title: The Gift Relationship Revisited.
abstract: If unremunerated blood donors are willing to participate, and if the use of them is economical from the perspective of those collecting blood, I can see no objection to their use. But there seems to me no good reason, moral or practical, why they should be used. The system of paid plasmapheresis as it currently operates in the United States and in Canada would seem perfectly adequate, and while there may always be ways in which the safety and efficiency of supply could be increased, there seems no reason whatever to think that there would be an improvement if the current system changed so as to rely entirely on unpaid donors. Further, given the adequacy of paid plasmapheresis, I could see no problem if the collection of whole blood were to take place on a similar, fully-commercial, basis. Such a view is controversial. To argue for it, this paper offers just one strand in a complex argument: a critique of Richard Titmuss's Gift Relationship, which holds an iconic position in the critical literature on the paid provision of blood. As I conclude: all told, there seems no good basis for rejecting supply of whole blood for money--let alone the supply of blood plasma.
authors.affiliation: School of Philosophy, RSSS, CASS, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia. jeremy.shearmur@anu.edu.au.
authors.forename: Jeremy Frank
authors.initials: JF
authors.lastname: Shearmur
mesh_terms: D000533:Altruism; D001782:Blood Donors / Q000941:ethics* / Q000523:psychology; D002170:Canada; D006801:Humans; D012011:Red Cross / Q000458:organization & administration; D014481:United States
keywords: Blood donation; Plasmapheresis; Richard Titmuss; The Gift Relationship