The value of saving lives

Click to view images full size.

What I read

In "Should we pay people for donating blood?" (2018), Padraig Belton suggests that a compromise which reimburses donors for their time and inconvenience rather than for their blood plasma might solve the controversy over whether providers of plasma, the pale liquid that holds our red blood cells, should be paid for it. Plasma is used to treat a wide range of diseases, from immune deficiency to burns, with demand for this internationally traded product increasing rapidly, which has led some economists to support paying providers in order to maintain the necessary supply, while others, including the World Health Organization (WHO), argue that in order to maintain a “safe, sustainable blood supply,” it should be given freely not turned into a for-profit business transaction that might take advantage of poorer people.

As counted by Google's Word count tool, this summary paragraph is 130 words, which is just within the maximum of 130 words. If I had had more time, I would have tried to shorten it a bit more. It is two sentences, which is safely within the allowed four sentence maximum. The first sentence begins by telling readers the source of the ideas, as required to avoid being guilty of plagiarism (see page 36 of Skillful RW3), and there is one short quotation of four words that I copied and pasted from the source that I chose to summarize, while all of the rest states the ideas from the source in my words. It is academic writing. 

___________________________________ 

My response 

Although I think both sides have good arguments to support their competing opinions, I tend to favour allowing profits to be made from giving blood. This might offend some people, who think we should do it because it's the right thing to save lives, but I'm not sure that their argument is strong enough. I don't disagree, with the argument that we should act from moral motives rather greed for money, but being morally right is not a good enough reason to use the law to force people to do something. For example, if we agree that it's morally right to look after our own bodies, does that mean that the government can make up laws to ban eating chocolate cake, which we know to be unhealthy since it contributes to all the diseases that come from excess sugar consumption. Of course, people who favour banning drugs like marijuana, heroin or yaa baa will probably agree that chocolate cake should be banned because it's unhealthy, just as they might also support bans on cigarettes and the deadly drug alcohol, but they are wrong. People have a right to determine for themselves how they live their own lives, and even if they do things that harm themselves, including getting drunk or giving themselves diabetes and heart disease from chocolate cake, their wishes must be respected except when they directly harm other people. 

Now that I think about it more, the idea that we should act from selfless, morally superior motives is not only morally suspect, I think the WHO is wrong. When we compare the success of communist nations with that of capitalist nations, it is the capitalists that are doing much better at supplying goods and services to more and more people. Who, after all, would choose to live in despotic China under the dictator Mao if they could instead live in the free and open society of the US, where life is not only freer, but vastly richer. It was only after Mao died and a better leader took power in China that that unhappy nation began to grow economically as greater liberty was allowed to its citizens. We see the same in the South American nation of Venezuala, which was destroyed by socialist policies while it's market oriented neighbours thrive. I am sure that Thailand would also do much better if there was less government interference in business and the personal lives of Thai citizens. 

This response to the ideas from my chosen source is two paragraphs, which is the minimum. Our response should me at least twice the length of the summary paragraph. Although, as see in the examples on page 9 of Skillful RW3, the style is fairly formal as appropriate to an academic context, avoiding the kind of language that would be OK on Facebook or in an email to friends, it is not an academic essay. It is OK to jump from one topic to another, and personal reflection is perfectly OK. This is a personal response to the ideas in something we have read. 

___________________________________ 

My question

Should the law be used to settle disagreements about what people choose to do with their own bodies? 

Although you might want to write it as a couple of sentences, only ask one question to prompt your readers, us, to respond to. And we might ignore your question if a different response comes to mind. Again, our purpose here is not to write an academic essay. 

___________________________________ 

Reference

• Belton, P. (2018, November 15). Should we pay people for donating blood? Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46197271

• The reference citation for the source is written in APA style. Copy my examples for BBC News articles. Later, we will practice writing APA style reference citations for other sources.