Abstract

Some authors defend prohibiting compensation for blood plasma on the grounds that compensating donors exploits them. James Taylor has recently argued against this view. According to Taylor, not only does compensation not exploit donors but also accepting uncompensated donations in jurisdictions requiring this exploits donors. In this article, I evaluate Taylor’s novel market-based account of exploitation and the conclusions about plasma donations he draws from it. I accept and offer further support for his account of exploitation but argue that (contra Taylor) the market-based account suggests that it is only in cases of capped compensation or legal monopsonies that centers can exploit donors. Uncompensated donations required by prohibitions are unlikely to exploit donors because a system of uncompensated donations does not actually benefit plasma centers, assuming a reasonable understanding of “benefits” for these nonprofit organizations. Finally, I discuss whether centers that can increase benefits to everyone by making exploitative offers should.