News
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. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. 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.
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Still waiting on you to quantify that risk. This is the third time I've asked you to support your initial assertion.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof
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:
I leave you with two options:
Demonstrate that your claimed threat to the blood supply is more dangerous to patients than a shortage of 7000 units per week; or,
Drop this claimed threat as an argument against paying donors.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/false-dilemma-fallacy
Yes, exactly:
In your initial response, you made a claim that needs justification:
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.
Edit: since you added a "false dichotomy" argument, I'll address it as well. You were asked to choose between defending your previous claim or not defending your claim. That is a Boolean condition. There is no intermediate or alternate position. Any action you take will either be in defense of your position, or not in defense of your position.
You have the choice of maintaining your claim or not maintaining your claim. That is a second Boolean condition. Again, there is no intermediate or alternate condition. Any action you take will either be to maintain your previous claim, or not
Two Boolean conditions leaves a total of four options. Defend and maintain, defend and not maintain, not defend and maintain, not defend and not maintain. Of those four conditions, only two are rational. Defending your claim, yet abandoning it is not rational; not defending your claim yet maintaining it is not rational.
The options I provided are the only two rational options regarding your initial claim. "False dilemma" only applies to this scenario if you wish to pursue one of the two demonstrably irrational options.
www.logicalfallacies.org/justfuckinlyin
You think paying ~~donors~~providers would reduce the number of people willing to ~~give~~sell blood?
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.
Does West Africa collect plasma as well as whole blood?
West Africa has an extraordinarily low donation rate, even with payment. I don't accept that they are a reasonable analog to the US.
Which is the bigger danger to patients, the risk of infection from paid donors, or the risks posed by the 7000-unit per week shortage the Red Cross is claiming?