Selling Blood Is a Business - Assignment Example

Blood for sale case study by The of the The of the School The and where it is located The Date Blood for sale case study In modern times, some actions have raised controversies especially those related to human life. For example, selling of blood, kidneys and other body organs has raised controversies with various arguments in disfavor of these actions rising to with the hope that governments will completely regulate such markets. The rationale behind this is that body organs cannot be treated as simple commodities and their sale should be treated as illegal. This is mostly because of the issues of bureaucracy and the treatment of the poor by the rich who in this case exploit the poor by deceitfully taking their precious organs. In order to understand the ethics that surrounds organ sale, an analysis of a case of selling blood for profit and the various controversies that are associated with it helps in answering questions related to business ethics as it pertains to this issue. A Summary of the Case In this case, Sol Levin, a former stock broker finds another lucrative market that involves the sale of blood. He therefore comes up with Plasma International, an organization that coordinates all these efforts by buying blood from people and selling it to others. However, not many people are willing to sell their blood and for this reason, the company turns to buying blood from donors. This blood, is however rejected as it contains some contamination. The company is therefore forced to seek out for pure blood, which takes them all the way to West Africa where arrangement with the government and the local authorities allows them to buy blood for as low as 15cents and later resell for 25 dollars per pint. The business is attacked by one of the concerned media and this raises discussions from as far as Great Britain where blood is simply obtained through donation. Other discussions on the ethics related to this business are also presented with the hope of coming up with one major solution and conclusion. Case Study Questions Question 1 Is Sol Levin running a business “just like any other business,” or is his company open to moral criticism. Levin’s business is not “just like any other business” and is in morally questionable in every aspect. This is firstly because of the product they engage in selling, which is a human product. Blood is associated with life meaning that Levin’s business is selling life, which in the real sense should be given freely and not sold to people because the rich will have advantage over the poor. Secondly, the method they use to obtain the product makes the business morally questionable. They buy blood cheaply and sell it expensively. The fact that they are obtaining blood from poor Africans and selling at to rich Americans makes the business wrong as it is based on pure exploitation. Question 2 Did Plasma International strike a fair bargain with the West Africans who supplied their blood to the company? Or is it Plasma guilty for exploiting them in some way? Considering the relationship between Plasma International as well as the local people in Africa, it is obvious that there was no fair bargain between them and the Africans were exploited. Although the Africans were not forced to sell their blood and they were made an offer and they accepted it, they business is not being conducted on the basis of fair bargain. In business ethics, there is what is commonly known as a fair market value where the producer and the consumer are treated fairly in terms of prices. However, this case involves a broker who overcharges the consumer at the expense of the producer. To make the deal a fair deal, Plasma International would have made the price of buying the blood almost equal to the price of selling the blood mostly based on the fact that this is blood, which contains human life and not any other environmental commodity. Question 3 What are the contrasting ideals of the British and the U.S. blood systems? Which system, in your opinion, better promotes human freedom and respect for people? Which system better promotes the supply of blood? It is obvious that the British as well as the US blood systems have a completely different approach towards organizing their work. The former stands on the ground that blood is a precious substance that it can hardly be sold because money diminishes its significance. On the other hand, the blood system of the United States argues that blood should be recognized as any other commodity that can be freely sold and bought since it is not restricted by the law. The British blood system, therefore, promotes human freedom and respect for people, which in this case includes those who are donating and those who are receiving blood. The British blood system is also more humanistic in the way it handles blood because blood system in Great Britain is more result oriented because eventually the well being of the people who receive the much needed blood is considered. Since blood is often recognized as a substance that is able to make difference between life and death, it should be treated as an extraordinary one. Contrary to this fact, the blood system that exists in the United States better promoted the supply of blood. It is argued that turning this substance into a commodity might discourage other people to give blood freely; in the end there are many people who are willing to turn their blood into money. As a result, the companies end up with a significant supply of blood that might later be used for the good purposes. Question 4 Examine the pros and cons of commercial transactions in blood from the egoistic, the utilitarian and the Kantian perspectives. From the egoistic perspective, the commercialization of blood seems to benefit Plasma International and its owners. The Africans do not benefit from it since they are paid very little amount for a commodity that should not be bought or sold at all bought given its importance in human life. However, by commercialization of blood, Plasma International has made it possible for this product to be bought as a commodity. The end users also do not gain as much as the company selling it especially when some people are poor and may simply not have the sufficient amount of money to cover the buying costs. In other words, by putting a high price over the commodity, Plasma International acts egoistically since sufficient amount of blood can only be given to those individuals who are able to afford it, which means profits to the company. In other words, it a person is not wealthy enough one simply can not enjoy all the benefits of it and Plasma International does not seem to care about this as it care for the profits obtained from the business. The Utilitarian perspective puts its focus on the consequences of actions on the people’s well-being. The most ethical action based on this perspective that brings benefits to the greatest number of people and benefits must supersede the harms. The actions of Plasma International when considered using this theory are ethical