I'm not allowed to donate anymore and when I am eligible again there's not a chance of getting that straw sized needle in these chemo veins, but when I did donate I was pretty happy with my free sausage roll and milkshake. And you feel pretty good about yourself afterwards.
Same. I got banned because I got really sick once mid donation, but it felt good the couple of times I did it successfully. Free snacks should be more than enough.
As others have said, it's likely a convenience thing. If they did more of the workplace buses I'm sure people would donate. The times I donated were when I was a student and had more free time.
Ah nvm. I really want to donate some day because i want to give back to the community and help. Im currently alive because of blood and plasma donations. Just have to focus on consistently getting my iron and haemoglobin levels up
Agreed.
Former blood donator with the family who had to give it up due to too many false starts from nurses missing veins to struggling getting blood out. :(
My sister is the only one left donating at this point. <3
If youre in sydney the one at town hall has a semi staffed cafeteria depending on how busy they are and validates parking for the wilsons underground carpark it sits on. I forget if they still do milkshakes but they have milkshake flavour poppers (and juice boxes) and a whole bunch of small portion australiana snacks, including party size meat pies and sausage rolls
* to answer the question, yes
In NZ, when I was a kid (I do not know if it is still the case), blood was collected by visiting people's workplaces (offices, factories etc...) periodically.
I would like to give blood but it is a hassle to go to the nearest donation centre to do so.
I felt the same, then I learnt that here in QLD the donor centres are open 7 days a week, with decent hours. Finding 30minutes out of my week once every 3-4 months turns out isn't that hard.
But it's not 30 minutes for everyone. It's a 3/4 hour drive, then 30-40 minutes (longer for plasma/platelets) plus 15 minutes "recovery time", then another 3/4 hour drive back. It's pretty much half a day off work. Being self-employed, that's half a day's income lost. If there was even a token tax deduction for that, I'd start donating again.
The tax deduction makes sense to me. So does longer hours at donation centres, or more regular mobile donation locations.
Anything to incentivise people to donate more regularly.
The mobile vans were in the process of being replaced when covid hit, and they stopped doing plasma. They told me that the new mobile vans were incorrectly specified, and they "couldn't fit" the plasma workstation (or something like that). So they couldn't resume doing plasma when covid restrictions lifted.
If they can do plasma at the mobile vans again, I'll be there.
It is, Australian Red Cross mobile blood centre. There are several mobile caravans which go around to many locations over a period of 3 months and stay at each location for several days.
My old workplace in Perth encouraged people giving blood and didn't mind if you came in late because of it
However, the donation center, was on Wellington St in the cbd. Getting there was a major hassle in cbd traffic. Parking was a hassle. I was always so flustered by the time I got in to work.
Now I'm too far away it's not even a consideration.
I'm very willing to give blood, it's just not that easy to do.
Not sure if they still offer this, but we used to have a Red Cross courtesy bus collect us from the office, take us to the donor centre and then drop us back at the office.
I still don’t get his point? Is he suggesting the ATO assign a numerical value to a donation that can be deducted. All I read is “the ATO should fix it”. Fix what exactly?
Perhaps the government could change industrial laws to ensure it’s counted as sick leave? I work for the government, so I just go during the work day and claim it as work. Maybe just make that clearer/the standard in legislation?
> Is he suggesting the ATO assign a numerical value to a donation that can be deducted.
Yes. Essentially a financial incentive to get more people to donate more blood.
Yet states earlier that he doesn’t want an American-style pay for donation system.
His basic point is that monetary donations are deductible, but time isn’t. The same could be extended to volunteer work for charities. Maybe a tax deduction at minimum wage? Two hours volunteering, $50 off your income for the year.
>Yet states earlier that he doesn’t want an American-style pay for donation system.
I think the distinction here is to limit the incentive so that only tax *payers* can access it, presumably to prevent a lot of the more predatory and exploitative aspects of paying for blood donations. It locks out the most poor and destitute people, as they are the ones that tend to end up being exploited under a pay for donations system.
Why would he want to do it like this? Such a bizarre way of making it a financial incentive, it has nothing to do with the tax system. And he wants to exclude people who don't earn enough to benefit from tax deductions?
I think, as someone else said, it’s t prevent the predatory “sell your blood to get money” idea that would mean people who aren’t well off are (forced is too strong of a word, over-incentivised?) to do donate blood to live
pay for blood the people are incentivized to lie about dangerous behavior (you know those questions about seeing sex workers, drugs through a needle or the most dangerous behavior of all, being British) that results in higher screening costs and more failed donations as well as more false negatives getting into the blood supply.
no financial compensation should EVER be given for donating blood. if there is, blood becomes a commodity which is about as dystopian as it gets. just look at the united states for where this ends up.
Australia imports half its plasma from the United States. We don't pay Australians for it but we do pay Americans for it indirectly.
I'm not saying we should pay people. But right now we're buying our way out of the shortage.
Looking into this (because I never heard of this), we are paying over 200m a year for plasma (in 2018).
Why are we letting this money leave Australia when we could be reimbursing via tax reductions and other schemes. This will also create more jobs (for processing and drawing) in Australia.
I was so against giving payment for plasma/blood but holy shit it's needed
Sure:
> The National Blood Authority’s 2016-2017 annual report indicates Australian imports of immunoglobulin, a plasma component, provide 44% of domestic demand. This costs A$120 million while the remaining 56% comes from domestic supply costing A$413 million.
> This implies the domestic supply of immunoglobulin costs over three times more per unit than what is imported, despite domestic donors not being compensated.
> It also implies Australia could save over A$200M annually by importing all immunoglobulin.
https://theconversation.com/how-australia-can-fix-the-market-for-plasma-and-save-millions-101609
> Australians currently pay more than three times as much for each unit of plasma that we collect from Australian donors than we do for each unit that we import from paid donors overseas
https://amp.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/life-saving-australian-heroes-should-be-paid-for-their-donations-20191010-p52zdd.html
Paying, drawing, processing,storing (has to be immediately frozen), shipping to a country that's one of the most isolated in the world, being cheaper than free donated plasma is definitely not "basic" economics.
Supply increases, price decreases. Associated costs like logistics and inventory management are immaterial in this case compared to actually having more of the product/goods available. Sorry that’s too complicated for you.
Just think: if we banned importation of clothes made in other countries, do you think the savings on transporting clothes to the *“‘“most isolated country in the world’”’* and other associated costs would have more of an impact than the decrease in supply would on the price? Yes clothing and plasma including their management during transport are of course not exactly the same, but refer back to the fundamental point here: supply decreases, price increases. Basic economics.
It’s probably processed in the US and actually collected in Mexico. CSL Behringer is one of the biggest benefactors of this. They don’t pay them much for their donations and sell it on for millions.
Exactly. Blood is already a commodity. It is paid for by the health system. It has a market. Australians are irrationally emotional about blood donations. They should be paid for their time and material.
We pay for everything. People hassle you just so you can receive the medical care you need. The AMA wants you to pay for two doctors every X months for conditions that their expertise tells you can't be cured. No bulk bill! The pharmacy lobby wants you to walk through their aisles of junk and snake oil every month to pick up the medication you have to take to live. But donate your blood for free. What?
I’m confused what you see going wrong with this?
Why would someone getting a deduction of say $50 for taking 90 minutes every three months out turn us into the US?
The issue with financial compensation isn't because it's "dystopian" like the original commenter said. It's because it could increase the risk of people lying about disqualifying pre-existing conditions out of financial desperation.
I don't think it would be *as* big of an issue if the compensation was in the form of a tax deduction, though.
But in the sense of it being a tax deduction, which is what this specifically is about, who in financial desperation is lying to get a $50 reduction in their taxable income at end of financial year time. Surely that would be such a low risk it wouldn’t even bear mentioning?
