already, there are shortages several times a year in many first world countries. It will get worse.This is a particularly big issue for minorities, whose blood is hard to come by for many reasons, primarily a lack of donors [3]. Unless we get some incentive up there soon to boost those numbers, minority groups are going to have real problems when they get sick.Nobody should have to die because of something we can all afford to give away. That's the real moral tragedy here. Nevertheless...This debate is not an ethical questionAll blood donations are technically paid, the question is simply who pays to whom. When the Red Cross or whoever your local blood bank is gets the blood, they split it into various components, test it, and finally sell the components to hospitals or medical centers. They don't usually just give it away - somebody needs to pay for all the testing, storage, sterilisation, doctors, scientists etc who make the blood donation process happen, and that's the hospitals, who charge the patients. Government will often subsidise this, so all taxpayers bear a part of the burden. Businesses pay, due to lost time by employees giving blood. Even donors must pay - it's their time, it's their blood. They make a loss. Well, sort of. In the USA and my country, New Zealand, donors are paid in cookies and juice. It's almost like they're trying to entice 3-year-olds to donate - money is a much better incentive. In any event, the "donated" blood is paid for. Any ethical opposition to this is in fact opposition to blood banks, not to my model.Even if they were paid for the act, it's still a really nice and alturistic thing to do - to give up something to quite literally save the life of another. One could be greedy and not do this. The alturism comes from the willingness to give it away, not the reward recieved.These facts are beginning to be recognised by the scientific establishment as well [4].Better to have too many donors than too fewPaid blood donations work to increase donations, especially among younger donors [5] which is pretty important given the aging population issue. That's an indisputable fact - if people get more, then more often than not they'll give more - and if anybody would not donate if paid, then nothing in my model stops them requesting not to be paid. That's their right, and a very respectable choice (probably because they're only doing it to look "charitable"). However, it's also important to get the numbers up as high as possible. One experiment on the crowding-out effect noticed that it only existed when people were forced to take money in return for blood - when they were offered to give that money to charity instead (basically doubling the alturism) there was almost no crowding-out effect at all, and even when forced to take money there was no significant difference among men [7]. The "get more and we'll give more" effect has previously been observed with different forms of monetary compensation for blood in several large-scale field trials [8]. Back when commerical blood-money was the norm in America, America had more per-capita blood donations than anywhere else in the world [9].It's true that any scheme that seeks to increase donation rates will invariably attract more people with diseases etc. This is not a problem with over-donation, but with imperfect screening methods used. No bloodbank has ever been oversupplied in history, even before the 1970s when paid blood donation was normal and common in most countries - and indeed, even in countries where it is still legal today, primarily in the third world. Medicine has come a long way since the 70s where diseased blood and dirty needles were still a big concern. Today, these things are unheard of out of first-world blood donation centers, primarily because of new medical technology and better screening methodologies. And in the third world, things are getting a lot better, very quickly. We need to do more, and the greater the incentive, the greater the impact. Money is one of the best incentives that there is. There is strong and convincing evidence that it is risk profiles, not renumeration, that determine safety [6].Illegal blood markets suckAs with most body parts we can spare (kidneys etc), if there is a shortage of supply (and there will be unless we change our ways), people will turn to underground alternatives. They'll pay people to give them blood even if the legitimate places won't let them. The pernicious side effects of black markets for blood or other body parts are considerably more serious than black markets in general. There is no incentive on black market suppliers to do all the testing, proper storage, sterilisation, screening, medical history check-ups etc. The blood transfused is likely to be of much lower quality and possibly diseased, putting both patients and donors in medical jeopardy. And if they lose, it's the healthcare system that pays. Often that means needing even more blood transfusions, a vicious cycle that can cripple hospitals until blood donation itself becomes a futile exercise. And that's all legitimate desperation, because when you're a patient that will die tomorrow if they don't get blood, you're unlikely to be held back if some shady guy offers you some cheaply while legitimate doctors refuse to even let you have a chance.That's the kind of dystopia I'd like to avoid in this debate - we should be enabled by blood banks to cure ills, not held to ransom by them to gamble with our lives. Quality controls are vital, and unpaid supply is simply not going to be sufficient. The only way to get sufficiently large amounts of additional supply to avoid this future, without sacrificing quality, is with some kind of renumeration.The resolution is affirmed.Sources1 - http://bit.ly...2 - http://1.usa.gov...3 - http://1.usa.gov...4 - http://1.usa.gov...5 - http://bit.ly...6 - http://1.usa.gov...7 - http://bit.ly...8 - http://bit.ly...9 - http://bit.ly...