Blood Donation

It is rational to be a freeloader and not donate blood despite being willing to accept it, despite it being not ethically permissible. In fact, it is likely more rational to be a freeloader than not. This is because rationality can be defined as making the best use of reason or logic. Not donating blood, while still being fully willing to accept in the case of need, is most rational because it accords with logical steps. This is because freeloading makes it possible for someone to potentially reap the benefits of blood donation, without causing themselves any trouble ever. One would never donate any blood and would spare themselves of the trouble of physically going to donate blood and possibly suffering from minuscule side-effects like temporary dizziness. Moreover, even if the situation arose and that person required a blood transfusion, they would then accept it and gain the benefits of it. This is very rational on the part of the person.

A person can rely on their fellow citizens to donate blood without ever doing themselves. That person can then potentially reap the rewards of his fellow citizens while having never caused any problem or inconvenience, as donating blood may be perceived to be, unto himself.

It is only true when personal benefits and costs are considered. Once factors, like societal moral and ethical ones, are considered, the questions becomes more complex and difficult. Once ethics are included, the question is no longer purely logical. Logically, it makes sense to do less and get more, which is essentially what the concept of freeloading is in this context. However, once a ethical viewpoint is included, it can be seen that not donating blood, but being willing to accept it in the case of a transfusion, is wrong and not morally acceptable. This is because it is impossible to justify that one should accept blood when in need whilst never donating it themselves, if they are physically capable.

The fact is that a healthy person, who is physically capable of donating blood, has a very small chance of ever requiring blood. However, that same person may be mildly troubled by donating blood, either by small physical side-effects, like temporary dizziness, or simply by the less convenient allocation of time (i.e. That person could be doing something more pleasurable with their time than donating blood). Moreover, even if that person did eventually need blood, they would most likely have some because of the goodwill of other people.

Therefore, when considering the personal benefits, it is completely rational to not donate blood because the chances of one needing it are smaller than the potential inconveniences faced when donating it, and because blood will likely be there for you should you need it.

This story changes especially when you consider the benefits to others. It becomes realized that other people can potentially rely on this resource and that, without donations, these people could suffer severe consequences. These consequences would not be brought about as a result of their own doing, but rather because of the fact that people did not want to donate themselves – a sort of collective action problem.

If all people believed that they did not need to donate blood because someone else would do it for them, then there would be little to no blood supply. This would cause a tremendous detriment to others (patients) in need of blood. So, from a societal point of view, not only is failing to donate blood immoral, it is irrational, too. No benefits exist to others when a person does not donate blood.

Overall, it is important to recognize the difference between rational and ethical. Though freeloading is rational, particularly in personal circumstances, it cannot be ethical under most circumstances. Also, it needs to be noted that though freeloading is rational on an individual level because it spares one from a small chore, it is completely irrational on a societal one because it fails to produce any benefits to other people.

It can be considered ethically wrong to not donate blood for a variety of reasons, but many scenarios need to be considered before making a definitive statement. Two major arguments exist to help determine the morality of donating blood. The first is the beneficence argument. This argument states that whenever a person has the ability to commit an act of good, they have a moral obligation to do so.

The second argument regards the wrongness of freeloading. This argument focuses more on immorality than morality (the beneficence argument does the opposite, in a way.) It states that it is ethically wrong, and makes you a freeloader, to reap the benefits of a collective good, to which others are contributing to, without contributing to it yourself. This argument elaborates that someone is only entitled to as big a portion of the collective good, as they themselves contributed.

Both of these reasonings do not apply to everyone. Most notably, a person who is physically incapable of doing good, as per the beneficence argument, or a person who is physically incapable of contributing to the collective good, as per the wrongness of freeloading argument, is not applicable under the reasonings. These people cannot contribute because they are simply incapable of doing so for no purposeful reason (since being sick cannot be intentionally self-imposed or purposeful).