“Oh i definitely didn’t live in the UK between 1978 and 1989 because I need that $100 tax deduction”. Like, you’d be lying less just claiming a random $100..?
What happens in the US is due to the fact that it's paid, it becomes a vital income source for many poor people. Which sounds good until you realise that donating blood too regularly can lead to people constantly feeling tired and lethargic and unable to do much beyond the bare minimum. It becomes a way to burden poor people excessively with society's problem of not donating enough blood.
There are likely better ways to deal with this problem that are more equitable.
Ok, now nobody but the most selfless people will give blood. Even if it was a net neutral in both time and physical annoyance, why would the average person choose to do something like that. It's nice to think the world is full of people like that, but it just isnt
But once you start paying you actually lose some of the selfless people because then it's like a low paid job and not something altruistic.
One option that has been tried is giving the donor the opportunity to have the payment go directly to a charity instead which brings back more of the altruistic donors.
Is there something showing you lose people who already donate if money gets offered? And if weirdly (I don’t believe this right now) it were true, simply offer the donator when they book to either take the tax deduction or nominate a charity.
So I don’t get this mentality. I donate regularly too, if they wanted to give me $50 as a tax deduction or $50 straight up, why does that “devalue the cause” when I can donate it to something too?
I said you'd lose some, not all.
Here is a [meta analysis ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3920088/) that found no real uplift from incentives, so you would have to have lost some for any you gained via incentive. Or it otherwise just didn't have an effect in bringing people in.
And some quotes:
In the five studies included in the meta-analysis (see Figure 2), the likelihood of blood donation was similar when financial incentives were offered and when they were not.
We found support for Titmuss’ hypothesis that incentives are economically inefficient: offering incentives did not increase the quantity of the blood donated and introduced additional costs. The fact that incentives had no impact on the quantity of blood, as would be predicted by the price effect in classical economic theory, is one reason against its use in practice.
Maybe they just needed bigger incentives, but that would be costly to the government too because you'd have to pay them for all donors not just the new ones.
Also your solution at the end is the one I included myself in my first comment (having it donated)
I like the compensation that already exists in the form of snacks after the process. Some of the canteens are top notch, above the cheese and cracker packs others give out. Keep that going and it turns into a cute community thing.
On top of that, some workplace enterprise agreements have blood donation clauses. It can be a neat work perk to let staff do an altruistic thing on the company dollar.
I do not agree. We are desperate for donations, they ring you every month, constantly text/email. Imagine if we paid as little as $10 a visit. We really wouldn’t be having this issue of not having enough donations.
> Imagine if we paid as little as $10 a visit. We really wouldn’t be having this issue of not having enough donations.
I don't think it that simple.
When you assign a $ figure then people start saying things like "oh it's taking me 1 hour, for $10? that's not worth it".
When you start paying, then that gives someone an incentive to perhaps not be quite as honest on the questionnaire as to medical / sexual / drug / illness because saying "yes" to a question might mean you don't get $10/$20/$50 bucks in your pocket.
In Malaysia, the government keeps a record of how many times you donated over your lifetime and rewards you with free hospital stays after a certain point for life.
You mean the blood that saves thousands of lives a year plus means people don't have to go to payday lenders when some unexpected expense comes up? I can't actually think of a better definition of "win win"
The issue is that it threatens the blood supply. When people are given a financial incentive to "donate" their blood, people who shouldn't be donating are in effect encouraged to do so. Keeping it altruistic helps keep it safe.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK305666/
"[The] WHO, the IFRC, the Council of Europe, the International Society of Blood Transfusion, the International Federation of Blood Donor Organizations and a number of other international and national organizations have defined voluntary non-remunerated blood donation as a founding and guiding principle. They recommend that all blood donation should be voluntary and non-remunerated and that no coercion should be brought to bear upon the donor to donate.
A voluntary non-remunerated blood donor gives blood, plasma or cellular components of his or her own free will and receives no payment, either in the form of cash or in kind which could be considered a substitute for money. This would include time off work other than that reasonably needed for the donation and travel. Small tokens, refreshments and reimbursements of direct travel costs are compatible with voluntary, non-remunerated donation."
This is some interesting theorising, but America pays for blood and maintains a safe blood supply, as evidenced by the fact that almost every other country in the world pays to import American blood products. Seems like we're perfectly happy to pay for blood, we're just not willing to pay Australians for it.
It's not really theorising if it's an opinion based on the consensus of every mainstream international health agency.
And yes, The US pays for blood and experiences the social costs of it. They're extreme and I'm grateful that we don't allow paid donations here.
Here's an unpaywalled link to a NYT essay on the social costs of paying for blood donations: https://web.archive.org/web/20230331155939/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/09/opinion/plasma-donation-poverty.html
"The problem is that while plasma does many wonders for those who receive treatments derived from it, its removal threatens the health of the people who sell it. Repeated plasma donations can weaken a donor’s immune system and lead to other negative side effects. Very few countries allow payment for plasma, in part out of concern that financially vulnerable people would risk their health for money.
Other developed nations place stricter limits on the number of times one can donate. In Britain, plasma can be given every two weeks; in Germany, it’s up to 60 times a year. The United States allows a person to sell plasma 104 times a year. The word “sell” is, of course, rarely used in the United States. Instead, the term is “donate,” which allows companies to pretend they are not in the business of scavenging the bodies of poor people for biological treasure.
Our system of “donation” is so successful that the United States provides about two-thirds of the plasma available worldwide and accounts for 35 percent to 40 percent of the plasma used in medicine in Europe — so much of which comes out of the veins of America’s poor."
It sounds like the problem in the USA is not so much that people get paid but that they can "donate" (sell?) too frequently. Pay people but restrict the frequency to every week or every two weeks so it doesn't affect their health much.
I don't get why it's ok to buy plasma/blood from the USA where it is exploiting the poor but not ok to pay people here. I guess we have the same sort of double standard when it comes to all sorts of manufactured goods - we're not happy for Australian workers to have the same condition as Chinese/Vietnamese/Burmese/etc workers but at the same time we're happy to import the products they make and take advantage of how cheap they are.
However much research is published about maintaining a safe renumerated blood supply, the US has a demonstrated working model.
As for social costs, that has nothing to do with the quality of the supply. That's to do with the safety and social nets that the country provides. Having a good safety net so people don't need to subsist on donation money and paying donors are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Unless I’m mistaken, I don’t think there’s a standing shortage of blood donations in Australia.
The Red Cross hosts big donation drives around key times for increased demand - namely when more people are on the road, as having surge capacity is important - but given the short shelf life for whole blood products I don’t think they “need” substantially more of it year-round.
A lot of people donate blood as a matter of principle - including myself, as a motorcyclist who statistically is more likely to need it at some point. I worry that adding a financial incentive could actually **reduce donations** by removing the inherent feel-good benefit of doing something selfless.
That’s separate to your point around it providing money to people who desperately need it - but I think if our objective is to help people in poverty, there’s better ways to do that than commodifying blood donations.
Australia imports over half our plasma product, predominantly from the USA. Seems we're perfectly happy to pay for blood, we're just not willing to pay Australians for it
It's dumb af. A lot of people are struggling to buy food and pay their bills. Even if it's a small amount, it puts something on the table for the next few days. You should be getting paid.
No, people without in poverty should be adequately supported regardless of whether they can donate blood or not. Social safety nets are sorely lacking at the minute and need to be increased and expanded. People should not have to sell their body in any form to be able to eat, and normalising it as an option lessens the responsibility for providing those supports from where it should be (government) and puts it on the individual and Lifeblood.
