Am I being too generous ? Or am I too tight ?

12346»

Comments

  • I don't mind giving a charitable donation when I feel like it, especially if it's a cause that I believe to be worthy, but I don't like it when you get accosted by the chuggers in the street. They almost block your path with their arms out wide. It actually makes me less likely to give when I see them.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭
    Colin McLaughlin wrote (see)
    Screamapillar wrote (see)
    Just as well we don't all think like you Colin.

    To actually suggest you be paid for giving blood which might save a person's life, potentially even one of your loved-ones, is astounding. I guess you'll be too mean to donate your organs won't you? God forbid someone should get them for free, even if you're too dead to use them. 

    "Altruism" is clearly not a concept you are familiar with.

    I don't see why it's "astounding" to suggest you are paid a fair price for your body products. You're only "astounded" (if indeed you are astounded??) because you're accustomed to the idea that blood is free to the NHS. If the NHS wants to buy new thermometers, or new beds, or a new scanner, or to have doctors and nurses, etc, the NHS PAYS for it. The NHS pays billions to get what it needs. Exceptionally, the NHS has hived off blood donation into the separate arena of "charitable giving", making it something people are expected to give for free if they give it at all, whereas the NHS has to pay for pretty much everything else it gets. I don't think it's unreasonable for donors to be paid for their body product, seeing as it has a value, and a value to someone else, and I don't think the idea they should be paid for it is "astounding" at all. It's actually rather astounding that the Blood Service manages to get people to give away a valuable product entirely free.

    Organ donation comes into the same category for me, yes. Organ donors could usefully be paid for the donation of something that's of value (in some cases, huge value) to someone else. Not because I'm mean, as you suggest, but because it's fair that me or my estate should be paid for something that has a market value and a value to someone else. If someone buys my house, they pay for it. Why should they get parts of my body free of charge?

    There's actually a shortage of organs which could be eliminated if people were paid for their organs instead of payment being illegal, as I believe it is in this country, so arguments you may have against non-payment are actually weak. People are dying who needn't die, because other people aren't induced to donate by a system of fair payment when there could be a system of fair payment for body parts.

    Altruism is a concept I'm familiar with. I'm also familiar with other concepts, such as reasonableness, people being taken advantage of for their good nature, the laws of supply and demand, common sense, and fairness, and the same people in society being put upon to give, give, give, again and again until they get a bit sick of it and become resistant and cynical.

     

    Bloody Hell!

  •  

    Colin McLaughlin wrote (see)
    Screamapillar wrote (see)
    Just as well we don't all think like you Colin.

    To actually suggest you be paid for giving blood which might save a person's life, potentially even one of your loved-ones, is astounding. I guess you'll be too mean to donate your organs won't you? God forbid someone should get them for free, even if you're too dead to use them. 

    "Altruism" is clearly not a concept you are familiar with.

    I don't see why it's "astounding" to suggest you are paid a fair price for your body products. You're only "astounded" (if indeed you are astounded??) because you're accustomed to the idea that blood is free to the NHS. If the NHS wants to buy new thermometers, or new beds, or a new scanner, or to have doctors and nurses, etc, the NHS PAYS for it. The NHS pays billions to get what it needs. Exceptionally, the NHS has hived off blood donation into the separate arena of "charitable giving", making it something people are expected to give for free if they give it at all, whereas the NHS has to pay for pretty much everything else it gets. I don't think it's unreasonable for donors to be paid for their body product, seeing as it has a value, and a value to someone else, and I don't think the idea they should be paid for it is "astounding" at all. It's actually rather astounding that the Blood Service manages to get people to give away a valuable product entirely free.

    Organ donation comes into the same category for me, yes. Organ donors could usefully be paid for the donation of something that's of value (in some cases, huge value) to someone else. Not because I'm mean, as you suggest, but because it's fair that me or my estate should be paid for something that has a market value and a value to someone else. If someone buys my house, they pay for it. Why should they get parts of my body free of charge?

