SELLING YOUR SELF: TITMUSS’S ARGUMENT AGAINST A MARKET IN BLOOD
SUMMARY
This article indicates of Titmuss’s argument against a market in blood. It’s distinctive the sense in which a market blood is dehumanizing. Titmuss separate it into two domino arguments, firstly “The contamination of meaning argument” and secondly, “Erosion of Motivation” argument. Transplantation assists suffering and gives life to who needed. In medical profession, there are many people still think that the valuable use are most worth and most precious by the cost of allowing a market in organ. For the part moral philosophers said, sale of personal attributes are extortion of the vendors who are poor and urged to sell. Titmusss offers three several reasons for dispose to a system of exclusively voluntary blood donation to a commercial market in blood. The first one is that paid-donor systems are unjust and exploitative, blood being in the main sold by members of the lowest socio-economic groups, and being bought and used by the higher groups. Second is that a private blood market is more likely than a system of donation to yield literally bad blood. And the third one is the production by commercial blood programmes of metaphorical bad blood, which is a morally impoverished relation between individuals. The consecution is the first one explains that is general and applies to any market in goods and services whose vendors are so poor as to warrant charges of injustice and exploitation. And the other one declarative the risk and dangers of contaminations are more in donation than in market in blood. The last one conclude that market in blood is imperialistic and dehumanizing that the state should not allow such a market.
OPINION
When discuss about market in blood, there are two several things that we will argue with. Firstly, who are involved with this transaction, which person who are needs and getting and who are giving things. We determined which person are needs and which person are giving. What about their condition, their income and extra. Secondly is the description of that blood itself. Blood that received is a good quality or a bad blood. The way to get blood is important too to determine market in blood is necessary in our life.
What I am going to discuss is a bit different from the journal that I have taken to refer. Writer of the journal mostly discuss about two types of argument show a market in blood is dehumanizing. Here I want to point out pro and contra market in blood. I will explain what are market and the definition of blood.
Meaning of market is wide. It is an occasion when people buy and sell goods; the open area or building where they meet to do (Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary, 7th edition). It is business or trade, or the amount of trade in particular types of goods. It is also a particular area, country or section of the population that might buy goods. Market sometimes about the number of people who want to buy something or in other word cites demand. Market shows people who buy and sell goods in competition with each other. Whatever meanings, the first thing that we can see about the market are money or a cent. If have a market, it must to involved money.
Now we go through the definition of blood. According to Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary, blood is the red liquid that flows through the bodies of humans and animals. David Archard explains in his journal, blood is a physical object. The character of blood its type is fixed and at any one time, it is though renewable, available in finite quantities. Blood can be swap at a distance between two people without either needing to know of or have contact with the other. Blood is proper to be exchange for the end of saving life and reducing suffering.
In my opinion, market in blood has a pro and contra itself. Let see if rich man are in trouble. One of his families, let say his wife are need for blood. Then, he cannot get a donor for the blood that his wife need. Market in blood can help him to get a blood that he wants. It makes things easier. But if this situation occurs to a poor person, how can he solve this problem? Is this dehumanizing? Because people do not make benevolence to this poor guy when he really needed?
With a market in blood, a lot of matter necessary a lot of money. Like a parable, “no money no talk”. In these days, everything is not going without money. So, how can we help that poor man who is really needed? Yet, our country is insufficient blood. Market in blood maybe can help country to cover this problem. When the market in blood exists, it involved price or monetary value. At this time, government plays their role to offer or tasteless monetary value or payment for blood donor. Effect of this monetary value, people are shoved to donor their blood and the impact is stock of the blood became increase. Is this can help that poor man? I think it is.
Market in blood can be also globalization. It can give most of benefit through the world. As we know, many countries in the world faced insufficient blood problem. So, if market in blood exist, it can be solved that problem. Maybe government agency can be introduced or can be existed to control this market. Government agency will act as a controller to set up the progress and role of this market. And also the important thing is the local blood market must be the priority.
Beside that, in this world today, there has existed a market in blood at outside this country, such as Europe and America. In their market in blood, there are several product line of blood such as Red Blood Cells (RGBs), Immunoglobulin, Albumin, other plasma product, Synthetic HBOC and PFC Agents and Recombinant Factors. And also have a blood supply management product, including; Blood Collection Equipment, Automated Blood Collection Equipment, Blood Banking and Plasmapheresis Testing.
Which one is better either blood in the market or blood gets from the donation? In my opinion, I think that the blood gets from the donation is prefer to be more secure. And blood that gets from the market is more risky because we do not know where the blood comes from and who is a donor. And also we do not know source of that blood. What we afraid is presence a deflection in market in blood. As we know, market is about money and when involve money, someone absolutely just care about profit and net income.
Blood that comes from donation can be more to trust because it usually handles by committee and board legal regulation or laws. When the entity is legal and recognize by law, the quality and security is more proven and the risk is less than blood gets from a market.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I prefer to say that market in blood is not dehumanizing. It is because market in blood can help to developed country. It is also can tied the relationship within country each other. Market in blood will encourage people to donor their blood if government play the role. And more over, it can be competitors in money market. This can stir up flow in circumstances of market. So, do you still think that market in blood is dehumanizing? I am still with my stand. It is not dehumanizing. It is acceptable now a days.
