It's My Body; Why Can't I Sell It If I Want To?
Sally Satel writes in the WSJ about the recent 9th Circuit Court Decision that bone marrow donors may be compensated:
In a unanimous ruling, the court rejected the position of the U.S. Department of Justice that obtaining bone-marrow stem cells through a needle in a donor's arm--in much the same way that blood plasma and platelets are collected--violates the ban on paying for organs established by the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA)....Pivotal to the judges' decision was the fact that modern bone-marrow procurement makes the process akin to drawing blood. In the early 1980s, when NOTA was written, the process was more demanding, involving anesthesia and large hollow needles that extract marrow directly from the donor's hip bone.
...At one level, the Ninth Circuit ruling is narrow: Only cells collected in a certain way are deemed exempt from NOTA, making their donors eligible for compensation. But the decision has broad implications for transplant policy in general because it underscores the profound weakness in our altruism-only transplant policy--not only relating to bone marrow, no matter how it is collected, but also for the thousands who die each year awaiting a kidney, liver, heart or lung.
As the judges pointed out, there is no logical basis for allowing compensation for blood, sperm and eggs while disallowing bone-marrow cells obtained through apheresis. Nor is it a novel cause for alarm that the better-off will be at an advantage in purchasing. This is already true for egg donation and maternal surrogacy. In contrast, all serious proposals for revising NOTA have advanced a system in which a third party would provide in-kind incentives for bone marrow and other organs as well.
The Ninth Circuit decision should also spur a moral dialogue about the idea of "commodification." Giving a body part "free" is noble, some say, but accepting compensation is illegitimate, a sordid affront to human dignity.
How absurd. Dignity is affirmed when we respect the capacity of individuals to make decisions in their own best interest, protect their health, and express gratitude for their sacrifice. The true indignity is to stand by while thousands of people die each year.
For anyone who doesn't know about Sally, well, I'll put it this way. A mutual friend once introduced Sally Satel and me via email. I wrote to her, jokingly, "I believe you have my friend Virginia Postrel's kidney." (A story worth reading.)
I wish someone would tell the government that it isn't supposed to regulate dignity.
Cat at December 7, 2011 4:52 AM
As long as the person selling their organ does so with a sound mind and absent any coersion, it shouldn't be anyone else's business.
Robert at December 7, 2011 5:33 AM
She left out the part that explains why the prohibition
was passed in the first place.
"Though bone marrow is naturally replenishable, unlike livers,
kidneys and other whole organs, its sale was barred because the
extraction method used at the time the law was passed was painful
and risky for the donor and authorities feared the poor would be
induced to submit to the procedure to earn money."
Today, many college students graduate with a crushing burden of
student loans that even bankruptcy won't get rid of. Trading that
for the scenario of many college grads missing a vital organ isn't
something that's a good idea in the long run.
The poor are also prohibited from selling themselves (or each other)
into slavery. The idea is that there are some things that people,
in general, don't want to see an open market for.
Ron at December 7, 2011 5:50 AM
I think people should be allowed to sell their spare organs, so long as they do it with the understanding that if that one kidney they keep goes, they have to pay cash for it's replacement. It's not exploiting poor people. 100 years ago they sold their kids, an organ is better, no? And they could get enough to truly change their life (of course, most would blow it stupidly, but some might not). As to marrow, how is that different form selling plasma? It's a renewable resource.
I also think women (and men, I suppose) should be legally allowed to rent their body orifices to others as they chose.
And I 100% support the opt-as as opposed to the opt-in for donation at death.
momof4 at December 7, 2011 6:29 AM
The court should not be concerned with "protecting dignity." It should be concerned with protecting rights.
The Original Kit at December 7, 2011 7:02 AM
Not really off topic, but this is an interesting and disturbing article about how China deals with organ transplants...
http://extragoodshit.phlap.net/?p=149125#more-149125
Eric at December 7, 2011 7:52 AM
"It's My Body; Why Can't I Sell It If I Want To?"
How much are you charging Amy? I get paid Friday, maybe we can work something out.
Todd Fletcher at December 7, 2011 8:26 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/07/its_my_body_why.html#comment-2837463">comment from Todd FletcherYou're funny, Todd.
Amy Alkon
at December 7, 2011 8:27 AM
Did you read "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks"? Great book on cell research. Not something I would normally read, but it got such rave reviews that I picked it up for one of those long flights to France. Fascinating book on the woman whose cells are responsible for so many medical advances/cures, and how the family has never been compensated.
judy at December 7, 2011 9:20 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/07/its_my_body_why.html#comment-2837716">comment from judyThe Lacks book sounds wonderful. I put in a link to the book on Amazon. I wish I had time to read it, but I'm reading all this science stuff and still behind. I have Barbara Oakley's Pathological Altruism -- some 500 pages that I'm midway through -- and I'm reading a fascinating book on attention, Rapt, by Winifred Gallagher.
Amy Alkon
at December 7, 2011 9:43 AM
Put it on your long list, and I am putting Rapt on my list. Right now I just read legal briefs and scholarly books and PhD dissertations on fungus. But that will end eventually and I look forward to returning to life before a lawsuit. Thanks for putting in the link.
judy at December 7, 2011 10:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/07/its_my_body_why.html#comment-2837964">comment from judyThanks, Judy -- I will. And I should. Sounds wonderful.
And FYI, Judy is reading on fungus because she and her husband Walter Moore (for whom I voted for mayor -- happily, without holding my nose as I usually do when voting) are involved in a lawsuit against their insurance company, Safeco. A most amazing lawsuit, because the Moores had this amazing fungus that took over their house and Safeco's "bad faith and unfair competition."
http://safecolawsuit.blogspot.com/2011/07/fox-channel-11s-outstanding-story-on.html
Amy Alkon
at December 7, 2011 11:14 AM
They can take out part of your liver to transplant and it grows back.
You can also donate part of a lung, it doesn't grow back but if the person can get two people to do it they don't have to wait for someone to die.
nonegiven at December 7, 2011 1:09 PM
CBS News did an interesting story on Henrietta Lacks...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/15/sunday/main6300824.shtml
Eric at December 7, 2011 1:52 PM
The Moors should count themselves lucky they still have their health I suppose, I lost most of a lung to fungus, that stuff is insidious
lujlp at December 7, 2011 7:32 PM
Leave a comment