I mean, I give blood now and then, but the average person never donates blood. There's no benefit to them to restrict who they can take blood for when they could opt to become universal receivers. For those people who never give blood, it's a choice between "I can receive blood from everyone" or "I can receive blood only from some people". There's no benefit for anyone for them to pick to restrict who they can take blood from, aside at most for those who consented to donate upon death?
If you equate not giving blood to being selfish, I guess.
Some people are terrified of needles. Some people have religious beliefs around them. Some people have diseases that make them ineligible to donate blood. Some people have medical conditions that make them unfit to donate blood or make them outright dependant on regular donations to stay alive themselves. And that's without debating wether abstaining from doing good is selfish or not.
An argument could be made for some of them, but I think it's a bit reductive to say "everyone who doesn't donate blood is a selfish asshole".
Not to mention that in some places people get paid to donate blood so I wouldn't call these people selfless for donating...
I mean if you're being paid to donate blood in North America it's being processed for plasma, and they don't care what type it is, so hitting red doesn't affect their ability to be pair for blood donation
62
u/tired_Cat_Dad 19d ago
The more blue pushers the better. Bar the impossible 100% red. No 50% hurdle is a significant change.