since more good is obtained than harm. Because of the blood obtained and sold by Plasma International will safe many people and there are numerous patients within the country who desperately need the blood. The same utilitarianism perspective also supports actions that maximize profits and in this case, Plasma International are maximizing profits by selling the blood at high prices than the buying prices. This is so given the fact that the Africans involved entered into a contract on their own meaning that they are the ones accountable for their decisions as it was voluntary. In addition, both parties, which include the sellers, will be eventually happy because of the actions of Plasma International as the sellers are paid while the buyers’ lives are saved. Arguing this using the Kantian ethics shows that there are hardly any advantages of commercialization of blood. Although, it is quite possible that by establishing a blood company, the founder exercises one’s good will since maximizing the return on investment may not be his or her major priority. In spite of the fact that this is rarely the case, it is obvious that some people will be able to strike the right balance between doing business and helping others. However, the Kantian perspective would greatly condemn commercialization of blood in general. Indeed, if selling blood and obtaining it at a certain price is made a universal law, then there will surely be people who will inevitably be deprived of a chance to receive the much needed blood. In addition to that, it is important to treat people as ends not as means; however, it is obvious that those individuals who donate their blood and receive money for it are regarded as means of production. (Wood, 2008, p. 87). Question 5 Are Titmuss and Singer correct to suggest that the buying and selling of blood reduces altruism? Does knowing that you can sell your blood (and that others are selling theirs) make you less inclined to donate your blood Titmuss and Singer’s suggestion that buying and selling of blood will reduce altruism is very correct. This is because the paid blood system will commodify the body and this might discourage those donating the blood voluntarily to do so. In addition, the people might be motivated by money to an extent that they might hide vital medical information just to get the money. They also might do it frequently to an extent that their own health will be affected, which means that they are definitely not being motivated by selflessness but the desire for money. Question 6 Singer Suggests that although the right to sell blood does not threaten the formal right to give blood, it is incompatible with the “right to give blood, which cannot be bought, which has no cash value, and must be given freely if it is to be obtained at all.” Assess that idea. Is there such a right? Peter Signer talks about “the right to give blood, which cannot be bought, which has no cash value, and must be given freely if it is to be obtained at all” (Shaw, 2011, p. 79). One might object that there is no such right in reality. First of all, there is no special right that entitled a person to give one’s blood specifically. In other words, if a person is recognized to have freedom over one’s body, one is able to do whatever one wants to with the parts of it. As a result, donating blood is simply one of the options that a person has available. Secondly, it is not stated specifically that blood does not have cash value. Indeed, everything in this world can be whether free or exchanged for money. The question is the amount of money that the object is exchanged for. Indeed, it may be rather difficult to find the right compensation rate; however, there is no limitation on making the blood a commodity that is freely sold and bought. Finally, the idea that blood must be donated freely is nothing but a point of view. It has already been stated that this substance is a rather precious one and one should not treat it as any other object since it has a direct connection with one’s well being. Nevertheless, the manner in which giving blood is organized is left to the discretion of the people who are involved. As a result, the parties that are involved might decided to make the donation an action that is compensation with a certain amount of money. Question 7 Many believe that commercialization is increasing in all areas of modern life. If so, is it something to be applauded or condemned? Is it wrong to treat certain things-such as human organs -as commodities? It is beyond any doubt that commercialization is a rather controversial process and it happens in many different aspects of one’s life. However, it should be regarded as a natural one and not applauded or condemned. The contemporary world is globalized and so are the societies in it. In order to find a common ground for the people, the social environments all over the world rely on economic relations. Indeed, it would have been rather difficult to organize the movement of blood around the world or even a particular country in case there had not been some kind of a financial common ground. Some people might argue that it is wrong to treat certain things, for example blood or human organs, as commodities. However, there is something that they fail to realize: the condemnation of commercialization is often produced by the fact that a person is not satisfied with the amount of money that one received for exchanging the above mentioned commodity. In other words, people in the world may have changed their minds in case they receive more than they expect. Question 8 Do you believe that we have a moral duty to donate blood? If so, why and under what circumstances? Of not, why not? The question regarding whether there is a moral duty to donate blood is a subject for a heated debated. However, I believe that it is. There are several circumstances that should be taken into account. For example, one might suggest that a person should feel moral obligation to donate blood when his or her relatives are in trouble. This also makes sense from a medical point of view since in this case the chances of success of much higher. In addition to that, if a person has a relatively rare blood type, one should donate his or her blood since this way one will be able to save numerous lives. Indeed, sometimes blood with special characteristics is needed and those people who possess such blood should understand their responsibility and the fact that their contribution may be irreplaceable. As a result, they should be able to help other since one them can provide this kind of help and there is a moral imperative under such circumstances. Having examined all the evidence, it is clear that selling from may be a rather controversial business. That is why one should take many factors into consideration and make sure that the conventional values can be maintained while selling a substance that is rarely treated as a commodity. References Shaw, W 2011, Business ethics, Cengage Learning, Boston, MA. Wood, A 2008, Kantian ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Read More