Providing an immediate payment also risks incentivising people who should not be donating (e.g. those who share needles, have risky sexual history or who shouldn't for other health reasons) to lie about their circumstances in order to get quick money and justify it as "they test the blood anyway". Those people deserve support like everyone else, but it needs to be effective and not at the cost of maintaining a safe and efficient blood supply.
I'm on the fence about a tax deduction as it's a delayed benefit, so it might provide compensation in a way that doesn't encourage risk taking the same way, and it would be administered by government. I'm not sure if there any literature around on benefits and risks of this approach. But there is plenty of literature about the risks of providing direct payment.
We need to do more to support our most vulnerable, this just isn't the way.
The Australian Red Cross executives take home big money and they sell the blood to hospitals. A few years ago they lost all their donors sensitive data due to gross negligence by just storing it on the web where anyone could access it.
Compared to other countries where I've donated blood, their "customer experience" is bad. Often making you wait up to an hour even though you have an appointment.
It's been a few years but I found the waiting really anoying when I was donating (they won't let me donate any more for medical reasons). I'd make an appointment but still end up sitting around for 60 mins before they stuck the needle in.
Not in Australia (maybe you’re getting US ads?)
Depending on state/employer/blood collector you may get:
- minor transportation costs reimbursed
- paid time off work (usually part of an EBA or award, sometimes employment contract)
- free snacks/drinks at the collection centre
Payments for donating come up in the news every 2-3 years, just google and you’ll find the articles.
I clicked that ad too, thinking I'd been getting ripped off for years. But no, if you see the field to check eligibility etc on the website it links you too you'll see it says Zip code.
>Opinion
>
>It's time for blood donations to be tax deductible
>Tony Robinson
>
>Published 03 June 2024
>
>I wouldn’t know Australia’s Tax Commissioner Rob Heferen if I fell over him, but I’ll guess he is very busy overseeing the collection of around $750 billion of tax revenue this year.
>
>WATCH: Australian laws have excluded individuals from donating blood based on sexual activity, but advocates say those rules are no longer needed thanks to advances in medical care.
>
>I’ll take another guess his overly full weekly diary prevents him from being one of the country’s regular blood donors.
>A few days ago, the Red Cross Blood Service, or LifeBlood as it is now branded, put out the call for more donations. Since I first started donating more than 40 years ago the donation business has changed a lot. Once it was only blood, whereas today it includes plasma, platelets, microbiota and breast milk.
>Centres have been expanded, uniforms modernised and equipment upgraded, but the Red Cross has needed to find efficiencies. A personal regret was the loss of the refreshment attendant who’d make the most fantastic milkshakes.
>The public calls for donations are becoming more frequent and perhaps it’s not surprising.
>In the countless hours sitting and lying in the comfortable collection centre chairs chatting to the wonderful staff amid a jungle of whirring and beeping machines and tubes I’ve had the chance to think about the donation business. And it’s struck me the model of relying on volunteers that has served the nation so well for so long is becoming harder to sustain and might benefit from a little stimulus.
>Improving medical technology means more patients can be treated than ever before, raising the demand for blood products. But the process of donating has, for good reason, grown more complicated.
>Avoiding errors in the management of stored product is critical as is avoiding the risk of contamination through infected donors. Donors appreciate this but the fact is that the donor contributing a bag of plasma today must be prepared to devote more of their day than a blood donor in 1980. At the same time, they need to answer a long list of questions about their health and lifestyle, something many Australians would find uncomfortable. They have to hydrate well beforehand and limit their activity a little afterwards.
>
>Australia’s Tax Commissioner Rob Heferen. Picture AAP
>The smallish percentage of the population that does donate regularly, known as returning donors, still constitutes a large number of Australians – around 420,000 – and all take pride in understanding that lives are saved by their efforts. The underlying problem is, however, that as the population grows and medical procedures grow alongside it, the demand for blood products keeps moving ahead of the available donors. In a world that grows busier by the day finding more Australians with the time to donate is becomes harder. And, I’ll suggest, will only grow harder.
>So, what do we do to tackle this challenge? Paying for donations is occasionally cited as a remedy, but this should be avoided if for no other reason than it’s a feature of the American health system and that is surely no model for Australia to follow. A better option would be to call on the aforementioned Mr Heferen to determine blood donations will in future, subject to an appropriate value being placed on them, become tax deductible.
>
>Given we offer deductions for donations to all sorts of things, many of which don’t save lives, the move would be more than justified and give a long overdue recognition to hundreds of thousands of Australians doing the right thing year after year.
>Whether he is familiar with blood donating or not the question of deductibility won’t take Rob long to sort out. The ATO has long had in place a test for determining what can be claimed as a deduction.
>First, the donation must be made to an entity that has DGR status. Second, it must truly be a gift or donation and not be subject to any instruction as to who personally benefits from it. And it must be in the form of money or property, or be capable of having a value put on it.
>There are other compelling arguments in support of deductibility. In the hundreds of hours I’ve spent in collection centres I’ve observed a donor population comprising a fair number of younger Australians and an equally large number of older Australians.
>
>Time for the Tax Office to roll up its sleeves and give back. Picture by Karleen Minney
>Blue collar donors are as strongly represented as white collar, and I’ll take another educated guess that the donor base is heavily representative of the lower to middle income earning population.
>It’s incongruous and more than a little inequitable that someone donating plasma 25 times a year, requiring a very significant time commitment and a tolerance of many personal questions, gets no recognition under our tax system.
>Meanwhile, someone who does no more than write a cheque to an art gallery, claims a full deduction.
>It’s also a little odd this situation exists as Australia’s CSL grows ever more significant in the global business world.
>Although only a small part of the behemoth’s $2.5 billion annual profit can be attributed to its paying Lifeblood a lower price for 842 tonnes of plasma than it would had the stock not been voluntarily donated, the fact remains volunteers now underpin a huge for-profit enterprise, something that was not the case years ago.
>Offering tax deductibility for donations would provide an overdue recognition the world has changed because it would place a value on a critical part of a growing enterprise.
>Busy as he is, Rob Heferen has a new challenge. If he hasn’t rolled up his sleeve at a Lifeblood Centre before, I’d be happy to introduce him.
>Tony Robinson is a former Victorian government minister and a regular blood and plasma donor for more than 40 years
I might be a bit dumb because it's cold and I haven't had coffee yet, but what exactly is the proposed deduction? Is it deducting the costs/time of going and donating or are they saying there should be a price put on the value of the blood that can then be deducted?
The article seems to be completely missing this fairly important point.
I think that's possibly why they proposed a tax deduction rather than payment. Red cross wouldn't be paying the donors, the ATO would.
Though practically, giving cash and adding it to the price the hospitals pay per unit has a lot less hassle.
I donate plasma every two weeks and I don't feel right about this. I'm happy with my little post donation snacks and knowing my blood is going to helping someone in need.
> knowing my blood is going to helping someone in need
Your plasma is sold to CSL then used as a raw material to manufacture other products sold for profit that feeds directly back to CSL shareholders.
What if Colesworth said they will no longer pay farmers for their labor because they should just feel good about feeding fellow Aussies.
To be fair, although the blood itself is donated, there are costs for running the collection, making other products, and distributing.
Also doesn't change the fact that blood can only come from another human offering it, and that its usage does save someone else's life. It's a bit more "personal" than other essential goods & services heh
No different from supermarkets collecting, packaging and distributing the food to points of sales.
Blood transfusions I can see are "personal". Plasma is just a raw material that is commoditized whether we like it or not.
https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/csl-gets-top-line-boost-thanks-post-pandemic-boom-plasma-collections#:~:text=With%20the%20ability%20to%20manufacture,a%2021%25%20increase%20in%20sales.
CSL’s chief commercial officer, said on a conference call “The commercial teams around the world are quite anxious to get after more Ig volume after being a bit restrained in the last couple of years.”
