The supply of blood and plasma to produce haemotherapies varies around the world, but all environments need donors to furnish the raw material. Many countries still lack adequate supply, and the question of what amounts of blood and plasma are required for optimal treatment is still unresolved. The issue of compensating donors has been a controversial and emotive one in blood transfusion for many decades. Donors are conventionally classified as paid, voluntary or replacement, and a level of stigma, based on safety and ethical considerations, has been attached to paid donation. This review points to evidence which renders many of these concerns redundant. Purist arguments against compensated donation have little basis in evidence and would lead to many of today's voluntary donors being designated as paid, because of the large range of incentives used to recruit and retain them. Misplaced application of 'Titmussian' volunteerism has precipitated its own safety and supply problems. Current systems of compensation and replacement are needed to maintain supplies of essential products and lead to safe products in controlled environments. We propose that a plurality of routes towards donation is an appropriate paradigm in the heterogeneous landscape of blood and plasma product supply.

Plasma protein therapies (PPTs) are a group of essential medicines extracted from human plasma through processes of industrial scale fractionation. They are used primarily to treat a number of rare, chronic disorders ensuing from inherited or acquired deficiencies of a number of physiologically essential proteins. These disorders include hemophilia A and B, different immunodeficiencies and alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency. In addition, acute blood loss, burns and sepsis are treated by PPTs. Hence, a population of vulnerable and very sick individuals is dependent on these products. In addition, the continued well-being of large sections of the community, including pregnant women and their children, travelers and workers exposed to infectious risk is also subject to the availability of these therapies. Their manufacture to adequate amounts requires large volumes of human plasma as the starting material of a complex purification process. Mainstream blood transfusion services run primarily by the not-for-profit sector have attempted to provide this plasma through the separation of blood donations, but have failed to provide sufficient amounts to meet the clinical demand. The collection of plasma from donors willing to commit to the process of plasmapheresis, which is not only time consuming but requires a long term, continuing commitment, generates much higher amounts of plasma and has been an activity historically separate from the blood transfusion sector and run by commercial companies. These companies now supply two-thirds of the growing global need for these therapies, while the mainstream government-run blood sector continues to supply a shrinking proportion. The private sector plasmapheresis activity which provides the bulk of treatment products has been compensating the donors in order to recognize the time and effort required. Recent activities have reignited the debate regarding the ethical and medical aspects of such compensation. In this work, we review the landscape; assess the contributions made by the compensated and non-compensated sectors and synthesize the outcomes on the relevant patient communities of perturbing the current paradigm of compensated plasma donation. We conclude that the current era of "Patient Centeredness" in health care demands the continuation and extension of paid plasma donation.

Many global and national systems of regulation of blood donors and donor compensation rely for intellectual support on Richard Titmuss's views, represented in The Gift Relationship. Based on selective interpretation of data from the 1960s, Titmuss engineered an ethical view pertaining to donors and, in so doing, created not only ongoing stereotypes, but created a cause for followers to perpetuate misunderstandings about the nature of such donations. In many cases, donors are, in fact compensated, but regulatory systems persevere in using definitional fig leaves in order to perpetuate an ongoing political goal of diminishing private sector participation in health care. However, in more recent works, including new views of critical sociology and evolutionary psychology, the Titmuss worldview has been turned upside-down. Evidence readily available today proves the safety of compensated donation and the lives saved by encouraging policies for both compensated and non-compensated donation.

No abstract

No abstract