Platelets, Puppies, and Payment: How Surveys can be Misleading in the Remuneration Debate.

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Hec Forum Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2022-04-19 DOI:10.1007/s10730-022-09481-z
James Stacey Taylor
{"title":"Platelets, Puppies, and Payment: How Surveys can be Misleading in the Remuneration Debate.","authors":"James Stacey Taylor","doi":"10.1007/s10730-022-09481-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In a recent article (\"The current state of the platelet supply in the US and proposed options to decrease the risk of critical shortages\") published in Transfusion, Stubbs et al. have argued that platelet donors should be paid. Dodd et al. have argued against this proposal, supporting their response with survey data that shows that blood donors (and by extension platelet donors) and potential platelet donors are uninterested in receiving incentives to encourage them to donate. Instead, argue Dodd et al., prospective platelet donors are motivated more by the ease of donation than the prospect of payment. This article defends Stubbs et al. from the criticisms of Dodd et al. It first argues that the preferences that persons state they have in response to survey questions might not reflect the preferences that their actions would reveal they have in actual rather than hypothetical situations. This hypothetical bias is especially likely when persons respond to surveys that ask them about the performance of morally commendable actions (such as platelet donation). This article then argues that the survey that Dodd et al. rely on exhibits serious selection bias with respect to the set of persons it considers to be potential platelet donors.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-022-09481-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/4/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a recent article ("The current state of the platelet supply in the US and proposed options to decrease the risk of critical shortages") published in Transfusion, Stubbs et al. have argued that platelet donors should be paid. Dodd et al. have argued against this proposal, supporting their response with survey data that shows that blood donors (and by extension platelet donors) and potential platelet donors are uninterested in receiving incentives to encourage them to donate. Instead, argue Dodd et al., prospective platelet donors are motivated more by the ease of donation than the prospect of payment. This article defends Stubbs et al. from the criticisms of Dodd et al. It first argues that the preferences that persons state they have in response to survey questions might not reflect the preferences that their actions would reveal they have in actual rather than hypothetical situations. This hypothetical bias is especially likely when persons respond to surveys that ask them about the performance of morally commendable actions (such as platelet donation). This article then argues that the survey that Dodd et al. rely on exhibits serious selection bias with respect to the set of persons it considers to be potential platelet donors.

血小板、小狗和报酬:调查如何在薪酬辩论中产生误导》。
Stubbs 等人最近在《输血》(Transfusion)杂志上发表了一篇文章("美国血小板供应现状及降低严重短缺风险的建议方案"),认为应该向血小板捐献者支付报酬。Dodd 等人反对这一提议,他们用调查数据支持自己的观点,这些数据显示献血者(以及血小板捐献者)和潜在的血小板捐献者对接受奖励以鼓励他们捐献不感兴趣。相反,多德等人认为,潜在的血小板捐献者的动机更多的是捐献的便利性,而不是付款的前景。本文为 Stubbs 等人对 Dodd 等人的批评进行了辩护。本文首先指出,人们在回答调查问题时所陈述的偏好可能并不反映他们在实际情况下而非假设情况下的行为偏好。当人们在回答调查问题时被问及道德上值得称赞的行为(如血小板捐赠)时,这种假设性偏差尤其可能出现。本文随后指出,多德等人所依据的调查在其认为的潜在血小板捐献者群体方面表现出严重的选择偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信