7 replies to this topic

[nishaf]

As apart of one of my biology classes assignment I had a dessertation to write on; whether or not a person who does not donate blood regularly or has never donated blood should they be offered blood at any given time of need. My answer is yes, for obvious reasons such as illnesses. Do you mind sharing your views on the situation?

[pito]

I think its more an ethical question: people that are not prepared to offer blood, should they be given blood ?
The idea is: if you dont want to help others by donating blood, then why should you get blood if you need it?

But there are some remarks of course: not everyone is allowed to donate blood for ex/
Also; what country are we talking about? In usa for example you can get money for donating blood (so people donating arent doing it necessairy for the greater good, but for the money) ....

[nishaf]

pito, on 06 May 2011 - 06:49 AM, said:

I think its more an ethical question: people that are not prepared to offer blood, should they be given blood ?
The idea is: if you dont want to help others by donating blood, then why should you get blood if you need it?

But there are some remarks of course: not everyone is allowed to donate blood for ex/
Also; what country are we talking about? In usa for example you can get money for donating blood (so people donating arent doing it necessairy for the greater good, but for the money) ....

  

The UK

[hobglobin]

Sounds like a closed-minded and intolerant approach, leading more or less to an enforcement to do it then. And restricted access to a vital medical attendance or emergency aid...at least to a free and liberal society it won't fit.

[nishaf]

hobglobin, on 06 May 2011 - 09:28 AM, said:

Sounds like a closed-minded and intolerant approach, leading more or less to an enforcement to do it then. And restricted access to a vital medical attendance or emergency aid...at least to a free and liberal society it won't fit.

I agree with you,thanks for your opinion

[casandra]

nishaf, on 15 May 2011 - 01:40 PM, said:

hobglobin, on 06 May 2011 - 09:28 AM, said:

Sounds like a closed-minded and intolerant approach, leading more or less to an enforcement to do it then. And restricted access to a vital medical attendance or emergency aid...at least to a free and liberal society it won't fit.

I agree with you,thanks for your opinion

and why not include in your discussion the flip side of the coin i.e. is it also a basic right to refuse life-saving blood transfusions for religious or personal reasons? And more importantly, shld the medical establishment or the law interfere/intervene in such cases? Would there be an equivalence, do you think, between the right to receive blood even if one is not a donor and the right to refuse it even if it would mean morbidity or even death?

[stemcellconclave]

Donating blood is one of the most important things you’ve ever done. It is a safe and easy process which takes approximately 45 minutes. Giving blood is a great donation to save other peoples lives and to help others. For many people, blood donation could be scary thing to do, but for others it is a life saving act. Blood is precious. so donate blood and save the other life and encourage other people as well.

[nishaf]

stemcellconclave, on 20 May 2011 - 10:55 PM, said:

Donating blood is one of the most important things you’ve ever done. It is a safe and easy process which takes approximately 45 minutes. Giving blood is a great donation to save other peoples lives and to help others. For many people, blood donation could be scary thing to do, but for others it is a life saving act. Blood is precious. so donate blood and save the other life and encourage other people as well.

yes it does save lives, i did mention most of what everyine has said in my dessertation, thanks for ur replies.