Got a free shirt! Last time I donated blood, it wasn't fun. This time it was touch-and-go for a while, but I managed to hold on to my senses, keeping myself distracted with a great story. One of the reasons I donate (along with, hopefully, helping people stay alive) is to try and get over this weird hospital phobia that sometimes freaks me out. I've been fortunate in that my hospital visits are always for other people, but one day it will be my turn. I also wanted to take advantage of the free shirt promotion. Not because I need the shirt (ended up with an extra large, anyway), but I want to support the idea of providing positive incentive to donors beyond appealing to the goodness of their hearts. The goodness of hearts is great and all, but money talks, and if the goal is to collect blood, we should consider what works. In this story about management problems at the American Red Cross, there was a linked article that described a surplus in blood inventories, largely due to improving surgery techniques that reduce blood loss. It mentioned the amount that hospitals pay for blood: If there were a shortage of willing donors, offering them a small portion of that payment would go a long way toward increasing supply. Of course, it would encourage people who shouldn't donate, but blood of volunteer donors has to be tested for safety anyway, so I don't know if payment would increase hazard. Probably the bigger objection would be philosophical. Is it ethical to pay people to donate parts of their body? Should kidney donors be paid? I think there is a strong argument that they should be. For now, it's free shirts and cookies. Team Hubski could use some help!
Nonprofit organizations collect whole blood from unpaid donors, but hospitals may pay $225 to $240 a unit, according to executives in the business, which covers a variety of costs, including testing.