People should be paid for blood plasma | Mint

The trade in human blood may seem gruesome. In fact, it is essential. Plasma, the main component of blood, is a crucial ingredient for a range of medicines, from haemophilia treatments to rabies vaccines and tetanus shots. And these days there isn't enough to get by.

Healthcare services around the world have been struggling with shortages of medicines made from plasma since 2018. The Covid-19 pandemic has made matters worse. With donors in lockdown, supply was limited, prompting authorities in France and Italy to instruct doctors on how best to ration treatments. Outside America, Australia and Canada, plasma-based medicines are underutilized. The situation is especially dire in poor countries, which use only a fraction of the amount needed to treat even their sickest patients. The best way to meet demand is for more countries to legalize payment for plasma.

During donation, blood is taken, the plasma is separated and what remains is returned to the donor. In many places, demand clearly exceeds what unpaid donors provide. No less than 80% of the global plasma supply comes from just five countries, all of which pay for it: mainly America, but also Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany and Hungary. America earned $37 billion last year from exporting blood products, more than from coal or gold. However, unless other countries start paying donors, the global deficit will persist.

Paying can even be cost-effective. Research for the Canadian health care system shows that collecting plasma from paid donors costs less than half as much as collecting plasma from unpaid donors. This is because paid donors donate more and more often, and also because the kinds of enticements that countries come up with in lieu of handing out cash, such as paid days off or tax breaks, are often expensive to offer.

Two concerns prevent countries from allowing paid donations. Neither is justified. The first is a safety concern. In countries like Britain, scandals involving contaminated blood loomed large in the public consciousness. Offering payment, critics say, encourages those who know they are sick to donate anyway, putting recipients at risk. Yet there is little evidence that paid plasma is more likely to transmit disease than plasma from unpaid sources. And even if it were, plasma can be heavily processed to ensure it's safe. Although paid plasma dominates the global supply, there has not been a confirmed case of a patient becoming ill from a drug made from donated plasma in 30 years. Even countries that do not allow paid donations are happy to import plasma from countries that do.

The second concern is about equality. Critics note that paid donors are usually the ones who need the money. Some feel uncomfortable that poorer people are allowed to open their veins. But plasma, which consists mainly of water, is quickly replaced by the body. Health checks rule out really sick people and frequent donation seems safe (although more research could be done in that area). Donors in America are limited to donating more than twice a week, meaning payments cannot replace work income. .over, paid donation is still voluntary. Those who choose to donate believe they are better off as a result. If it's safe, why don't we let them in?

Blood, threats and fears

The homegrown collection is not suitable for everyone. Britain rightly stopped collecting plasma in the 1990s during an outbreak of “mad cow disease,” spread by one of the few pathogens not destroyed by standard sterilization methods. Poor countries might reasonably be concerned about their ability to safely collect plasma from donors. World trade exists precisely to solve such problems. But relying on a handful of countries comes with its own risks. Diseases still have the potential to disrupt a country's collection, as happened in Britain. And, crucially, supply cannot keep up with demand. Rich countries with good healthcare systems have no good reason to ban paid plasma donations. Payment would benefit patients at home and abroad.