Blood for sale Sol Levin was a successful stockbroker in Tampa. He observed that in the United States, the blood used for transfusions mostly comes from donation from well-wishers. However, since most people are not willing to donate, there was a blood deficit in the country. He considered this scenario as an opportunity for a profitable business, and thus together with some colleagues, they formed Plasma International. The company mainly deals with the location, purchase, supply, and sale of blood to individuals and organizations that need it for transfusion. During the initial stages of the company’s operation, the company bought contaminated blood from alcoholics and drug addicts as only a few people in the country were willing to exchange their blood for money. However, the organization later found a village in Africa where people were more willing to sell their blood to the company at prices as low as fifteen cents a pint. The company made deals with local chiefs for purchase of blood from people in the villages. The company resold the blood in the US at prices that were ten times higher than the purchase price. In the US, about forty percent of people donate blood to build up credit so that they do not buy blood when they need it later. In comparison, the National Health Service in the Great Britain relies solely on blood donations. The justification for the British system is that blood is something that can dictate whether a person lives or dies. Denying that person blood, especially if voluntary donors offer it, because the person cannot afford the blood is wrong and thus immoral. Is selling blood moral? What is your justification for your answer? From the Utilitarianism point of view, how will you justify "Selling Blood" in the US vs the Great Britain?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Case Study Scenario # 4: Blood for sale Sol Levin was a successful stockbroker in Tampa. He observed that in the United States, the blood used for transfusions mostly comes from donation from well-wishers. However, since most people are not willing to donate, there was a blood deficit in the country. He considered this scenario as an opportunity for a profitable business, and thus together with some colleagues, they formed Plasma International. The company mainly deals with the location, purchase, supply, and sale of blood to individuals and organizations that need it for transfusion. During the initial stages of the company’s operation, the company bought contaminated blood from alcoholics and drug addicts as only a few people in the country were willing to exchange their blood for money. However, the organization later found a village in Africa where people were more willing to sell their blood to the company at prices as low as fifteen cents a pint. The company made deals with local chiefs for purchase of blood from people in the villages. The company resold the blood in the US at prices that were ten times higher than the purchase price. In the US, about forty percent of people donate blood to build up credit so that they do not buy blood when they need it later. In comparison, the National Health Service in the Great Britain relies solely on blood donations. The justification for the British system is that blood is something that can dictate whether a person lives or dies. Denying that person blood, especially if voluntary donors offer it, because the person cannot afford the blood is wrong and thus immoral. Is selling blood moral? What is your justification for your answer? From the Utilitarianism point of view, how will you justify "Selling Blood" in the US vs the Great Britain?