This article indicates of Titmuss’s argument against a market in blood. It’s distinctive the sense in which a market blood is dehumanizing. Titmuss separate it into two domino arguments, firstly “The contamination of meaning argument” and secondly, “Erosion of Motivation” argument. Transplantation assists suffering and gives life to who needed. In medical profession, there are many people still think that the valuable use are most worth and most precious by the cost of allowing a market in organ. For the part moral philosophers said, sale of personal attributes are extortion of the vendors who are poor and urged to sell. Titmusss offers three several reasons for dispose to a system of exclusively voluntary blood donation to a commercial market in blood. The first one is that paid-donor systems are unjust and exploitative, blood being in the main sold by members of the lowest socio-economic groups, and being bought and used by the higher groups. Second is that a private blood market is more likely than a system of donation to yield literally bad blood. And the third one is the production by commercial blood programmes of metaphorical bad blood, which is a morally impoverished relation between individuals. The consecution is the first one explains that is general and applies to any market in goods and services whose vendors are so poor as to warrant charges of injustice and exploitation. And the other one declarative the risk and dangers of contaminations are more in donation than in market in blood. The last one conclude that market in blood is imperialistic and dehumanizing that the state should not allow such a market.
OPINION
When discuss about market in blood, there are two several things that we will argue with. Firstly, who are involved with this transaction, which person who are needs and getting and who are giving things. We determined which person are needs and which person are giving. What about their condition, their income and extra. Secondly is the description of that blood itself. Blood that received is a good quality or a bad blood. The way to get blood is important too to determine market in blood is necessary in our life.
What I am going to discuss is a bit different from the journal that I have taken to refer. Writer of the journal mostly discuss about two types of argument show a market in blood is dehumanizing. Here I want to point out pro and contra market in blood. I will explain what are market and the definition of blood.
Meaning of market is wide. It is an occasion when people buy and sell goods; the open area or building where they meet to do (Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary, 7th edition). It is business or trade, or the amount of trade in particular types of goods. It is also a particular area, country or section of the population that might buy goods. Market sometimes about the number of people who want to buy something or in other word cites demand. Market shows people who buy and sell goods in competition with each other. Whatever meanings, the first thing that we can see about the market are money or a cent. If have a market, it must to involved money.
Now we go through the definition of blood. According to Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary, blood is the red liquid that flows through the bodies of humans and animals. David Archard explains in his journal, blood is a physical object. The character of blood its type is fixed and at any one time, it is though renewable, available in finite quantities. Blood can be swap at a distance between two people without either needing to know of or have contact with the other. Blood is proper to be exchange for the end of saving life and reducing suffering.
In my opinion, market in blood has a pro and contra itself. Let see if rich man are in trouble. One of his families, let say his wife are need for blood. Then, he cannot get a donor for the blood that his wife need. Market in blood can help him to get a blood that he wants. It makes things easier. But if this situation occurs to a poor person, how can he solve this problem? Is this dehumanizing? Because people do not make benevolence to this poor guy when he really needed?
With a market in blood, a lot of matter necessary a lot of money. Like a parable, “no money no talk”. In these days, everything is not going without money. So, how can we help that poor man who is really needed? Yet, our country is insufficient blood. Market in blood maybe can help country to cover this problem. When the market in blood exists, it involved price or monetary value. At this time, government plays their role to offer or tasteless monetary value or payment for blood donor. Effect of this monetary value, people are shoved to donor their blood and the impact is stock of the blood became increase. Is this can help that poor man? I think it is.
Market in blood can be also globalization. It can give most of benefit through the world. As we know, many countries in the world faced insufficient blood problem. So, if market in blood exist, it can be solved that problem. Maybe government agency can be introduced or can be existed to control this market. Government agency will act as a controller to set up the progress and role of this market. And also the important thing is the local blood market must be the priority.
Beside that, in this world today, there has existed a market in blood at outside this country, such as Europe and America. In their market in blood, there are several product line of blood such as Red Blood Cells (RGBs), Immunoglobulin, Albumin, other plasma product, Synthetic HBOC and PFC Agents and Recombinant Factors. And also have a blood supply management product, including; Blood Collection Equipment, Automated Blood Collection Equipment, Blood Banking and Plasmapheresis Testing.
Which one is better either blood in the market or blood gets from the donation? In my opinion, I think that the blood gets from the donation is prefer to be more secure. And blood that gets from the market is more risky because we do not know where the blood comes from and who is a donor. And also we do not know source of that blood. What we afraid is presence a deflection in market in blood. As we know, market is about money and when involve money, someone absolutely just care about profit and net income.
Blood that comes from donation can be more to trust because it usually handles by committee and board legal regulation or laws. When the entity is legal and recognize by law, the quality and security is more proven and the risk is less than blood gets from a market.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I prefer to say that market in blood is not dehumanizing. It is because market in blood can help to developed country. It is also can tied the relationship within country each other. Market in blood will encourage people to donor their blood if government play the role. And more over, it can be competitors in money market. This can stir up flow in circumstances of market. So, do you still think that market in blood is dehumanizing? I am still with my stand. It is not dehumanizing. It is acceptable now a days.
0 comments:
Post a Comment