it's a win all around, regulators just have to be careful and not screw it up.
But paying for blood increases the risk of people lying about the quality of their blood, which is why the administration doesn't incentivize blood donations.
Your argument about criminality is very wrong. Maybe I speak for myself, but I'd much rather be a criminal than a professional blood donor. People are not criminals because they have no other way...
this is where middlemen companies come into play, testing the blood and ensuring level of quality
> People are not criminals because they have no other way
sorry, i was not clear enough in my comment. what i meant is that opening up the legal way to sell blood reduces the incentive for criminals to do blood farming or human trafficking for the same purpose. much like legalizing marijuana will push drug traffickers out of the market.
[0] http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/10-body-parts-you-can-le...
If the tenant stops paying does the baby get delivered prematurely?
This also enables sperm banks to retain recurrent donors, which means they can afford to do very rigorous testing amortized over several dozen sperm samples. DNA screening, urine tests, blood tests, etc. That wouldn't be viable under the blood donation model. I've donated blood 5 or 6 times but I doubt even that's enough to make it worth the kind of testing they did on me as a sperm donor.
You would not want to force those students to have to choose between morality and 1 order of magnitude more money than what they can do in the official public blood donation center.
The morality of the remuneration is orthogonal. I assumed we were talking about countries where it is moral and legal to remunerate blood donation. I don't think that countries that today do not allow remuneration (for any reason) would allow it for this new use case.