Paying for Blood Donations Can Be both Safe and Non-Exploitative

On June 27, 2013, the federal government released a summary report of its consultations with stakeholders regarding payment for plasma donations. Meanwhile, a company called Canadian Plasma Resources has constructed two privately owned clinics in Toronto that await approval prior to paying donors for their blood plasma.

Right on cue, the union representing employees at Canadian Blood Services (which has a government-granted monopoly on whole blood collection in Canada, outside of Quebec) proclaimed that safety will somehow be jeopardized if plasma is collected by anyone other than a public facility. Other opponents have attempted to sway public opinion by arguing that payment for plasma is somehow exploitative. Both criticisms are smoke-and-mirrors. I know from experience.

I have the blood that everyone wants. I am heterosexual, monogamous, and in good health with no underlying medical conditions. I don’t travel to regions of the world where strange infections persist. I’ve had no recent surgeries or dental work. I take no drugs. And I rarely—if ever—get sick. Oh yes, I have no fear of needles.

Despite these ideal attributes, I rarely donate. The entire process is a bother. It inevitably consumes the most productive hours of the day. Even though it involves only a small measure of discomfort, it always seems to negatively impact upon my work and personal endeavors. For me, altruism alone is not a sufficient incentive.

But there was a time in my life when I was attending school in the US, living off loans and struggling to pay the bills. Financially, those were stressful times. That’s why I was delighted by the opportunity to earn $45 per week.

Down the street from my budget apartment was a private medical clinic that collected plasma. The clinic gave first-time donors a thorough health examination. And after a lengthy interview to assess risk factors, donors who qualified were permitted to give plasma twice a week. The first visit in each seven-day period earned me $20, and the second earned $25.

I like to think that my plasma donations helped someone who needed it. Although I can’t claim to have had purely altruistic motives, I doubt the recipient of the life-saving medical products my plasma was used to create cared much about my motivation.

On other hand, the money was a boon for me. It meant that I could afford better food, put gas in my car, and maybe even go on an occasional evening out with my wife. And just for giving plasma—something that regenerates quickly. This is why it annoys me when I hear the word “exploitation” bandied about by those who oppose paying donors. Being paid to give plasma was a great help to me at that time in my life. And I am certain that it could be for others too. There is simply nothing exploitative about it at all.

First, I was in no way being abused by those paying me—if that’s what is meant by “exploit”, the criticism is ludicrous. The plasma was mine. The money was theirs. They wanted my plasma and I wanted their money, so we came to a mutually beneficial agreement to exchange the two. We both got what we wanted. No abusive exploitation.

Second, if anything, it was me doing the exploiting. Even though I made an effort to lead a healthy lifestyle—eating quality foods and exercising, while avoiding tobacco, alcohol, and the like—many of the physical characteristics that made me a good candidate were given me by my parents. Yet I reaped the benefit. I exploited this resource.

Third, how is paying someone for plasma more exploitative than offering no compensation? With or without payment, plasma donations are always voluntary. If either is exploitative, expecting donors to give plasma without payment—perhaps by inducing guilt or shame—seems more so to me.

The concern regarding safety is a sham—most plasma available in Canada already comes from donors paid in private clinics. Health Canada says approximately 70% of the plasma products available in Canada originate from such donors. Most of them are Americans. So either demand for plasma products in Canada outstrips the capacity of Canadians to donate, or Canadians have insufficient incentive. My experience makes me suspect the latter.

Evidently, altruism alone cannot supply all the blood products that Canadians need. It was the financial incentive that motivated me to donate, and my donations likely saved lives. That’s a win-win solution that should not be rejected under pressure from vested interests.

This piece first appeared in the Huffington Post in July 2013.

Economic Freedom helps Consumers

Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak’s plan to privatize retail liquor sales in Ontario—ending the near total monopolies of the LCBO and The Beer Store—is an ambitious step towards prioritizing consumer and retailer interests. And even if his plan relinquishes only part of the Ontario government’s control over liquor, it will result in greater economic freedom.

On this issue, Ontario could learn a lesson from Alberta. In 1993, Alberta privatized the retail portion of liquor distribution within the province. By all accounts, it has been successful. Since then, liquor sales have increased, resulting in higher government revenues while consumers enjoy greater product selection and lower prices. This has been the direct result of a more competitive and freer market—i.e. greater economic freedom. And there is no evidence that crime or alcohol related offences have increased as a result. 

Saskatchewan and Manitoba are both currently experimenting with the same idea. And who can blame them? What province doesn’t want to increase its revenues and cut costs all without causing any of the social ills that modern-day prohibitionists expect?

But, as Gerry Nichols points out in his Toronto Star article on Dec 4, it will be difficult for Hudak to relinquish government control over liquor sales because “well-funded special interest groups have a keen desire to keep the monopoly alive.” 