    There's actually a shortage of organs which could be eliminated if people were paid for their organs instead of payment being illegal, as I believe it is in this country, so arguments you may have against non-payment are actually weak. People are dying who needn't die, because other people aren't induced to donate by a system of fair payment when there could be a system of fair payment for body parts.

    Altruism is a concept I'm familiar with. I'm also familiar with other concepts, such as reasonableness, people being taken advantage of for their good nature, the laws of supply and demand, common sense, and fairness, and the same people in society being put upon to give, give, give, again and again until they get a bit sick of it and become resistant and cynical.

     

    I'll refer back to Screamy's comment: "Just as well we don't all think like you, Colin".

     

  • Giving, whether that be cash or blood/organs, is a personal choice and the argument you give is just as valid as anyone elses and needs no justification. Fortunately many do give blood. I must admit to not giving blood myself but I was told when I was young that I couldn't due to an illness I'd had - I should really check that is true though!

  • DustinDustin ✭✭✭

    Going back to the OP, and other comments herein:
    Everyone has a right to give (or not to give) that is their choice. It makes no odds to me, and I don't see charity giving or donation as some kind of "karma" (don't believe in it). If people choose not to, so be it, if people choose to, so be it.
    Colin makes a point - not one I agree with - but I understand his economic argument. The conflict here would be that the NHS is a service provider, free to all, funded by the state thru either taxation, or indeed donations (blood). At present, fortunately, I am a net contributer to the UK health system, although I envisage a time when its likely I may not be. The other scenario is a US style system, when we all have to pay for healthcare. An avenue I'd rather not go down.
    As for charity giving, personally speaking, eyes are opened wider upon personal experience: Mcmillan nurses for example were priceless when my mother died. Economically, you could argue my small donations are paying for their services, yet unlike professional providers, they are motivated by cause rather than money.

     

  • I'm not going to quote your rant Colin, we've all read it.

    But anyway - as far as I'm aware, blood donation has always been voluntary and unpaid. I know because my dad was a blood donor for years. It isn't something that's been "hived off into the arena of charitable giving", it's just your skewed view of the process.

    Let's have a look at your idea of payment for body products though shall we? Who will pay? The NHS? If so, they're paying out of the taxation from you and others that they have already received and out of limited funds. Is that your idea of a convoluted sort of refund? And how would you feel about being denied a hip operation because the money for it has been given to a person (live or dead) who donated a kidney?

    Alternatively, perhaps the person who needs the blood/organs pays. Can you imagine where that would lead - a world where even donated organs go to the people who can bid the most for them? No thank you. 

    When you receive blood it is free at the point of need, as it is if you need an organ donation, as it is for virtually all NHS treatment. The whole reason people don't get paid is to make the system fair and equal. Price and value are not the same thing. You clearly don't get that.

    I don't understand how you, and people like you, automatically equate charity with being taken advantage of. But then I'm not you and, for that, I'm thankful.

  • Well I am late to this very interesting debate....a common thread seemed to be keeping the charity local(ish).  I can see the logic behind that, there may be a stronger emotional resonance, for example.  Answering Wilkie's question, I make regular donations to 2 charities - Medicins sans Frontiers and Mines Advisory Group, both of which deal with conflict / post-conflict situations.  Possibly because I have lived in countries where there were civil wars, and the victims may well go from hard working tax-paying citizens such as ourselves (image) to devastated / injured et cetera through no fault of their own.

    I work very hard for my money, pay high rate taxes, resent scroungers etc etc, but have also seen situations where (particularly) a child's illness has just completely destroyed a family's financial situation.  Not all the help needed is state funded (different argument it should / shouldn't be - it just isn't today.)  So I also raise funds on the odd occasion and make the one off donations from time to time.

    I read the Times because I like the puzzles on Thurs / Fri.  Does that tell you all about my politics?

     

     

  • "Rabbit realised the world was not solid and benign, it was a shabby set of temporary arrangements rigged up for the time being, all for the sake of money. You just passed through, and they milked you for what you were worth, mostly when you were young and gullible."