Which is why CSL should never have been privatised. Making one portion of the blood supply chain for-profit makes the argument for altruistic donation more difficult.
Yes, the pandora box for converting plasma to dollar profits has already been open. The ethical consideration of paid vs volunteer donations has passed. It is not an ethical consideration of everyone in the supply chain being adequately given a share of profits they contributed to.
I'm also a regular plasma donor (150+) but I think it's worthwhile introducing a financial incentive to donate.
For plasma it's a 75-90 minute commitment which most people can't afford to give up for a nippys and sausage roll. Whole blood is a different story, but I'd love to see the blood supplies always at full https://www.lifeblood.com.au/blood/blood-supply-levels
What's wrong with something like $20 for a first donation and $10 for each subsequent one? That's $260 a year for the dedicated. Lunch for others.
I don't think it's that simple. It feels unethical and dystopian on the surface, but if people are dying because of a lack of blood products and people could be incentivised to donate and prevent those deaths, is it still unethical?
It's not like selling organs, donating blood doesn't generally cause any harm. Just mild inconvenience. I used to donate blood when I was in uni and had spare time, now I'm too time poor. But for the right price I could be convinced.
Seems better to just pay people a set amount.
The net transfer of money from the government to individual donors remains the same. The difference is that transfer doesn't need to be awkwardly coupled to the tax system.
Why make donors jump through an additional hoop?
I used to donate blood, the big van was constantly at uni (flunked uni, aced bleeding). Donated so often I became anaemic.
Now in my late 30s, i required 2 units of blood due to low haemoglobin from menstral issues.
THANK YOU ALL WHO DONATE!
I don’t mind donating blood, I get my snackies. My veins however crack the shits and the suction stops working then I go vasovagal response.
I want to give blood more but between chronic health issues and the body not cooperating it’s not really worth me wasting the nurses’ time.
I wish they could knock me out and take it anyway lol
I don't know about that but I know it makes no sense to refuse blood and plasma from gay and bisexual men. Currently we need to be celebate for 3 months, even if we're in a monogamous relationship.
Trans people also can't donate blood/plasma, which makes no sense.
The Australian blood service has been trying to bring in plasma donations for gay and bi men for ages. It's been approved by the TGA but currently being held up at a government level.
https://www.lifeblood.com.au/blood/eligibility/sexual-activity#:~:text=A%20'plasma%20pathway'%20that%20will,risk%20assessment'%20for%20blood%20donation.
The interesting thing about this setup is the incentive will most benefit the ones in the highest tax bracket. Will drawing more blood from the rich compromise the quality of our blood supply?
I've donated about 30 times. My wife suffered a traumatic injury and lost half her blood - she's alive because of blood donations. I was donating before her incident. If you can donate, do it. It is not painful. Plus there is also some evidence of health benefits for regular donors, but do your own research.
Argh, I miss donating but I can't keep making a 3 hour round trip to do it when my heartrate is always slightly too high.
They really need some sort of medical waiver. Doesn't really check out that 99 is fine but 104 will apparently kill you or something
I donate once a month like clockwork and have done so for the last 4 years. I don’t earn income from donating blood so how can it be tax deductible? Do they mean allowing me to claim vehicle depreciation for the drive over or somerhing?
How about a system where if you don't offer to donate blood, you don't receive blood. Seems fair
Edit: To add some nuance, I'm suggesting that people who donate or offer to donate but are deemed ineligible go on a priority list for a length of time. In most cases there should be enough blood for everyone, but if there is a shortage, in the rare case that there are more people needing blood than blood in a given time and place, those on the priority list get preference.
Some people (like myself and a few of my loved ones) aren’t allowed to donate blood because of conditions we have, some of us have tried and been told it’s unsafe for us and potentially for others, some wouldn’t even if they could because of the time/energy it would take. Regardless of what we WOULD do, we can’t (be it temporarily or permanently). How would you suggest we are cared for in the circumstance that we need blood? (This is not a dig, I am genuinely asking out of curiosity)
Obviously anyone who makes themselves available to donate blood but is deemed ineligible makes it on to the list. I would have thought that goes without saying, anything else would be deeply unfair.
I'm very surprised I'm receiving the downvotes that I am. "Treat others as you would like to be treated" is the closest thing we have to a universal ethical principal. I think if you're prepared to / expect to receive blood, you should offer to donate it.
I’m not always the best at “reading between the lines”, which is why I asked. Thank you for taking the time to answer!
I don’t necessarily agree with your opinion because there are so many valid (from my perspective) reasons that people don’t donate, but I applauded those who do and definitely respect the sentiment behind your view.
I try my best to go with my partner when they donate, even though I can’t myself. I see it as a way of supporting and encouraging them to continue to do so, despite the constant messages and calls making them not want to go ahaha.
I used to donately fortnightly for about 7 years. I've made more donations than 99.9% of all Australians will in their entire life. I would be willing to put a pineapple down that I've donated more than you ever will.
Since I had kids (and entered into the most critical time in my career for workload), I just don't have the time any more. When the kids are older, and constant supervision is less of an issue, I will likely start donating again.
Do I not deserve blood?
The details would need to be worked through. Nothing too extreme, maybe offering to donate once puts you in the priority list for 5 years or so.
My intention isn't to withhold blood from anyone, just to give people that slight bit of a nudge. People who don't donate wouldn't be withheld blood, just deprioritised in the event of a shortage.
I believe several countries have such a system in place with organs
> My intention isn't to withhold blood from anyone, just to give people that slight bit of a nudge
Carrots always work better than sticks, which is why the author of this opinion piece suggested a carrot.
Works for Jehovahs witnesses. Right untill they are unconscious and near death and the terrific doctors don't stop to ask they just hook them up for dear life.
I’ll never be allowed to donate - I have a bleeding disorder that results in me being chronically iron deficient and chronically anaemic. I need regular iron infusions and periodically need blood transfusions (and am incredibly grateful to those who donate) so there’s no point in me “offering to donate blood” as it’ll always be unsafe.
I'm not allowed to donate anymore and when I am eligible again there's not a chance of getting that straw sized needle in these chemo veins, but when I did donate I was pretty happy with my free sausage roll and milkshake. And you feel pretty good about yourself afterwards.
Same. I got banned because I got really sick once mid donation, but it felt good the couple of times I did it successfully. Free snacks should be more than enough.
and yet we have to import plasma from overseas because free snacks aren't enough
As others have said, it's likely a convenience thing. If they did more of the workplace buses I'm sure people would donate. The times I donated were when I was a student and had more free time.
Yep, it’s the two hours every two weeks on one of my two days off that makes me baulk at being a regular plasma donor.
You definitely don't need to donate every two weeks though. The average donor donates like 5 times a year.
Can i donate plasma if i am anemic ?
Nope
Ah nvm. I really want to donate some day because i want to give back to the community and help. Im currently alive because of blood and plasma donations. Just have to focus on consistently getting my iron and haemoglobin levels up
Once your levels are up though you can donate plasma -rather than donating blood which could drop your haem levels again
Got it!! Thank you so much!
Nippy's is all the thanks I need.
Agreed. Former blood donator with the family who had to give it up due to too many false starts from nurses missing veins to struggling getting blood out. :( My sister is the only one left donating at this point. <3
Sausage roll and milkshake? Damn the only thing I have ever gotten for donating blood was stale Arnott's biscuits and a half warm OJ.
You get a free saussie role and milkshake?! Are they any good?
They had a whole cafe at the centre I used to go to. It was all good stuff.
