I don't see a problem with paying for bone marrow or organs or other bodily fluids/components. Ideally people would be altruistic and donate out of the goodness of their heart, but it doesn't work like that in this economy and society. I would strongly strongly recommend that it be strictly regulated.

I have zero problem with allowing adult living donors of marrow, kidneys and liver-portions to be compensated. We already pay for plasma "donations".

I absolutely believe that people should be compensated. I may need bone marrow or an organ some day. I'd like them to be available. Compensation is important because someone may want to give for altruistic reasons, but be unable to do so because they would need extra support during their recovery or it might lead to job insecurity.

My only concern about compensation is that is would be meager - just enough to compell the poor to do it while costing them dearly. If course, this isn't the case with bone marrow - a very low risk procedure with no long-term cost.

My fantasy is that young healthy women could be compensated for their extrodinary genes through egg donation. It could be women's chance to make the big bucks Ike Tiger Woods or Roger Federer, especially if they also carry the baby. That is arduous athletic event that is best done during the peak of condition.

I used to support this until it was pointed out to me that that made your bone marrow, liver, and that spare kidney into "assets." Knowing bankers the way I do, I have concerns that this could lead to LOSING them in bankruptcy.

It, again, is tied into healthcare ("insurance") costs.

Consider if I donate a kidney, now, and am handsomely compensated for that. And later have some sort of kidney disease that would be benign with two but requires intervention because I have only one, then... who pays for that? As of now, Obamacare (the rest of you guys) would.

That's the problem I have with pay for organ donation.

No problem at all with paying for bone marrow, blood, plasma - anything that in a reasonable time grows back. Renewable resources, so to speak.

I think that's not quite right, Lamont. The act of going through the procedure---particularly with bone marrow, as it regenerates---is (or could be) what is compensated. The organ or marrow itself itself is not sold. So it's more like contract work than selling an asset. Bankruptcy court can't force you into plasma donation (which is still legally called donation; the donor's time and travel is what is paid for) anyway, right? Or force you into work as a model or porn star or prostitute (where legal) or to be a paid participant in medical research or donate eggs?

Good concept,bad idea. I can just see the offers of "get cash now! Sign up with us for promise of use of your--(kidney, heart, lungs, whatever)in the future!"

Then comes the car wreck or disease that renders the promised organ unusable, you die, they want their money back, go after your family,etc.

Or else you need it for a beloved family member but you've already made an agreement, so your mom has to go through the process of getting somebody else's organ, etc.

Or you marry someone whose religion forbids such things, and so you don't tell them you already agreed, etc...

Oh, it'll happen.

Could this be as easy of almost nobody knowing you CAN donate bone marrow, or at least not knowing it was as common as this makes it sound?

The last time I heard about bone marrow donation was that recent story about the football player missing a championship game to donate for some kid he'd never met. The story implied (or at least I inferred) that the process was at least complex enough that you would miss work. I always assumed it was fairly complex - any stories I've ever seen about makes it sound like it's fairly uncommon..

If indeed it's as easy as you say, I could see paying for it not being an issue. I just don't think it'd ever get as common as blood donation

How about paying for organs?

Not allowed. The rich wouldn't have to wait and suffer like the rest of the people. Can't have that.

Of course, in practice they still don't. Look at how fast Steve Jobs got his replacement organ (though fat lot of good it did him).

If you can be compelled to pay for health care, when it is labeled as a "tax", why can you not be compelled to donate an organ, once it has an agreed-upon market value?

Because, if they weren't compensated, it would be a "sale," not a "donation."

Being a bone marrow donor is more risky and expensive than you make it out to be. While I have no problem with compensating donors financially, after all you pay the doctors and the hospital for their contribution, I would never personally donate to anyone other than a close family member.

The risks are too great, for any hospital procedure. Why?

Prions, c-diff, staff, and a whole host of other antibiotic resistant bacteria that breed in hospitals and operating rooms these days.

