The reprehensible thing is donating suspect blood solely for the purpose of getting it screened (even if that were a thing, which it is not for coronavirus).
-
-
Replying to @6502_ftw @arthur_affect
So you feel that donating blood representing a means to try to survive, whether for testing for [other] blood borne pathogens or compensation is reprehensible? Obviously everyone you care for is comfortably well off and well insured.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @scp_localhost @arthur_affect
Man, you just go right in there for the bad faith arguments, don’t you? I never said anything about compensation, and I don’t have a problem with that. What I DO have a problem with is giving blood one thinks may cause grievous harm to the recipient if used solely for the test.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @6502_ftw @arthur_affect
Bad faith was built into the thread. Is it reprehensible to steal bread to survive? Is it reprehensible to donate to know if HEP or HIV+ Vs. just food poisoned? Allow some space for a different Maslow layer before condemnation.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
How about the Maslow layer of SICK PEOPLE WHO NEED BLOOD? You’re not screwing “the man” or insurance co’s when you scam blood drives. You’re just screwing sick, vulnerable people. What part of that are you not understanding? Being poor does not excuse you from all morality.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @RachelNeedsANap @arthur_affect
Yes, it’s a far cry from stealing a loaf of bread. Let’s not pretend that potentially infecting someone (or multiple someones) with a lifelong chronic illness is anywhere near equivalent to putting a shopkeeper out a few bucks. Your arguments are silly and disingenuous.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
You have stated the rhetorical side of point counterpoint perfectly. No disingenuity, no debate from me there. Being placed in a situation where you would threaten someone else's life to potentially save your own and those you love is neither uncommon nor ~reprehensible.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You've set up a false dichotomy, as Internet debate enthusiasts often do I'm not interested in debating the abstract point of saving your life at another's expense because it does not apply here No one's life will be saved by trying to scam blood donation centers for free tests
1 reply 2 retweets 15 likes -
If think you might have anything on this list and cannot pay for a test, donating and being identified positive would be the first step in saving your own life. No?https://www.redcrossblood.org/biomedical-services/blood-diagnostic-testing/blood-testing.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The blood donation center is not a healthcare provider and cannot prescribe you treatment or refer you to a physician who can All they can do is let you know you tested positive and should go to a doctor, who will themselves have to test you again to confirm the diagnosis
1 reply 2 retweets 9 likes
Which means that it's moot - you should've just gone to the doctor for the test in the first place, and if you can't go to a doctor you're still screwed
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.