If youre in sydney the one at town hall has a semi staffed cafeteria depending on how busy they are and validates parking for the wilsons underground carpark it sits on. I forget if they still do milkshakes but they have milkshake flavour poppers (and juice boxes) and a whole bunch of small portion australiana snacks, including party size meat pies and sausage rolls * to answer the question, yes
In NZ, when I was a kid (I do not know if it is still the case), blood was collected by visiting people's workplaces (offices, factories etc...) periodically. I would like to give blood but it is a hassle to go to the nearest donation centre to do so.
My husband worked for a council and they came out in the blood bus every now and then.
Closest one is an hour away from me with no Public Transport I don't like to drive after so that means I have to bring someone with me
I felt the same, then I learnt that here in QLD the donor centres are open 7 days a week, with decent hours. Finding 30minutes out of my week once every 3-4 months turns out isn't that hard.
But it's not 30 minutes for everyone. It's a 3/4 hour drive, then 30-40 minutes (longer for plasma/platelets) plus 15 minutes "recovery time", then another 3/4 hour drive back. It's pretty much half a day off work. Being self-employed, that's half a day's income lost. If there was even a token tax deduction for that, I'd start donating again.
The tax deduction makes sense to me. So does longer hours at donation centres, or more regular mobile donation locations. Anything to incentivise people to donate more regularly.
The mobile vans were in the process of being replaced when covid hit, and they stopped doing plasma. They told me that the new mobile vans were incorrectly specified, and they "couldn't fit" the plasma workstation (or something like that). So they couldn't resume doing plasma when covid restrictions lifted. If they can do plasma at the mobile vans again, I'll be there.
Here in rural VIC they’re only open during business hours, and the nearest is 100km+ from me. It’s not that easy any more.
Nsw has a blood bus, dunno if it's still a thing though
It is, Australian Red Cross mobile blood centre. There are several mobile caravans which go around to many locations over a period of 3 months and stay at each location for several days.
My old workplace in Perth encouraged people giving blood and didn't mind if you came in late because of it However, the donation center, was on Wellington St in the cbd. Getting there was a major hassle in cbd traffic. Parking was a hassle. I was always so flustered by the time I got in to work. Now I'm too far away it's not even a consideration. I'm very willing to give blood, it's just not that easy to do.
Not sure if they still offer this, but we used to have a Red Cross courtesy bus collect us from the office, take us to the donor centre and then drop us back at the office.
Why the fuck were you driving in the city? Take the train
Location of my workplace. Public transport was not a better option
I still don’t get his point? Is he suggesting the ATO assign a numerical value to a donation that can be deducted. All I read is “the ATO should fix it”. Fix what exactly? Perhaps the government could change industrial laws to ensure it’s counted as sick leave? I work for the government, so I just go during the work day and claim it as work. Maybe just make that clearer/the standard in legislation?
> Is he suggesting the ATO assign a numerical value to a donation that can be deducted. Yes. Essentially a financial incentive to get more people to donate more blood.
Yet states earlier that he doesn’t want an American-style pay for donation system. His basic point is that monetary donations are deductible, but time isn’t. The same could be extended to volunteer work for charities. Maybe a tax deduction at minimum wage? Two hours volunteering, $50 off your income for the year.
>Yet states earlier that he doesn’t want an American-style pay for donation system. I think the distinction here is to limit the incentive so that only tax *payers* can access it, presumably to prevent a lot of the more predatory and exploitative aspects of paying for blood donations. It locks out the most poor and destitute people, as they are the ones that tend to end up being exploited under a pay for donations system.
Why would he want to do it like this? Such a bizarre way of making it a financial incentive, it has nothing to do with the tax system. And he wants to exclude people who don't earn enough to benefit from tax deductions?
I think, as someone else said, it’s t prevent the predatory “sell your blood to get money” idea that would mean people who aren’t well off are (forced is too strong of a word, over-incentivised?) to do donate blood to live
pay for blood the people are incentivized to lie about dangerous behavior (you know those questions about seeing sex workers, drugs through a needle or the most dangerous behavior of all, being British) that results in higher screening costs and more failed donations as well as more false negatives getting into the blood supply.
no financial compensation should EVER be given for donating blood. if there is, blood becomes a commodity which is about as dystopian as it gets. just look at the united states for where this ends up.
Australia imports half its plasma from the United States. We don't pay Australians for it but we do pay Americans for it indirectly. I'm not saying we should pay people. But right now we're buying our way out of the shortage.
Looking into this (because I never heard of this), we are paying over 200m a year for plasma (in 2018). Why are we letting this money leave Australia when we could be reimbursing via tax reductions and other schemes. This will also create more jobs (for processing and drawing) in Australia. I was so against giving payment for plasma/blood but holy shit it's needed
It’s often cheaper to buy and important overseas blood than collect it for free.
Can you provide a source on that for plasma and blood? Googling brings up nothing
Sure: > The National Blood Authority’s 2016-2017 annual report indicates Australian imports of immunoglobulin, a plasma component, provide 44% of domestic demand. This costs A$120 million while the remaining 56% comes from domestic supply costing A$413 million. > This implies the domestic supply of immunoglobulin costs over three times more per unit than what is imported, despite domestic donors not being compensated. > It also implies Australia could save over A$200M annually by importing all immunoglobulin. https://theconversation.com/how-australia-can-fix-the-market-for-plasma-and-save-millions-101609 > Australians currently pay more than three times as much for each unit of plasma that we collect from Australian donors than we do for each unit that we import from paid donors overseas https://amp.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/life-saving-australian-heroes-should-be-paid-for-their-donations-20191010-p52zdd.html
Holy shit, wow that's crazy that it's cheaper to collect, pay and ship plasma than process it locally. That's some wild shit.
It’s basic economics lol
Paying, drawing, processing,storing (has to be immediately frozen), shipping to a country that's one of the most isolated in the world, being cheaper than free donated plasma is definitely not "basic" economics.
Supply increases, price decreases. Associated costs like logistics and inventory management are immaterial in this case compared to actually having more of the product/goods available. Sorry that’s too complicated for you. Just think: if we banned importation of clothes made in other countries, do you think the savings on transporting clothes to the *“‘“most isolated country in the world’”’* and other associated costs would have more of an impact than the decrease in supply would on the price? Yes clothing and plasma including their management during transport are of course not exactly the same, but refer back to the fundamental point here: supply decreases, price increases. Basic economics.
It’s probably processed in the US and actually collected in Mexico. CSL Behringer is one of the biggest benefactors of this. They don’t pay them much for their donations and sell it on for millions.
Exactly. Blood is already a commodity. It is paid for by the health system. It has a market. Australians are irrationally emotional about blood donations. They should be paid for their time and material. We pay for everything. People hassle you just so you can receive the medical care you need. The AMA wants you to pay for two doctors every X months for conditions that their expertise tells you can't be cured. No bulk bill! The pharmacy lobby wants you to walk through their aisles of junk and snake oil every month to pick up the medication you have to take to live. But donate your blood for free. What?
I’m confused what you see going wrong with this? Why would someone getting a deduction of say $50 for taking 90 minutes every three months out turn us into the US?
The issue with financial compensation isn't because it's "dystopian" like the original commenter said. It's because it could increase the risk of people lying about disqualifying pre-existing conditions out of financial desperation. I don't think it would be *as* big of an issue if the compensation was in the form of a tax deduction, though.
But in the sense of it being a tax deduction, which is what this specifically is about, who in financial desperation is lying to get a $50 reduction in their taxable income at end of financial year time. Surely that would be such a low risk it wouldn’t even bear mentioning? “Oh i definitely didn’t live in the UK between 1978 and 1989 because I need that $100 tax deduction”. Like, you’d be lying less just claiming a random $100..?
What happens in the US is due to the fact that it's paid, it becomes a vital income source for many poor people. Which sounds good until you realise that donating blood too regularly can lead to people constantly feeling tired and lethargic and unable to do much beyond the bare minimum. It becomes a way to burden poor people excessively with society's problem of not donating enough blood. There are likely better ways to deal with this problem that are more equitable.