    ~ John Updike, "Rabbit at Rest" (1990)

  • Colin McLaughlin wrote (see)
    ...............Why should they get parts of my body free of charge?....................

    Erm...........because (for the majority of your organs to be used) you'll be dead and won't need them any more, and won't need the money either.

  • Screamapillar wrote (see)

    I'm not going to quote your rant Colin, we've all read it.

    But anyway - as far as I'm aware, blood donation has always been voluntary and unpaid. I know because my dad was a blood donor for years. It isn't something that's been "hived off into the arena of charitable giving", it's just your skewed view of the process.

    Let's have a look at your idea of payment for body products though shall we? Who will pay? The NHS? If so, they're paying out of the taxation from you and others that they have already received and out of limited funds. Is that your idea of a convoluted sort of refund? And how would you feel about being denied a hip operation because the money for it has been given to a person (live or dead) who donated a kidney?

    Alternatively, perhaps the person who needs the blood/organs pays. Can you imagine where that would lead - a world where even donated organs go to the people who can bid the most for them? No thank you. 

    When you receive blood it is free at the point of need, as it is if you need an organ donation, as it is for virtually all NHS treatment. The whole reason people don't get paid is to make the system fair and equal. Price and value are not the same thing. You clearly don't get that.

    I don't understand how you, and people like you, automatically equate charity with being taken advantage of. But then I'm not you and, for that, I'm thankful.

    +1

  • Colin McLaughlin wrote (see)

    "Rabbit realised the world was not solid and benign, it was a shabby set of temporary arrangements rigged up for the time being, all for the sake of money. You just passed through, and they milked you for what you were worth, mostly when you were young and gullible."

    ~ John Updike, "Rabbit at Rest" (1990)

    Yeah, well perhaps I get my world view more from Dickens than from Updike. Thankfully.

  • WombleWomble ✭✭✭
    I've been prompted by this thread to add to my regular donations! The other prompt being the H*****x changing the t&c on their reward accounts so you have to have direct debits on your account as well as paying in every month. I'd been enjoying the free fivers every month now I'm giving them away image



    I work for a charity as well as volunteer for them. I know how much some people give to charity and it is generally true that those on lower incomes give a far higher proportion of their money away to charity than those with more money.



    It would be great if we didn't have to rely on charities to provide some fairly basic services (someone mentioned Macmillan nurses - why isn't what they do provided by the NHS?) but I don't think that day will ever come.
  • WombleWomble ✭✭✭
    And I only just joined the thread as I've been away on my luxury holiday paid for by donations........ (Joking before anyone gets upset).
  • Our Colin should be grateful that blood donors have no say in who receives the blood (organs, etc).

  • WombleWomble ✭✭✭
    I give blood too - over 250 donations (yes I'm very old)(and used to give plasma). Now my Dad has had a serious number of transfusions - over 50 last year - I'm glad I can help him or anyone else at so little 'cost' to myself.
  • Thanks for the prompts guys, I have been reminded to increase my monthly giving. I've been meaning to get a round tuit.

    To be honest I don't know exactly how much I give to charity. I do know the regular monthly figure. Requests and appeals are considered on what I consider are their merits. (If I was in that situation, what would I do). Over the years I was regularly running marathons I would use one, usually London, as a fund raiser. In an idle moment I did a rough tally and reckoned that I'd raised well over £10k. I'm not gloating, just relating how it can be possible.

    On a completely separate topic, that somehow managed to get tangled into this thread: if we chose how our taxes were to be spent, then it would become very difficult to find funding for prisons, prisoner reform, drug rehabilitation, development planning and even the Police. Hands up who wants to pay for an energy efficiency survey of decrepid publically owned buildings? Overtime for a teacher? Or should I rephrase those two? Who thinks it's a good idea to waste money and energy? Who would like children to be able to play in the school sports team on Saturday?

  • But Womble, you're part of the PROBLEM, don't you see?  You're one of those hugely over-paid charity employees that all the donations to charity are squandered on.