VESTED INTERESTS: Unions

Nichols’s point is borne out in Saskatchewan. On its website, the Saskatchewan Government Employees’ Union issued a press release decrying the opening of two private liquor stores in the province. SGEU president, Bob Bymoen says, "Alcohol is not just another consumer product. It is a drug that can and does cause serious problems for families and communities. Because of that, Saskatchewan citizens should have a say in how alcohol is sold in this province."

Chanting the same mantra, Manitoba’s government employees’ union opposes liquor sale privatization because it is dangerous. An MGEU press release says, "Alcohol is an intoxicant and it can be extremely harmful if misused or abused. The fact is that regulating alcohol sales is the responsible choice for Manitoba families and communities.”

As expected, these union outcries are shrill, at odds with the interests of the consuming public and small retailers, unsubstantiated by the empirical evidence collected over 20 years in Alberta, and contrary to economic freedom. But each does substantiate Nichols’s claim—the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union (OPSEU) will likely oppose Hudak’s plan.

VESTED INTERESTS: Labatts, Molson, and Sleeman

But it’s not only the OPSEU that will resist a freer market and greater competition. Hudak will also have to stand up to Labatts, Molson, and Sleeman.

The LCBO is government owned and operated, but The Beer Store is a private organization owned by three major breweries: Labatt Brewing Company Ltd., Molson Coors Brewing Company Ltd., and Sleeman Brewery Ltd. Even though The Beer Store is meant to be a non-profit, the owner breweries are able to restrict competition to the detriment of both the non-owner breweries and the consuming public.

There are two obvious means by which The Beer Store can restrict competition: through fees and product placement.

Non-owner breweries are charged two fees to have their products sold in The Beer Store. The first is a listing fee of $2,650.14, plus $212.02 per retail location where the product will be available. And the second is a handling fee between $3.65 and $4.15 for every case of 24 beers. As ludicrous as it seems, under the current system, non-owner breweries must pay substantial fees to their competitors if they want their product to be available at Ontario’s biggest retail outlet for beer.

The Beer Store can also restrict competition by giving product placement priority to the owner-breweries’ products. And because of the Ontario government’s control over the liquor market, these other producers do not have the option to open their own retail outlets to compete with The Beer Store and its owner breweries.

This government mandated arrangement results in higher prices and a more limited selection for Ontarians while it inhibits the development of a retail industry that would be more responsive to market demands.

TAKE 'EM DOWN!

Hudak will need to take on both the OPSEU and the private owners of The Beer Store if he wants to give Ontarians the benefits of an Alberta-styled liquor retail industry. In the end, consumers, small producers, and small retailers will thank him because it will be a boon for economic freedom.

This piece was published by Troy Media on December 9, 2012

Confusing Compulsion for Freedom

The Toronto Sun reported yesterday that one of the reasons the Quebec student protests were so well-organized last spring is because the protesters were receiving financial help from unions across the country.

Canadian unions are well-known to give financial support to political causes—almost exclusively to those on the left side of the political spectrum. Many provinces in Canada, including Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia, have enacted legislation that forces even non-union members to pay union dues. And regardless of the wishes of the individuals forced to financially support them, unions are permitted to spend the money they collect to advance political causes that those same unwilling supporters oppose.

This issue was before the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1991 Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union case. This case examined whether the Charter right to freedom of association prohibits the government from compelling individuals into associations against their will.

Lavigne was a teacher at a community college. His employment contract incorporated the so-called Rand Formula, which forced him to pay union fees regardless of whether he was a union member. The union then used Lavigne’s money to support the NDP and other political causes that he deeply opposed.

Once he became aware of this, Lavigne applied to get his money back so that it could not be used to further causes he considered unjust. His application was unsuccessful so he appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The court’s decision was truly baffling.

Of the seven judges who heard the appeal, only three correctly held that freedom of association includes both a right to associate and a right to not associate. These three judges recognized that it’s just a matter of plain logic. If you are free to associate, you must also be free not to associate. That’s precisely what “free” means.

The remaining judges held that compulsory associations do not violate the Charter and that freedom of association “should not be expanded to protect the right not to associate.” Expanded? This implies that freedom from association is something other than a corollary of freedom of association. This view is incorrect. And it’s illogical.

In the end, the court had to bend the rules of good-reasoning to protect the Rand Formula. The word “freedom” necessarily implies choice. At a bare minimum, it must mean that individuals are free to choose to associate and free to choose not to associate. Yet the Lavigne decision protects the government’s constitutional authority to force individuals into involuntary associations. This is to confuse freedom with compulsion.

The real injustice in Quebec is not that tuition rates have been raised by a fraction. It’s that unions are supporting the protesting students using money involuntarily collected from unwilling Canadians.