Just a few weeks ago a movie called Daybreakers premiered. I went to see it and it was great. The movie had the best vampires, actors and actresses. The story was about a huge population of vampires that have blood banks that use human blood to feed its people. It is hard times and the blood banks are drying up, the vampires need more blood. They try to make a blood substitute and try to accumulate more blood through uncivil acts. The idea of blood banking is a popular subject not only in movies but its popularity has leaked into all parts of our lives. There are blood drives in schools, commercials for the Red Cross on TV, books about blood banking, there seems to be an article in some periodical somewhere locally every week. This idea of blood collecting is in the background of everyday life and we don’t even notice it.
What do vampires, scientists, traders, capitalists, doctors and sick people all need to prosper? Blood. Ever since the earlier 1900’s blood has become an important resource. It is such an important resource. Today we are facing almost the same dilemma as the vampires in the movie Day breakers. We need blood to help our people overcome illness. It seems there is always a shortage of blood in the blood banks. In the article Donating Blood is the Recession-Proof gift, Canadians are deciding to donate blood because they don’t have the means of donating money. This is an excellent thing. People have less money to donate; people have less time to donate because they have to work more. Why not donate something that is free?
In the book Tissue Economies Blood, Organs, and Cell Lines in Late Capitalism by Catherine Waldby and Robert Mitchell dove into the idea of the market of blood and tissues. They first presented the ideas of Titmiss. Titmiss, the author of The gift relationship: from human blood to social policy, was talking about how a gift economy, first presented by moss, was the reason that commoditizing blood and the tissues market is a bad thing for every nation and the human race.
He was saying this because of a few reasons. When whole blood donations were made it was given and received anonymously. This created an equal status in the nation. Poorer people weren’t always giving to the rich and the rich were giving to the poor. When blood was given in Titmiss’s time and moss’s time it was given person to person which created a sense of pride, that you’re helping your neighbor, and a sense of belonging and giving, doing your part to help the people in your nation. In the United States there is a dual system of giving blood. “Patients might find themselves in either a voluntary or credit system according to where they fell ill” (Waldby, Mitchell: 11). I even found a company called Bloodbanker.com where they can diredt you to banks that pay, banks that don’t pay, banks that pay for plasma, banks that pay for plasma but not for blood. Titmiss said that the selling of human tissues and blood was “dehumanizing.” The process of selling your body creates a price on your life and a price on your values. This Titmiss says is a social dilemma. The selling of blood and tissues in the United States and other regions created a greater risk of contamination. This is because people desperate for money could and would lie on the applications so they could get there 20 dollars. Titmiss said that a gift system is a “Social pool that pulled from all, better security against infectious contamination, and little wastage of blood supply” (Waldby, Mitchell: 13).
Later in Waldby and Mitchell talk about how Titmiss has very valid observations but that the industry of blood donation has changed. The reasons why Titmiss’s arguments aren’t as warranted is that first blood technology has changes. The reason why technology is a factor now is that blood is being chopped up into many smaller pieces, plasma, red blood cells white blood cells, platelets, etc. The problem with Titmiss’s argument was that people were doing person to person giving and now people don’t know who or where there blood is going to. Another reason why cutting blood up into pieces doesn’t apply to Titmiss’s argument is that people who might have donated their blood could have it cut up without them knowing and then have some company profit from the selling of the parts of the blood. This would unknowingly hurt the gift idea. A third reason why Titmiss’s argument is complicated by technology is that when blood is cut up it is transferred internationally defeating the national pride and connectivity. Also the information age has brought patents and exclusivity making the blood people donates a property used for making money. People with good intensions aren’t really donating. Finally Waldby and Mitchell point out that there is really no such thing as a real free gift. There is always a underlying notion. (Waldby, Mitchell: 23-24).
So what is the answer? I believe that blood donation should be free because people should not have to be desperate enough to donate blood for money and the paying for human tissue is very unethical and disgusting.
Works Cited
Blood Bags. [Online image] Available http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/media/blood-bag2.jpg, January 22, 2010.
Bloodbanker. (2010, January 20). Retrieved from http://bloodbanker.com/
Cartoon Blood Bank. [Online image] Available http://bloodbankpartners.com/photos/Bloodbank.jpg, January 22, 2010.
Donating blood is the recession proof gift. (2008). Medical News Today, Retrieved from http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/133227.php
Waldby, Cathrine, & Mitchell, Robert. (2006). Tissues economies blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism. Durham NC: Duke University.