When other reasons, like religious ones, come into mind, the arguments have a divergence in their beliefs. If someone follows the beliefs of a Jehovah's Witness, then that person is not permitted by their religion to donate, nor receive, blood. Under the beneficence argument, the Jehovah's Witness is still subject to donating blood. This is because blood is essential to life, and can therefore save the lives of people who need it for a medical reason. Any Jehovah's Witness, who is physically capable of donating blood thus has an obligation to donate blood because that provides society with a collective good and that is then their moral obligation. Under the alternative argument however, a Jehovah's Witness is not obliged to donate blood. This is because their religion also prevents them from accepting blood. This means that a Jehovah's Witness, though they would never donate blood, would also never accept blood. Therefore, they would not be freeloading because one is not a freeloader if they do not contribute to a system they do not use.

In another scenario, where the blood supply is already large and sufficient, the arguments have reversed stances. Under the beneficence argument, this scenario would not require anyone to donate blood. This is because their particular donation would not benefit the collective good, and is therefore unnecessary ethically. However, under the wrongness of freeloading argument, a person would still be required to donate blood if they ever need to use it. This is because if they did not donate blood, they would be using a public service without contributing to it equally and thus freeloading.

Selling blood, instead of donating it leads to a more complex situation. Under the beneficence argument, if you sell your blood and it ends up in the same place that it would have if you had donated it, then you are still providing the same good to people and fulfilling your moral obligation. However, if your blood ends up in a different place, where it is not providing a good, or as great a good, to society as it would have had you simply donated it, then you have not done good to society and therefore cannot be justified under this argument. For the wrongness of freeriding argument, the answer it situation-dependent. If the blood is sold and ends up in the same place that it will be withdrawn from one day by you should you require it, then it is not a problem because you are contributing to the collective good that you are using. Alternatively, if it is sold and ends up in a different place than the one where you withdraw the blood you need from, then you are freeriding because you are withdrawing the blood you need from a place to which you did not contribute.

In another scenario one may consider paying someone to donate blood on their behalf. This is ethically unjustified under the beneficence argument unless you are physically incapable of donating blood yourself. Under this viewpoint, you can still do more good if you go and donate blood by yourself, so if you simply pay someone else to complete this on your behalf, you are basically motivating that person to fulfill their moral duty under the beneficence argument, as oppose to actually satisfying your own. If however, you were incapable of donating blood for physical reasons and paid someone to donate on your behalf, then you are doing a good for society in the best way you possibly can, so you would justified as fulfilling your moral obligation. Alternatively, under the wrongness of freeloading argument, you would be backed-up ethically by paying someone to donate on your behalf. This is because if you ever required blood yourself, you would still have contributed to the collective good, albeit in a financial way. That financial way would have led to the same result as you physically donating the blood yourself and you could not be considered a freeloader.

Finally, under the beneficence argument, participating at a blood clinic as a trained medical professional would not exempt you from donating blood yourself. This is because this argument requires that any good that ca be performed by an individual be performed in order for that individual to satisfy their moral obligation. So, if someone can both participate in a blood donation clinic as a medical professional, and donate blood, which are both good things, then that person has a ethical obligation to do both things. Likewise, under the wrongness of freeloading argument, the person would still not be exempt from donating blood. This is because if that person requires blood, they would taking it from a collective good to which they had never directly contributed to (the only direct contribution would be donating your blood), thus making them a freeloader.

Donating blood and being vaccinated are inherently different things. Being vaccinated for a contagious disease, like the mumps, makes it significantly less likely that you will get the disease and therefore be a carrier for it. This means that you will be less likely to make other people sick. Donating blood, however, is different. By not donating blood, you are not making anyone sick or worse off, you are simply making it more difficult for someone who requires blood to get better. So the difference is that in the vaccination scenario, you are directly contributing to causing people to be sick and worse off. In the donating blood scenario, you are simply indirectly making it more difficult for those who are already sick to improve their condition. Therefore, it seems sensible to prevent people from getting others sick and compromising their own health by making vaccination mandatory. But, it does not seem sensible to mandate donating blood because that would not prevent people from falling ill, nor would it compromise the health of healthy people – it would simply make it far more difficult for people to improve their health when they require blood.