E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA mother with three daughters who have Fanconi anemia sued the federal government for the right to compensate bone marrow donors. The U.S. Attorney General will not pursue the case with the Supreme Court, thus making a lower court's ruling law. That means bone marrow donors may now receive vouchers worth up to $3,000. NBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman reports.
Certain bone marrow donors could soon be compensated for their life-saving stem cells after federal officials declined to take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, allowing a lower court order to become law.
At least one agency, MoreMarrowDonors.org, hopes to begin a pilot program offering up to $3,000 in scholarships, housing vouchers or charity donations -- but not cash -- in exchange for matching donations of marrow cells derived from blood.
“This decision is a total game-changer,” said Jeff Rowes, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which filed the lawsuit three years ago on behalf of cancer victims and others seeking bone marrow matches. “Any donor, any doctor, any patient across the country can use compensation in order to get bone marrow donors.”
That may be the effect of the decision by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to forgo a high court review of a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that certain kinds of bone marrow donations are exempt from federal rules banning compensation.
Under the ruling, donors who provide marrow cells through a process similar to blood donation, called peripheral blood stem cell apheresis, can be compensated because those cells are no longer regarded as organs or organ parts as defined in the National Organ Transplant Act.
The ruling does not apply, however, to bone marrow obtained through traditional techniques that use a needle to aspirate the cells from the hip.
Although it applies only to nine states covered by the 9th Circuit Court, Rowes expects the effects to be felt nationwide.
The move met with praise from Doreen Flynn, 36, of Lewiston, Maine, the lawsuit’s namesake and the single mother of three daughters with an incurable blood disorder called Fanconi anemia.
She and other plaintiffs had argued that incentives are the best way to broaden the pool of potential donors and to help ensure that those who are matched follow through with the process.
Woman challenges bone marrow donation law in effort to save daughters' lives
Flynn's oldest daughter, Jordan, 13, received a marrow transplant this spring while 7-year-old twins Jorja and Julia may need transplants in the future.
“I’m overwhelmed by the decision and I’m grateful to be part of this case,” said Flynn. “With two kids who still need to go through transplants, this victory means hope for the future. With compensation, that means there is less chance that a potential donor will back out when called upon, which is a very real concern.”
But officials with the National Marrow Donor Program, which maintains a registry of 10 million donors, said they were disappointed that Holder didn’t take the matter to the Supreme Court and worried that the ruling would confuse donors about the issue of compensation.
“Our policy has always been to operate a registry of all volunteers,” said Michael Boo, chief strategy officer with the NMDP and Be the Match. “We will not list donors that have been promised compensation.”
That policy is also adopted by the Health Resources and Services Administration, or HRSA, which regulates bone marrow transplants in the U.S.
Permitting compensated donors would limit the NMDP’s ability to cooperate with international registries in 35 countries, said David Bowman, a HRSA spokesman. About 40 percent of blood stem cell transplants facilitated by the program involve an international patient or donor, he added.
The NMDP also argues that compensation will limit treatment options, divert money from a wider range of patients and, perhaps, decrease the quality of donations. It could skew volunteers’ motivations, perhaps encouraging them to be less than frank when answering the questions vital to ensuring a match, critics have said.
About 10,000 people need bone marrow transplants each year, but only about half receive them, according to the NDMP. The Institute for Justice estimates that about 3,000 die waiting for matches, but NDMP officials say there's no way to know that for sure because many factors affect a patient's death, not just the availability of matching marrow.
Not being listed on the NMDP registry could prove to be a blow to donors hoping to reach the widest range of potential patients, of course.
Rowes acknowledged that compensation could not begin immediately and that many details remain to be worked out.
“I’m not saying that we may not have to fight with HRSA and the registry in the future,” Rowes said. “But they are profoundly mistaken if they think they can use their authority as stewards of information that is the property of the American people to interfere with what the courts have said is the lawful use of that information. We’re not backing down.”
Mother of three Doreen Flynn has filed a lawsuit against the federal government over the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 which makes it illegal to buy and sell organs, including bone marrow. NBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman reports.
Related stories:
Leave a Comment:
Well i don't know about the rest of you but........How could a person in good conscious sell something that belongs to God.....Myself i could not sleep if i took money for this...
It belongs to you. Give it away, that is great. More people might give marrow if they were paid, even better for those in need.
God? He needs to mind his own affairs and stay out of peoples.
I have to agree. More bone marrow would probably be donated if people were compensated.
I think he is doing a great job of staying out of people's lives where he is not wanted. Probably the reason why they are so screwed up , though.
I've been a donor, and wouldn't think of taking money for it. I got plenty out of the satisfaction to last a lifetime. But, that being said, there are those out there who won't even donate to their siblings. Sad but true. Maybe this will change their minds, and it will save someone's life.
