MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Britney sell her blood?

Gaz-R

I have been giving blood for for 23 years now , and including my time in the forces in Germany where we used to donate to the German red cross that visited the camp .

When giving blood to them, they used to give a "goody bag" that had all sorts in it from local shops and suppliers from drinks to snakcks to small gifts. And some guys said thats the only reason they gave (that and time off work to go !!!)

So money may be a real positive enticement (far better than the declining standard of biscuits and weak tea ever will...)

So should she do it for cash cash, if she is that desperate for money then of course she should, there are far more worse things that she may have to do for £100.

But in the grand scheme of things will the max of 3 x donations over a year make any real difference to her financial position ?

So Given that the blood stocks are way down anyway in the country it may be that the NBS will have to consider this enticement anyway. And where would we all stand then ?

Id prefer not to get to that stage, but the prospect of there not being enough blood stocks frightens me so I think that all the adverts in the world with big stars telling us how it helped their family survive is great but not sure it really has a major effect.

And where does the next question rise from , sperm donations being paid for too ??

MoneyGypsy

Hi all,

As an interesting point it is actually not legal to 'pay' somebody to take part in clinical trials or to sell human blood/tissue under English law (Wales is also governed by this, in Scotland it is similar but they are governed by a different law for the tissue bit). Instead those who take part in trials are 'compensated' for their time and effort and reimbursed any expenses.

In my view, however, this is mere semantics. The sums that volunteers for clinical trials receive are not insignificant and certainly a factor in their decision to participate. Trials companies keep records of the reasons that volunteers take part. Generally the volunteers say that they are doing so for money rather than helping others, and that the level of payment is the most important factor in their decision to participate.

Also after the fiasco at Northwick Park a while ago (where several volunteers became seriously ill because of a drug given during the trial), far from putting people off participating, the Medical Research Council was inundated with calls by people wanting to know how to get onto trials. This was because previously they did not know that you copuld get 'paid' for doing so.

I think that it is completely ethical for people to be paid to take part in clinical research. We should, however, be upfront that this is what is actually happening and not hide behind a veil of altruistic reasoning. What we need to ensure is that volunteers and patients who agree to take part are adequately paid for their participation. After all the pharmacuetical company doing the research stands to make millions for their shareholders and the staff that work for the company get paid, therefore, why should we expect people to undertake the time commitment and risks involved without payment? The answer to my mind is that we shouldn't.


Soz for going on so long.

Lol.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

dazchief

i've been giving blood since i was 18 (jeeze thats 17 years of giving blood, crikey!), and I do it because I believe we should all give something back to society. They could give a £1000 pint, but i'd still do it for nothing.

Interestingly, if the people were paid to give blood... i would imagine that the number of people 'donating' would increase substantially... sad state of affairs really isnt it.

Robbo99_2

There is no isssue here. She is desperate cash and the research company are asking for blood. Everyones a winner! People who do not have the ability through no fault of their own to make free donations shouldn't be cornered into doing it.

chockhead

In the USA they have been paying for blood donations for many years so I don't really see what all the fuss is about. What is interesting when I read this thread is that it appears that a lot of people believe the UK Blood Service is run by the NHS, it is not. It is a private company set up to make profits. I used to work for them up until approx 6 yrs ago. Following a donation the bag of blood was taken to the labs where it was seperated into its various components i.e. whole blood, plasma and platelets. The whole blood was then sold to hospitals for £80 a time. Having said that I have been donating since 1970 and still do and am very happy to do so in return for a cup of tea and some biscuits.

sunshinejoclaire

I used to donate blood for free, and it is something I am very passionate about. I no longer donate as I am now ineleiglbe due to long term drugs I have been put on, but i still wholeheartedly agree with blood donation.

That said, I have no issues with being paid to do it for a private clinincal trials company. After all if they are testing on human blood, then they aren't testing on animals...

trejoy

Well she seems to be doing everything she can, 2 jobs and selling unnecessary luxuries so , yes, if things are that bad she needs to. That my measuring criteria - need v can/want.:A

Badger_Lady

I think she's tried to do both :rotfl:

But seriously - this is one of the easier choices - definitely sell, sell, sell. One can be charitable when one can afford to be. But right now, she needs that cash herself.

scubajon72

Regardless of the law about how much you should donate at any one time or the rewards for donating Britney should never be allowed to donate. There's no telling what is in her blood from all the drugs she has been and may well be taking. Personally my view is that ANY person who is known to have taken drugs that are not proscribed by a doctor, or are known to be illegal or dangerous in any way, should not be allowed to donate. Even if on proscribed medication, advice from a doctor should be asked for if you wish to donate while the drugs are still in your system.

Badger_Lady

scubajon72 wrote: »

Regardless of the law about how much you should donate at any one time or the rewards for donating Britney should never be allowed to donate. There's no telling what is in her blood from all the drugs she has been and may well be taking. Personally my view is that ANY person who is known to have taken drugs that are not proscribed by a doctor, or are known to be illegal or dangerous in any way, should not be allowed to donate. Even if on proscribed medication, advice from a doctor should be asked for if you wish to donate while the drugs are still in your system.

Ah, sorry - we're not actually talking about Britney Spears, we're just using her name in the example. "Britney" in this sense is just a normal British citizen .

Sorry if I confused you with my link - it was meant to be a joke :beer: .