    The fact that you can afford a holiday is the proof!

    image

  • Womble wrote (see)
    I've been prompted by this thread to add to my regular donations! The other prompt being the H*****x changing the t&c on their reward accounts so you have to have direct debits on your account as well as paying in every month. I'd been enjoying the free fivers every month now I'm giving them away image 

    image Good on you Womble!

  • Muttley wrote (see)

    Our Colin should be grateful that blood donors have no say in who receives the blood (organs, etc).

    If they changed the system, I'd revise my approach to it, Muttley.

    The UK since 1946 has become a nation of freeloaders. Too many people don't have to contribute much, and are allowed to get away with it, so others have to carry them. I'm done with carrying people who can walk, or being taken for a mug any more.

    If the likes of Womble want to swan round London on her bicycle doing good works and being a cross between a saint and a slave, that's up to her. We each make our own decisions, based on how we perceive the country is run and whether it's fair or not.

  • Screamapillar wrote (see)
    Colin McLaughlin wrote (see)

    "Rabbit realised the world was not solid and benign, it was a shabby set of temporary arrangements rigged up for the time being, all for the sake of money. You just passed through, and they milked you for what you were worth, mostly when you were young and gullible."

    ~ John Updike, "Rabbit at Rest" (1990)

    Yeah, well perhaps I get my world view more from Dickens than from Updike. Thankfully.

    Dickens died long before the welfare state came into being. When he was alive, income tax was probably one or two per cent and we weren't subjected to the vast range of other taxes we are subjected to nowadays. You aren't going to get much insight from Dickens into what an individual's approach to giving to charity should be once we have an all-singing,-all-dancing overbearing state that taxes good people until the pips squeak while at the same time allowing lazy people to contribute very little and freeload, and where "charities" largely duplicate what the state takes it on itself to provide anyway, and aren't so necessary.

    Rabbit at Rest" won a Pulitzer Prize, by the way. As did "Rabbit is Rich", Updike's novel in the series that preceded it.

  • Screamapillar wrote (see)

     It isn't something that's been "hived off into the arena of charitable giving", it's just your skewed view of the process.

    "Hived off" means set apart from. Blood donation has been hived off into the area of charitable giving.

    Screamapillar wrote (see)

    Let's have a look at your idea of payment for body products though shall we? Who will pay? The NHS? If so, they're paying out of the taxation from you and others that they have already received and out of limited funds. Is that your idea of a convoluted sort of refund?

    If Womble gives blood, she receives, say, £10 or £15 a time, which is paid for out of general taxation. That is fair on her. It is fair on the rest of us who don't give blood.

    Screamapillar wrote (see)
    And how would you feel about being denied a hip operation because the money for it has been given to a person (live or dead) who donated a kidney?

    l don't understand what you are saying here.

     

    Alternatively, perhaps the person who needs the blood/organs pays. Can you imagine where that would lead - a world where even donated organs go to the people who can bid the most for them? No thank you. 

     

    Yes, the person who needs blood/organs pays, or someone else does on his/her behalf (e.g. a charity). Organs going to people who bid the most for them is fine by me. Far better than donors not being paid anything at all, and good useful human meat going to incinerators every day. There should be a financial market in donor organs. Maybe there wouldn't even be a shortage then. Maybe the price would be quite low, because the material would be far more plentiful than it is now, and lives would be saved because organs were available rather than not available.

     

    Screamapillar wrote (see)

    When you receive blood it is free at the point of need, as it is if you need an organ donation, as it is for virtually all NHS treatment. The whole reason people don't get paid is to make the system fair and equal. 

    The system isn't "fair and equal". The good natures of some people are put upon to give blood, while others are allowed to freeload. That isn't fair.

    Screamapillar wrote (see)

    But then I'm not you and, for that, I'm thankful.

     

    Nice to see your true nature peeping through here.

  • At risk of some free-loading good-for-nothing taking advantage of my community spirit and having a horrendous car accident or something, I've just booked a blood donation.  (After the marathon!)  Thanks for the reminder Colin.  image

  • You're very welcome.

    He probably will.

12346»
Sign In or Register to comment.