God doesn't own my body, any more than the Federal Government. With no insurance for myself, why on earth would I risk infections or any other problems just too feel good about saving someone. Does that huggy-feely feeling pay my bills while I'm laid out and can't work?
I think that if I want to sell my bone marrow, that is my business and not the government and especially not a religious nut-job's. People, bone marrow grows back so donating or sell does not affect a person's health. What I do with my body is my business and nobody's else. Do you think that the doctor does the operation for free? Why should I not get paid as well?
Having the money for scholarships, charity or housing vouchers isn't going to flood the data-base of donor's. That is not what most people would be looking for - mainly in an economy we have now!
Bone marrow is not an organ, and clearly, everyone in the process makes money from it but the producer of it. And for the receiver, it could be a new life. There is nothing wrong with compensating someone for their time and materials. Pay the producer directly, and the data-base of possible donor's will become a staggering amount of people.
It is fabulous to do something kind and giving from your heart, but there is nothing wrong with being compensated either. I'm sure the doctor's and hospitals are processing the transplant from their hearts too - they also get compensated.
I have a plan for a National Health-care System that includes a "method" for donor compensation, I really believe that just, fair, and regulated compensation to living and dead donors would be a boon to general health, if we could find a way to do it where it didn't the turn the "poor" into an "organ pool" for the wealthy...it is more than that of course...but I am hoping for feed back....if you are interested it can be found by clicking my name
The difficulty comes in determining what the type and amount of payment to the donor should be. Will it be set by law, or will it be a free-market system with the price negotiated between donor and the party that is paying; the recipient or their insurance company?
Making transplant organs or tissue into a commodity would be a disincentive for free donations. If you are the only life-saving match for another person, would you accept a small donation to your favorite charity when you know that others in the same situation have received $50 - $100 thousand cash for their bone marrow?.
People donate used clothing, furniture and vehicles because their cash value is so low, but hardly anyone gives away a new automobile.
Excuse me, but God gave those organs to me and no one has any right to legislate what I would or would not do with my organs or blood, for that matter.
So, once again, a policy benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. The desperate will resort to selling their bone marrow when times are tough, and only the well-off will be able to afford to buy bone marrow once there is a market for it. This is absolutely disgusting.
God only helps them who help them self's. Yes, Three thousand dollars is a little much but look at the lifes it could save. God Bless
You can already sell blood, plasma, eggs, and sperm. How is bone marrow any different? in some areas, you can even sell breastmilk. If it encourages even a 10% rise in donations, that is an additional 10% that don't die. Those that get donations are already paying a premium for it. How is it that everyone gets compensated but for those actually producing the bone marrow? If it is a friend, or a family member, most ppl won't hesitate, but being out of work for a day or 2, or having to hire a sitter for a child, to save a stranger? I don't see the problem with some compensation. Like i said, ppl ALREADY sell blood, plasma, eggs, and sperm. How is bone marrow different?
A hospital is one of the easiest places to get an infection. My mother went in to the hospital for gallbladder surgery. She was older, but she was healthy before she went in. Three days later, she was dying from a superbug, caught in the hospital. She died at home a week later.
Don't buy into the fact that giving bone marrow or any kind of donation of an organ, is simple and easily recoverable. They are inserting a long, narrow tube into your bone and taking out bone marrow. You can't get bone marrow from a donation of blood, you actually have to enter a bone to get its marrow. Whenever you cut into or insert something into a human being, you are susceptible to infection. You can die from donating.
So the donor is the one who runs the risks, donates the organs and they are the ones who are expected to be altruistic? I don't think so. I don't see one thing ethical about that. If when the donor and the recipient meet, they decide that it is going to be a donation, then I can see it. But a hospital is charging for that free organ. They need to be paying for it. That is ethical.
@Semora
but if it becomes a Highest Bidder Market...then it will be 10% of the Deserving dying for the sake of the 10% who can afford it
I love how more and more people do not read the article. The only version of marrow that can be extracted for money is the free marrow stem cells. No long needle into your bone.
As for compensation for stem cells, someone really needs to explain to me why waiting for 6 months in a hospital on chemo at $10,000 a day is more cost-effective and more moral than shelling out $500,000 for someone's bone marrow, on demand. And that's a super-high-end estimate of the actual cost.
As for this idea that 'rich are going to be exploiting poor', rich already do exploit poor. Paying some poor person to have blood taken for an hour (at $3000) is nowhere near as exploitative as paying them minimum wage so you get the benefit of their labor.
As for hospitals being dens of infection. It may very well be that a recipient would need to be hospitalized, but a donor could probably give anywhere there is a phlebotomist.
The fact of the matter is, most people are not on bone marrow donation lists. Most people do not donate blood. Most people don't donate their organs either. All of these things are needed by sick people, many of whom do not get them.