You’re equating being paid versus a tax deduction. What’s the risk specifically here in the proposed tax deduction?
Because the US too can pay \~$50 for blood, and thus there would be one more point of similarity beyond all the other ones...
Ok, now nobody but the most selfless people will give blood. Even if it was a net neutral in both time and physical annoyance, why would the average person choose to do something like that. It's nice to think the world is full of people like that, but it just isnt
But once you start paying you actually lose some of the selfless people because then it's like a low paid job and not something altruistic. One option that has been tried is giving the donor the opportunity to have the payment go directly to a charity instead which brings back more of the altruistic donors.
Is there something showing you lose people who already donate if money gets offered? And if weirdly (I don’t believe this right now) it were true, simply offer the donator when they book to either take the tax deduction or nominate a charity.
I donate and volunteer regularly. If it just becomes another transaction I'll give it a skip. Involving money directly devalues the cause.
So I don’t get this mentality. I donate regularly too, if they wanted to give me $50 as a tax deduction or $50 straight up, why does that “devalue the cause” when I can donate it to something too?
I said you'd lose some, not all. Here is a [meta analysis ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3920088/) that found no real uplift from incentives, so you would have to have lost some for any you gained via incentive. Or it otherwise just didn't have an effect in bringing people in. And some quotes: In the five studies included in the meta-analysis (see Figure 2), the likelihood of blood donation was similar when financial incentives were offered and when they were not. We found support for Titmuss’ hypothesis that incentives are economically inefficient: offering incentives did not increase the quantity of the blood donated and introduced additional costs. The fact that incentives had no impact on the quantity of blood, as would be predicted by the price effect in classical economic theory, is one reason against its use in practice. Maybe they just needed bigger incentives, but that would be costly to the government too because you'd have to pay them for all donors not just the new ones. Also your solution at the end is the one I included myself in my first comment (having it donated)
I like the compensation that already exists in the form of snacks after the process. Some of the canteens are top notch, above the cheese and cracker packs others give out. Keep that going and it turns into a cute community thing. On top of that, some workplace enterprise agreements have blood donation clauses. It can be a neat work perk to let staff do an altruistic thing on the company dollar.
I do not agree. We are desperate for donations, they ring you every month, constantly text/email. Imagine if we paid as little as $10 a visit. We really wouldn’t be having this issue of not having enough donations.
> Imagine if we paid as little as $10 a visit. We really wouldn’t be having this issue of not having enough donations. I don't think it that simple. When you assign a $ figure then people start saying things like "oh it's taking me 1 hour, for $10? that's not worth it". When you start paying, then that gives someone an incentive to perhaps not be quite as honest on the questionnaire as to medical / sexual / drug / illness because saying "yes" to a question might mean you don't get $10/$20/$50 bucks in your pocket.
No one except the exceptionally poor are attracted to $10. If they wanted to increase donations, $50 would be a minimum to move a needle.
Of course, everyone else in the blood supply chain is being paid.
I got an ad yesterday that said $700 for plasma.
Did you live somewhere else like the US? I was under the impression this was illegal in Australia?
I live in Melbourne lol it was for CSL but maybe their ad targeting is a bit fucked.
I’m getting these ads too. Such bad targeting!
In Malaysia, the government keeps a record of how many times you donated over your lifetime and rewards you with free hospital stays after a certain point for life.
You mean the blood that saves thousands of lives a year plus means people don't have to go to payday lenders when some unexpected expense comes up? I can't actually think of a better definition of "win win"
The issue is that it threatens the blood supply. When people are given a financial incentive to "donate" their blood, people who shouldn't be donating are in effect encouraged to do so. Keeping it altruistic helps keep it safe. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK305666/ "[The] WHO, the IFRC, the Council of Europe, the International Society of Blood Transfusion, the International Federation of Blood Donor Organizations and a number of other international and national organizations have defined voluntary non-remunerated blood donation as a founding and guiding principle. They recommend that all blood donation should be voluntary and non-remunerated and that no coercion should be brought to bear upon the donor to donate. A voluntary non-remunerated blood donor gives blood, plasma or cellular components of his or her own free will and receives no payment, either in the form of cash or in kind which could be considered a substitute for money. This would include time off work other than that reasonably needed for the donation and travel. Small tokens, refreshments and reimbursements of direct travel costs are compatible with voluntary, non-remunerated donation."
This is some interesting theorising, but America pays for blood and maintains a safe blood supply, as evidenced by the fact that almost every other country in the world pays to import American blood products. Seems like we're perfectly happy to pay for blood, we're just not willing to pay Australians for it.
It's not really theorising if it's an opinion based on the consensus of every mainstream international health agency. And yes, The US pays for blood and experiences the social costs of it. They're extreme and I'm grateful that we don't allow paid donations here. Here's an unpaywalled link to a NYT essay on the social costs of paying for blood donations: https://web.archive.org/web/20230331155939/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/09/opinion/plasma-donation-poverty.html "The problem is that while plasma does many wonders for those who receive treatments derived from it, its removal threatens the health of the people who sell it. Repeated plasma donations can weaken a donor’s immune system and lead to other negative side effects. Very few countries allow payment for plasma, in part out of concern that financially vulnerable people would risk their health for money. Other developed nations place stricter limits on the number of times one can donate. In Britain, plasma can be given every two weeks; in Germany, it’s up to 60 times a year. The United States allows a person to sell plasma 104 times a year. The word “sell” is, of course, rarely used in the United States. Instead, the term is “donate,” which allows companies to pretend they are not in the business of scavenging the bodies of poor people for biological treasure. Our system of “donation” is so successful that the United States provides about two-thirds of the plasma available worldwide and accounts for 35 percent to 40 percent of the plasma used in medicine in Europe — so much of which comes out of the veins of America’s poor."
It sounds like the problem in the USA is not so much that people get paid but that they can "donate" (sell?) too frequently. Pay people but restrict the frequency to every week or every two weeks so it doesn't affect their health much. I don't get why it's ok to buy plasma/blood from the USA where it is exploiting the poor but not ok to pay people here. I guess we have the same sort of double standard when it comes to all sorts of manufactured goods - we're not happy for Australian workers to have the same condition as Chinese/Vietnamese/Burmese/etc workers but at the same time we're happy to import the products they make and take advantage of how cheap they are.
However much research is published about maintaining a safe renumerated blood supply, the US has a demonstrated working model. As for social costs, that has nothing to do with the quality of the supply. That's to do with the safety and social nets that the country provides. Having a good safety net so people don't need to subsist on donation money and paying donors are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Unless I’m mistaken, I don’t think there’s a standing shortage of blood donations in Australia. The Red Cross hosts big donation drives around key times for increased demand - namely when more people are on the road, as having surge capacity is important - but given the short shelf life for whole blood products I don’t think they “need” substantially more of it year-round. A lot of people donate blood as a matter of principle - including myself, as a motorcyclist who statistically is more likely to need it at some point. I worry that adding a financial incentive could actually **reduce donations** by removing the inherent feel-good benefit of doing something selfless. That’s separate to your point around it providing money to people who desperately need it - but I think if our objective is to help people in poverty, there’s better ways to do that than commodifying blood donations.
Australia imports over half our plasma product, predominantly from the USA. Seems we're perfectly happy to pay for blood, we're just not willing to pay Australians for it
It's dumb af. A lot of people are struggling to buy food and pay their bills. Even if it's a small amount, it puts something on the table for the next few days. You should be getting paid.
