Blood for Sale: Equal Access to Medical Benefits
Case 2.1: Blood for Sale (Shaw et al textbook, pp. 99-101)
1. Is Sol Levin running a business ‘just like any other business’, or is his company open to moral criticism? Defend your answer by appeal to moral principle.
Ans: Sol Levin is running a business like any other business person in the world, which is to make a profit. However every person has an equal right to life which means equal access to medical benefits be it rich or poor. If a market in blood is developed, the ability to pay would determine who could buy blood, while people will be motivated to sell their blood for economic needs. The very wealthy will end up being buyers of the blood being sold by the very poor. A market in blood would thus benefit the wealthy while putting pressures on the poor to endanger their own health. Such an unequal distribution of health benefits and burdens would be unjust.
People living in extreme poverty are often desperate and ill-informed. Profit seekers would take advantage of this, obtaining "consent" from those who feel compelled by necessity to sell their blood, and who may not have a clear idea of the consequences of what they were doing. Such a scheme would encourage the most vulnerable in society to treat themselves as commodities and allow others to violate their rights for commercial gain.
2. Did Plasma International strike a fair bargain with the West Africans who supplies their blood to the company? Or is Plasma guilty of exploiting them in some way? Explain your answer.
Ans: It is exploitation of the poor to feed the pockets of Plasma International. A fair market would have allowed them to sell their blood at the same prices as in the US which is of a significant price increase and greatly improved their lives. This behaviour of Plasma International fits into the egoism model. The sale of the blood benefits one agent, Sol where he buys low and sells high. He knows that African nations are more backward and knows they will agree to the 15cents per
1. Is Sol Levin running a business ‘just like any other business’, or is his company open to moral criticism? Defend your answer by appeal to moral principle.
Ans: Sol Levin is running a business like any other business person in the world, which is to make a profit. However every person has an equal right to life which means equal access to medical benefits be it rich or poor. If a market in blood is developed, the ability to pay would determine who could buy blood, while people will be motivated to sell their blood for economic needs. The very wealthy will end up being buyers of the blood being sold by the very poor. A market in blood would thus benefit the wealthy while putting pressures on the poor to endanger their own health. Such an unequal distribution of health benefits and burdens would be unjust.
People living in extreme poverty are often desperate and ill-informed. Profit seekers would take advantage of this, obtaining "consent" from those who feel compelled by necessity to sell their blood, and who may not have a clear idea of the consequences of what they were doing. Such a scheme would encourage the most vulnerable in society to treat themselves as commodities and allow others to violate their rights for commercial gain.
2. Did Plasma International strike a fair bargain with the West Africans who supplies their blood to the company? Or is Plasma guilty of exploiting them in some way? Explain your answer.
Ans: It is exploitation of the poor to feed the pockets of Plasma International. A fair market would have allowed them to sell their blood at the same prices as in the US which is of a significant price increase and greatly improved their lives. This behaviour of Plasma International fits into the egoism model. The sale of the blood benefits one agent, Sol where he buys low and sells high. He knows that African nations are more backward and knows they will agree to the 15cents per