Amazon.com Widgets

Should blood donors be notified when their donated blood is given to another person?

  • Yes, they should

    Imagine, donating blood and then, a while later getting an e-mail saying that your blood has saved someone's life.You would feel so amazing knowing you have helped save a person's existence. It would boost the donors' mental health by so much.And donor numbers would practically double, which means more lives would be saved and more people would be happy in their knowing they made a positive contribution to their universe

  • If they want

    I think that it should be an option. No there is no NEED for it, but I think it would be a nice little thing. It would make a blood donor feel even better about themselves. Again, I think it should be an option, but not a forced thing for everyone.

  • Lol at me

    I think that they should because i said so lol. I think that they should because i said so lol. I think that they should because i said so lol. I think that they should because i said so lol. I think that they should because i said so lol.

  • Blood Donors Should be Alerted when Their Blood is Used

    Although it is not necessary, letting a blood donor know when their blood has been used is a positive thing for a donor. They already know they are doing a wonderful thing, but by notifying them when their blood has been used, it just confirms to them that they are doing a wonderful thing.

  • Yes because it is good news

    If I was a blood donor then I would want to know when my blood is used. It is good news if my blood is used so I don't see why you should not tell people. Now I have to write 9 more words. D d d d d d

  • What's the point?

    Blood donors donate blood and that's it. We don't need to waste resources on tracking where and who the blood goes to. Resources would be better spent on encouraging more people to donate blood, because it can actually save people's lives. Besides, just because your blood is in someone else's body doesn't make them owe you anything, right?

  • It would be too complicated for no real benefit.

    Someone would have to manage a database of everyone who has given blood, track the blood to all it's destinations, be notified of its use and who it was given to then someone has to go and contact the original donor. It can be done but it's allot of effort for very little reward.

    It's implied when you give blood that it will go to people in need. A good deed is a good deed whether you know who you helped or you don't.

  • No, blood donors do not need to be notified when their blood is given to someone.

    Donating blood is just that - a donation. Once blood is donated it is made available to be used wherever it is needed. To require the notification of donors that their blood has been used is an unnecessary requirement. If a donor wants their blood used to help a specific person that is fine, but donations without specific use requirements should not have notification requirements.

  • Blood donors should not be notified when their blood is given to another person

    Blood donors should not be notified when they're donated blood is giving to another person. There is absolutely no reason why a blood donor should be made aware of this fact. Once the donation has taken place, that is the end of the transaction and the donor loses any right to track the donation.

  • No need to inform blood donors of its whereabouts

    There is no need to notify blood donors when it is given to another person. People that donate generally do so for altruistic reasons. Therefore, where and to whom it goes is irrelevant. It will also create more bureaucracy and divert resources away from the critical task at hand. It may also prevent people from donating if they feel their blood will be given to someone whose views they find objectionable.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.