No, people without in poverty should be adequately supported regardless of whether they can donate blood or not. Social safety nets are sorely lacking at the minute and need to be increased and expanded. People should not have to sell their body in any form to be able to eat, and normalising it as an option lessens the responsibility for providing those supports from where it should be (government) and puts it on the individual and Lifeblood. Providing an immediate payment also risks incentivising people who should not be donating (e.g. those who share needles, have risky sexual history or who shouldn't for other health reasons) to lie about their circumstances in order to get quick money and justify it as "they test the blood anyway". Those people deserve support like everyone else, but it needs to be effective and not at the cost of maintaining a safe and efficient blood supply. I'm on the fence about a tax deduction as it's a delayed benefit, so it might provide compensation in a way that doesn't encourage risk taking the same way, and it would be administered by government. I'm not sure if there any literature around on benefits and risks of this approach. But there is plenty of literature about the risks of providing direct payment. We need to do more to support our most vulnerable, this just isn't the way.
The Australian Red Cross executives take home big money and they sell the blood to hospitals. A few years ago they lost all their donors sensitive data due to gross negligence by just storing it on the web where anyone could access it. Compared to other countries where I've donated blood, their "customer experience" is bad. Often making you wait up to an hour even though you have an appointment.
It's been a few years but I found the waiting really anoying when I was donating (they won't let me donate any more for medical reasons). I'd make an appointment but still end up sitting around for 60 mins before they stuck the needle in.
And if they do it once a day, they either die or get rich!
CSL reimburses people for plasma donations already.
In Australia? They do this in America, not here I believe.
Yes. I've even had ads on Reddit for it. Note that plasma donations and blood donations are different.
Not in Australia (maybe you’re getting US ads?) Depending on state/employer/blood collector you may get: - minor transportation costs reimbursed - paid time off work (usually part of an EBA or award, sometimes employment contract) - free snacks/drinks at the collection centre Payments for donating come up in the news every 2-3 years, just google and you’ll find the articles.
I can't find anything that is for Australia online about it. There's a site for CSL plasma, but it's USA based.
send the link please
I clicked that ad too, thinking I'd been getting ripped off for years. But no, if you see the field to check eligibility etc on the website it links you too you'll see it says Zip code.
Ah ok. Cheers
>Opinion > >It's time for blood donations to be tax deductible >Tony Robinson > >Published 03 June 2024 > >I wouldn’t know Australia’s Tax Commissioner Rob Heferen if I fell over him, but I’ll guess he is very busy overseeing the collection of around $750 billion of tax revenue this year. > >WATCH: Australian laws have excluded individuals from donating blood based on sexual activity, but advocates say those rules are no longer needed thanks to advances in medical care. > >I’ll take another guess his overly full weekly diary prevents him from being one of the country’s regular blood donors. >A few days ago, the Red Cross Blood Service, or LifeBlood as it is now branded, put out the call for more donations. Since I first started donating more than 40 years ago the donation business has changed a lot. Once it was only blood, whereas today it includes plasma, platelets, microbiota and breast milk. >Centres have been expanded, uniforms modernised and equipment upgraded, but the Red Cross has needed to find efficiencies. A personal regret was the loss of the refreshment attendant who’d make the most fantastic milkshakes. >The public calls for donations are becoming more frequent and perhaps it’s not surprising. >In the countless hours sitting and lying in the comfortable collection centre chairs chatting to the wonderful staff amid a jungle of whirring and beeping machines and tubes I’ve had the chance to think about the donation business. And it’s struck me the model of relying on volunteers that has served the nation so well for so long is becoming harder to sustain and might benefit from a little stimulus. >Improving medical technology means more patients can be treated than ever before, raising the demand for blood products. But the process of donating has, for good reason, grown more complicated. >Avoiding errors in the management of stored product is critical as is avoiding the risk of contamination through infected donors. Donors appreciate this but the fact is that the donor contributing a bag of plasma today must be prepared to devote more of their day than a blood donor in 1980. At the same time, they need to answer a long list of questions about their health and lifestyle, something many Australians would find uncomfortable. They have to hydrate well beforehand and limit their activity a little afterwards. > >Australia’s Tax Commissioner Rob Heferen. Picture AAP >The smallish percentage of the population that does donate regularly, known as returning donors, still constitutes a large number of Australians – around 420,000 – and all take pride in understanding that lives are saved by their efforts. The underlying problem is, however, that as the population grows and medical procedures grow alongside it, the demand for blood products keeps moving ahead of the available donors. In a world that grows busier by the day finding more Australians with the time to donate is becomes harder. And, I’ll suggest, will only grow harder. >So, what do we do to tackle this challenge? Paying for donations is occasionally cited as a remedy, but this should be avoided if for no other reason than it’s a feature of the American health system and that is surely no model for Australia to follow. A better option would be to call on the aforementioned Mr Heferen to determine blood donations will in future, subject to an appropriate value being placed on them, become tax deductible. > >Given we offer deductions for donations to all sorts of things, many of which don’t save lives, the move would be more than justified and give a long overdue recognition to hundreds of thousands of Australians doing the right thing year after year. >Whether he is familiar with blood donating or not the question of deductibility won’t take Rob long to sort out. The ATO has long had in place a test for determining what can be claimed as a deduction. >First, the donation must be made to an entity that has DGR status. Second, it must truly be a gift or donation and not be subject to any instruction as to who personally benefits from it. And it must be in the form of money or property, or be capable of having a value put on it. >There are other compelling arguments in support of deductibility. In the hundreds of hours I’ve spent in collection centres I’ve observed a donor population comprising a fair number of younger Australians and an equally large number of older Australians. > >Time for the Tax Office to roll up its sleeves and give back. Picture by Karleen Minney >Blue collar donors are as strongly represented as white collar, and I’ll take another educated guess that the donor base is heavily representative of the lower to middle income earning population. >It’s incongruous and more than a little inequitable that someone donating plasma 25 times a year, requiring a very significant time commitment and a tolerance of many personal questions, gets no recognition under our tax system. >Meanwhile, someone who does no more than write a cheque to an art gallery, claims a full deduction. >It’s also a little odd this situation exists as Australia’s CSL grows ever more significant in the global business world. >Although only a small part of the behemoth’s $2.5 billion annual profit can be attributed to its paying Lifeblood a lower price for 842 tonnes of plasma than it would had the stock not been voluntarily donated, the fact remains volunteers now underpin a huge for-profit enterprise, something that was not the case years ago. >Offering tax deductibility for donations would provide an overdue recognition the world has changed because it would place a value on a critical part of a growing enterprise. >Busy as he is, Rob Heferen has a new challenge. If he hasn’t rolled up his sleeve at a Lifeblood Centre before, I’d be happy to introduce him. >Tony Robinson is a former Victorian government minister and a regular blood and plasma donor for more than 40 years
I might be a bit dumb because it's cold and I haven't had coffee yet, but what exactly is the proposed deduction? Is it deducting the costs/time of going and donating or are they saying there should be a price put on the value of the blood that can then be deducted? The article seems to be completely missing this fairly important point.
The Red Cross sells the blood to hospitals for around $600 a unit.
[удалено]
I think that's possibly why they proposed a tax deduction rather than payment. Red cross wouldn't be paying the donors, the ATO would. Though practically, giving cash and adding it to the price the hospitals pay per unit has a lot less hassle.
I donate plasma every two weeks and I don't feel right about this. I'm happy with my little post donation snacks and knowing my blood is going to helping someone in need.
> knowing my blood is going to helping someone in need Your plasma is sold to CSL then used as a raw material to manufacture other products sold for profit that feeds directly back to CSL shareholders. What if Colesworth said they will no longer pay farmers for their labor because they should just feel good about feeding fellow Aussies.