I think we will cure AIDS and then have Prions as our next foe.

Something you can't kill because its just a fucking protein.

Can't wait.

"Because, if they weren't compensated, it would be a "sale," not a "donation."

Try again. I don't think you said what you think you said.

Weren't compensated means, "donation", not what you wrote.

Prions, c-diff, staff, … -- Isab at November 25, 2013 3:55 PM

staff -- I'm going to assume you meant staph being short for Staphylococcus aureus, and more specifically MRSA. The prevalence for these diseases is not as bad as was listed and has dropped 54%.

I think we will cure AIDS and then have Prions as our next foe. -- Ppen at November 25, 2013 5:58 PM

Actually there is a cure for Hepatitis C. AIDS invades bone marrow so short of a marrow replacement it can't be cured currently. But the new Hep C drugs gives AIDS a 0% viral load to the point it can't be detected.

So now the question is what to do if you can't get an AIDS free marrow replacement.

Jim, My mother's doctors have warned her to stay away from the hospital if at all possible. We have a three elderly relatives and friends who have contracted c-diff in either the hospital or a nursing home situation. Two just got really sick, the third one died.

Your fifty four percent reduction tells me nothing about what the actual rate of infection is, over all, or in any given hospital.

Like I said, it would be a risk I was willing to take for a close relative, but not for someone I was matched up to on an anonymous donor list, anymore, than I am going to go driving around without my seatbelt just because the odds are in my favor.

Well, we could hope for change.

Or we could continue the clusterfuck as it stands.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/24/liver.transplant.priority.lists/index.html

We have a three elderly relatives and friends who have contracted c-diff in either the hospital or a nursing home situation. Two just got really sick, the third one died. -- Isab at November 25, 2013 7:39 PM

Isab,

Little piece of news that you may not be aware of: you are going to die some day too. The same as me.

The when, where, and how is probably going to different. But somehow I know it is going to happen.

The search to c-diff brings up this:

Although C. diff occasionally causes problems in healthy people, it is most likely to affect patients in hospitals or long-term care facilities. Most have conditions that require long-term treatment with antibiotics, which kill off other intestinal bacteria that keep C. diff in check. While use of any antibiotic can potentially lead to C. diff overgrowth, it most commonly occurs with the use of an antibiotic that is broad-spectrum, or able to kill a wide variety of bacteria. It also happens more often when multiple antibiotics are needed to fight infection and when the antibiotics need to be taken for a long period of time.

There is a point at which the body just can't do it anymore no matter what we wish for.

"Unlike blood donors, however, marrow donors cannot be compensated, which has led to shortages for patients with life threatening blood diseases and a waiting list of some 13,900."

We don't compensate blood doners up here, and the system seems to flow pretty well, despite a few major flaws having nothing to do with compensation.

I.e. the person was sick with something and being treated because of that. Then the C. diff takes hold. What would the result of not being treated resulted in?
There is a point at which the body just can't do it anymore no matter what we wish for.

Posted by: Jim P. at November 25, 2013 10:56 PM

Yes, but using your logic we should not be doing bone marrow transplants at all, since most of them add months, not years to the average lifespan, and at a great cost to the healthcare system.
But I guess, for all of us little people Obamacare will take care of that, by making it pretty much unavailable, so no need to deregulate the bone marrow market.

And you know, an extra five good years looks pretty attractive when you are a healthy active 80 year old.

So yes, we all gotta die some day but I will save my altruism for my own pet causes.

Yes, but using your logic we should not be doing bone marrow transplants at all, since most of them add months, not years to the average lifespan, and at a great cost to the healthcare system. -- Isab at November 26, 2013 9:29 AM

How do you get that from what I said? I was commenting on your statement about avoiding hospitals.

But there are some things that happen regardless of, or because of, the treatment you are receiving.

I'm all for bone marrow treatments, and compensation for replaceable items such as marrow, whole blood, or plasma. I would be against compensation for things like kidneys and other organs.