In the United States, Margaret Green made NINETY FIVE trips to the blood lab to donate blood (in a year!) She has this rare type of AB-negative blood. You think she is so kind? Maybe. But the motive behind her kind act is to support her three teenage children. Imagine 95 times! I dont even score that high in my exam!! *Faint*
Anyway, the main issue here is there are agent who exploit these needy peoples by paying them as little as 15 cents a.k.a. RM0.50 for a pint of blood and resell them at $25 a.k.a. RM85 per pint! Let me do some simple maths.
Anyway, the main issue here is there are agent who exploit these needy peoples by paying them as little as 15 cents a.k.a. RM0.50 for a pint of blood and resell them at $25 a.k.a. RM85 per pint! Let me do some simple maths.
1 pint = 1/8 gallon
1 gallon = 3785 ml
Therefore 1 pint = 472 ml
So, if you agree with these agents, means your blood is lagi cheap than a bottle of 500ml mineral water huh?!
These so so cheap blood are usually contaminated which caused AIDS/HIV instead of helping needy recipients.
Before involving legal issues, do we have a moral duty to donate blood?! Is it wrong to treat blood as commodity?
P/s: tantan qiu yan i post this specially for you!(lolx) Faster help me analyse this case. muahahaha =P
7 comments:
Kindly examine my humble opinion.
Donating blood shouldn't be justified with legally bound or not legally bound. I think you got it already. It's subject to one's moral duty to donate or not.
For me, I wouldn't say that it's illegal or wrong in legal side that donating blood been treated as a commodity, but I would place it in moral wrong. BUT, look at the reason for why someone donated blood.
As per your entry, she has to support the living of three children.
*Quote: You think she is so kind? Maybe. But the motive behind her kind act is to support her three teenage children. Imagine 95 times!"
I think you should take off your hat to her. Who on earth will risk their life, donating blood to others, just to get money for her children? Hence, eventhough generally it's morally wrong to say that by donate blood for money, but for this situation, there should be an exception.
Wait a minute. Guilty or not guilty? How can she be guilty? I mean I don't understand because it's not a crime.
*Quote again: These so so cheap blood are usually contaminated which caused AIDS/HIV instead of helping needy recipients"
For this, I believe there is possiblity, but remember. The blood bank and the nurses have their obligation to check and examine whether the blood is suitable for donation or not. So, if the blood is really contaminated, the nurse shouldn't give out to the patients.
For this, the duty of care will lies on the nurse/hospital and not the person who donated. If any dispute arose, the person who got contaminated should pursue an action against the hospital, and shouldn't be the person who donates. (please don't totally exclude that the person who donates will be free 100% because they can sometimes be made co-defendants.)
This is a good situation. Here you can see, if there is really involving legal issues, where (which side) will the justice have their stand.
Oops i wrote alot. You can differ my opinion. Just a humble piece of writing. :)
For Margaret case, I am making it as an example as *having motive* behind the true act which is against the ethical society rule which is more towards self-benefits side. As there are many who donate just for the sake of the dollar they get in return which most of them know that their blood are contaminated. Dont get me wrong, I definetely bow for Margaret as a great mother!!
As for the guilty part, I am actually mentioning the agents! For paying such little for those who donates their blood.. put aside whether their blood is clean for use anot..hahah =D
Oh and u mention about the nurses! Which reminds me about profesional negligence! can ar??! hahah =D
Wow wow! Really appreciate for your long verdict! ahahah^^ Thx a million! Forseeable future judge =P
hmm, i don't know izzit you got my meaning wrong but you can have your say. I quote just to make an example for a reference hehe..
i put together whether the blood can be used onot because it will touch up together with the professional negligence.
haha. yes, if you wanna apply legal liabilities, i foresee only will point it towards the nurses.
Plaintiff v Defendant, i.e. the person who got contaminated serves as the plaintiff, and the defendant is the hospital, co-defendant can be the nurse, and the person who donated the blood. (won't reject this possibility anyhow.)
Under professional negligence have to prove duty of care owed towards the plaintiff, there is breach of duty, causation (and please note there is no novus actus intevenience because it will break the chain of causation hence the plaintiff might fail in his claim) and the damages, i.e that the plaintiff suffered some kind of disease upon got the contaminated blood. (eh am i answering your question?) =.=
Other than that, hmm, i don't really see other legal liabilities.
but actually the moral ethics can be applied in conclusion of the case, if the person who donates was made a co-defendant.
"Being a standard of a reasonable man, one mother could do everything to support their children. Look at her now, she has three kids. Due to life desperation, having been off work for 6 months, donating blood can seem to be a solution to her financial circumstances, eventhough she knew it was a lesser sum. By being a reasonable person in the said situation, can this mother risk out others' life is she knew that her blood was contaminated?
Push the liabilities to the other defendants - usually to the main/1st defendant - hospital.
Instead, the hospital bears the biggest responsibilities in ensuring that the blood is clean and safe for usage. Why? Because they are the last reasonable person to get in touch with the blood, examine them before sending it off to the storage.
Raise unwanted circumstances: We cannot predict that blood will not get contaminated in other circumstances after she donates it out. Moreover now she is donating to an agent, and she should have the liabilities being discharged.
(since usually 1st defendant will have different lawyer, 2nd def also ahve their own)
conclusion is mainly to put a deep impression on the judge that your client, the mother for example is in the weakest position to commit the tort. So if it's an essay, you can use it to like replace the position of the judge to a lecturer. hee..
oops..i wrote too long again.. sorry suddenly thought of it so just mau scribble. :D
Wow, long comments!
I'm actually scared to donate blood. Pain, pain...
Chris:
i get some important clue from your long verdict! ahahahah =D thx a million!! a forseeable judge! bleh =P
just jasmine:
no pain pain! dont worry =P
wah true or not oh..don't lah make me happy. :D
dont la humble sangat~
=P
Post a Comment