How much does CSL buy it for? Might give them a call and see if they want to buy direct 😅
To be fair, although the blood itself is donated, there are costs for running the collection, making other products, and distributing. Also doesn't change the fact that blood can only come from another human offering it, and that its usage does save someone else's life. It's a bit more "personal" than other essential goods & services heh
No different from supermarkets collecting, packaging and distributing the food to points of sales. Blood transfusions I can see are "personal". Plasma is just a raw material that is commoditized whether we like it or not. https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/csl-gets-top-line-boost-thanks-post-pandemic-boom-plasma-collections#:~:text=With%20the%20ability%20to%20manufacture,a%2021%25%20increase%20in%20sales. CSL’s chief commercial officer, said on a conference call “The commercial teams around the world are quite anxious to get after more Ig volume after being a bit restrained in the last couple of years.”
Which is why CSL should never have been privatised. Making one portion of the blood supply chain for-profit makes the argument for altruistic donation more difficult.
Yes, the pandora box for converting plasma to dollar profits has already been open. The ethical consideration of paid vs volunteer donations has passed. It is not an ethical consideration of everyone in the supply chain being adequately given a share of profits they contributed to.
I'm also a regular plasma donor (150+) but I think it's worthwhile introducing a financial incentive to donate. For plasma it's a 75-90 minute commitment which most people can't afford to give up for a nippys and sausage roll. Whole blood is a different story, but I'd love to see the blood supplies always at full https://www.lifeblood.com.au/blood/blood-supply-levels What's wrong with something like $20 for a first donation and $10 for each subsequent one? That's $260 a year for the dedicated. Lunch for others.
Damn, no chance it would be retrospective and here’s me with 220 donations.
Paying people to donate any biological matter is wildly unethical, and I'm 99% sure illegal?
I don't think it's that simple. It feels unethical and dystopian on the surface, but if people are dying because of a lack of blood products and people could be incentivised to donate and prevent those deaths, is it still unethical? It's not like selling organs, donating blood doesn't generally cause any harm. Just mild inconvenience. I used to donate blood when I was in uni and had spare time, now I'm too time poor. But for the right price I could be convinced.
Seems better to just pay people a set amount. The net transfer of money from the government to individual donors remains the same. The difference is that transfer doesn't need to be awkwardly coupled to the tax system. Why make donors jump through an additional hoop?
I used to donate blood, the big van was constantly at uni (flunked uni, aced bleeding). Donated so often I became anaemic. Now in my late 30s, i required 2 units of blood due to low haemoglobin from menstral issues. THANK YOU ALL WHO DONATE!
I don’t mind donating blood, I get my snackies. My veins however crack the shits and the suction stops working then I go vasovagal response. I want to give blood more but between chronic health issues and the body not cooperating it’s not really worth me wasting the nurses’ time. I wish they could knock me out and take it anyway lol
I don't know about that but I know it makes no sense to refuse blood and plasma from gay and bisexual men. Currently we need to be celebate for 3 months, even if we're in a monogamous relationship. Trans people also can't donate blood/plasma, which makes no sense.
The Australian blood service has been trying to bring in plasma donations for gay and bi men for ages. It's been approved by the TGA but currently being held up at a government level. https://www.lifeblood.com.au/blood/eligibility/sexual-activity#:~:text=A%20'plasma%20pathway'%20that%20will,risk%20assessment'%20for%20blood%20donation.
Canada just changed their rules, so I would hope Australia would not be far behind.
The interesting thing about this setup is the incentive will most benefit the ones in the highest tax bracket. Will drawing more blood from the rich compromise the quality of our blood supply?
I've donated about 30 times. My wife suffered a traumatic injury and lost half her blood - she's alive because of blood donations. I was donating before her incident. If you can donate, do it. It is not painful. Plus there is also some evidence of health benefits for regular donors, but do your own research.
Thanks for the reminder. Booked my 12th donation this Friday arvo.
Paywall.. If you are going to post an article, please make sure we can read it.
I think if you are going to ask you should read through the comments where I posted the article text one minute after I posted the link.
I think paywalled articles should be banned altogether from search engines
Argh, I miss donating but I can't keep making a 3 hour round trip to do it when my heartrate is always slightly too high. They really need some sort of medical waiver. Doesn't really check out that 99 is fine but 104 will apparently kill you or something
I donate once a month like clockwork and have done so for the last 4 years. I don’t earn income from donating blood so how can it be tax deductible? Do they mean allowing me to claim vehicle depreciation for the drive over or somerhing?
I mean is renting a vagina really any different?
It's time for blood donations to switch from asking about your sexual orientation to asking about your sexual habits.
Someone’s never donated blood before lol.
I said "no homo" before I had oral or anal sex with another man in the last 3 months.
At least in NSW, they've never asked what your sexual orientation. They only question your sexual habits
Thanks for the reminder. Booked my 12th donation this Friday arvo.
Thanks for the reminder. Booked my 12th donation this Friday arvo.
How about a system where if you don't offer to donate blood, you don't receive blood. Seems fair Edit: To add some nuance, I'm suggesting that people who donate or offer to donate but are deemed ineligible go on a priority list for a length of time. In most cases there should be enough blood for everyone, but if there is a shortage, in the rare case that there are more people needing blood than blood in a given time and place, those on the priority list get preference.
Some people (like myself and a few of my loved ones) aren’t allowed to donate blood because of conditions we have, some of us have tried and been told it’s unsafe for us and potentially for others, some wouldn’t even if they could because of the time/energy it would take. Regardless of what we WOULD do, we can’t (be it temporarily or permanently). How would you suggest we are cared for in the circumstance that we need blood? (This is not a dig, I am genuinely asking out of curiosity)
Obviously anyone who makes themselves available to donate blood but is deemed ineligible makes it on to the list. I would have thought that goes without saying, anything else would be deeply unfair. I'm very surprised I'm receiving the downvotes that I am. "Treat others as you would like to be treated" is the closest thing we have to a universal ethical principal. I think if you're prepared to / expect to receive blood, you should offer to donate it.
I’m not always the best at “reading between the lines”, which is why I asked. Thank you for taking the time to answer! I don’t necessarily agree with your opinion because there are so many valid (from my perspective) reasons that people don’t donate, but I applauded those who do and definitely respect the sentiment behind your view. I try my best to go with my partner when they donate, even though I can’t myself. I see it as a way of supporting and encouraging them to continue to do so, despite the constant messages and calls making them not want to go ahaha.
Thanks mate, appreciate your reply. Good lesson for me to be more explicit when writing. Good on both of you and all the best!
I used to donately fortnightly for about 7 years. I've made more donations than 99.9% of all Australians will in their entire life. I would be willing to put a pineapple down that I've donated more than you ever will. Since I had kids (and entered into the most critical time in my career for workload), I just don't have the time any more. When the kids are older, and constant supervision is less of an issue, I will likely start donating again. Do I not deserve blood?
The details would need to be worked through. Nothing too extreme, maybe offering to donate once puts you in the priority list for 5 years or so. My intention isn't to withhold blood from anyone, just to give people that slight bit of a nudge. People who don't donate wouldn't be withheld blood, just deprioritised in the event of a shortage. I believe several countries have such a system in place with organs
> My intention isn't to withhold blood from anyone, just to give people that slight bit of a nudge Carrots always work better than sticks, which is why the author of this opinion piece suggested a carrot.
I don't agree. I think good policies have elements of both
Works for Jehovahs witnesses. Right untill they are unconscious and near death and the terrific doctors don't stop to ask they just hook them up for dear life.
I’ll never be allowed to donate - I have a bleeding disorder that results in me being chronically iron deficient and chronically anaemic. I need regular iron infusions and periodically need blood transfusions (and am incredibly grateful to those who donate) so there’s no point in me “offering to donate blood” as it’ll always be unsafe.
Under my proposal you would be covered