Question

Sol Levin was a successful stockbroker in Tampa. He observed that in the United States, the blood used for
transfusions mostly comes from donation from well-wishers. However, since most people are not willing
to donate, there was a blood deficit in the country. He considered this scenario as an opportunity for a
profitable business, and thus together with some colleagues, they formed Plasma International. The
company mainly deals with the location, purchase, supply, and sale of blood to individuals and
organizations that need it for transfusion.
During the initial stages of the company’s operation, the company bought contaminated blood from
alcoholics and drug addicts as only a few people in the country were willing to exchange their blood for
money. However, the organization later found a village in Africa where people were more willing to sell
their blood to the company at prices as low as fifteen cents a pint. The company made deals with local
chiefs for purchase of blood from people in the villages. The company resold the blood in the US at prices
that were ten times higher than the purchase price. In the US, about forty percent of people donate blood to
build up credit so that they do not buy blood when they need it later.
In comparison, the National Health Service in the Great Britain relies solely on blood donations. The
justification for the British system is that blood is something that can dictate whether a person lives or dies.
Denying that person blood, especially if voluntary donors offer it, because the person cannot afford the
blood is wrong and thus immoral.
Questions: Answer considering the case only. Don’t answer from your personal knowledge.
i) Is selling blood moral? What is your justification for your answer?
ii) From the Utilitarianism point of view, how will you justify “Selling Blood” in the US vs the
Great Britain?
iii) From the ethical theories, what is the “Value” of blood in both countries? Discuss with your
reasoning.

Answer 1

Answer:

sory i do not know the answers