Dumping Unsellable Products To The Third World
Anyone who has ever surfed the Internet, watched a network television program, or driven down a busy street has encountered an unpleasant reality of modern life: the proliferation of advertising. Advertisements for everything from cars to pain relievers promise to imbue the owner with happiness, health, and sex appeal. Pop-up ads on personal computers correspond to the user’s surfing habits to create a highly individualized onslaught of messaging. While Americans might grumble about the lengthy advertisements at their local cineplex, most would also contend that mass commercialization poses less more of an annoyance than an actual threat to those who live in developed countries. However, as commercialization infiltrates every aspect of our society, Americans find themselves in the middle of a moral dilemma: should everything have a price? Are certain things, like health care, basic human rights that should never come with a price tag attached? More specifically, should blood be treated as a commodity? A closer look at the differences between the British and American blood marketing systems demonstrates the advantages and disadvantages of each.
The British maintain an adequate blood supply by relying wholly on voluntary donations. Because of the necessity of blood for survival, the British have resisted placing monetary value on that which has been freely given. The American system, in contrast, relies both on voluntary donation and a commercial system in which blood “is bought and sold like any other commodity” (Shaw, 2005, p. 75). Economist Richard Titmuss evaluated both systems and concluded that the British system is superior in terms of both “economic and administrative efficiency” (Shaw, p. 75). The American system suffers from high costs, frequent shortages, and an inequitable burden placed on those whose health conditions require frequent transfusions. Additionally, when blood becomes a commodity, the purity of the supply...
View Full Essay