|
Richard, Wether or not choice is utility enhancing or not is peripheral, as it is aprt of a bigger issue, that is what Titmus sees as a better provision of blood. You might not agree on the last point I made, but there are multitude of services or technology which more than make up for a lessened supply of blood, as well as other services, paticularly life saving devices, which do not involve death from a loss of blood (e.g, defribulators for paramedics). There are also some which may benefit both life threatening situations which are or are not dependnet upon blood supply (e.g, more people learning first aid, better telecommunications and quicker ambulance response times) There are also some goods which have their origins in the US which have a positive externality for the giving British - such as new clotting powders which ameliorate the need for blood. If these benefits exceed the cost of a lessened supply, then the choice is definitely utility enhancing, paticulalry to the British who get the benefits of technology. The British are free riders in a sense, as the uncommodified blood does not allow them to make economic decisions as to substitue from charity into labour and invent such ingenious clotting technology.
| 