First rule of economics: People respond to incentives.
Perhaps a good move. I only hope this doesn't lead to some kind of 'rich privilege' situation in the end, once all the dominos have fallen.
Well how many poor people will benefit from this if they should need a transplant, people need to think, the RICH will just pay more and guess what, do I really have to draw a picture. And who said a bad economy is a bad thing, people have made a whole lot of money and this is just a small example of how creative having people lose everything can be, get the picture.
It is amazing to me, how fast the party of "Science" and "it's my body" goes all biblical and righteous...when It appears someone might be making a profit...
Or Maybe I'm reading it wrong, Maybe it is just a matter of "We hate the Richy Rich so much, and want to see them die, even it means that the poor have to suffer"
i cannot believe we are discussing selling human body parts as if it is a good thing, whats next bankruptcy judges ordering you to sell a kidney or a liver lobe (they grow back so its renewable right?) this attitude that body parts off another human being are a right someone else is entitled to is nauseating and terrifying, look at the people fighting and whining over perfect transplant organs- organs you can only get by killing a young person. when did we forget that part?
Marrow isn't a body part. It's like donating blood. It replaces itself. It's not donating a kidney, or your heart when you die.
For all of you whining about the poor selling their body for the rich., READ THE ARTICLE. The person donating won't be paid in cash, but charity donations in their name, housing during the procedure, etc.
I think it's a great idea for folks who might want to donate money to this or that, but can't afford to on their own. I hope however this works out the participants are either given a list of organizations to choose from or get to choose their own.
For those who are offended at the idea of selling part of the body God gave you, you aren't infact selling anything. You are donating possible life to another. There is no greater gift than that.
please explain why a person with money in need of bone marrow is LESS important than someone with out money!
that comment was so irrational it is crazy!!
ok, donating bone marrow is not like donating hair to a blad guy. some parents dont even match their kids, so they need to find another source. this isnt a case where i need bone marrow i will just find someone off the streets and get it.
also, by getting people out of the way who are willing to pay, it will allow people who cant afford to pay to move up the chain faster.
and dont say people wont do it unless they get paid either, pepople can get paid to donate blood, and they still do it for free.
I honestly think people should be able to sell their kidneys!
this would release the pressure of the donor list of kidneys and people who cant afford it will be faster inline for a person with a donor card.
dont knock it, think about it.
your telling me right now there isnt a a person on dyalasis that needs a kidney that wouldnt pay for one?
yea cause sitting on a kidney machine for hours on end is so fun!
funny how you are born in to the world, but what you are born with you dont own, the govt owns!!!|
thanks al gore
for those that dont know, not only did gore invent the internet, he made the law making it illegal to sell organs.
@OMG
You miss understood me, or more likely, I failed to coherently express myself...I agree with you, people alive and dead should be able to "get paid" for donations of almost any kind...but I am wary of a system evolving into something where the donor lists turn into the Forbes Lists
I would ask a favor though, click on my name and read my plan, and give me you honest opinion
I am on the marrow registry, and came close to being chosen to donate once. Personally, I would not take compensation since I would find it so rewarding just to save someone's life.
That said, it should not be illegal to compensate for marrow since marrow is more akin to donating blood (more serious, sure) in that, it regenerates. It is not like selling a kidney, lung, or heart.
While I believe most, who are on the marrow registry, would donate out of the goodness of their heart, if even one person is saved by someone, who did it for the money, then it is a good policy to allow compensation.
What this article fails to mention is that potential donors need to go through what's called a mobilization process. Essentially the cells need to pulled into your bloodstream for collection and that involves an injection of G-CSF every day for up to 7 days. So it's not just as simple as a blood draw. It requires the donor's time, dedication and a willingness to put up with the side effects of the injections... and really, $3000 is nothing if it saves a life.
For people worried about the poor . . . you could cap the cost. And the money should go to the donor, and let them choose what to do with it.
BW: Wonderful report but incomplete: failed to mention where to register as a BM donor and where to go to donate!
i understood it was no more than a blood donation. takes a few hours. but if it helps someone, why not.
that is ridiculous. How do they get bone marrow out of blood? The answer...they don't. To get bone marrow, they have to insert a very large hollow needle into a bone. It's not fun and it's very painful.
I've never read a more ignorant statement in my life, ziapiper. Maybe you're confusing the fact the blood comes from the marrow, it's produced there. However as stated it's not "like giving blood". There's a battery of tests first, then they drill the largest needle you can imagine into a bone. Yes, drill. A lot of times it's the femur since it's the largest bone and contains the most marrow. Of course there's a lot of skin, muscle, membrane, and fibrous tissue to get through before you even reach the bone. Then they have get through the bone which while semi soft, is still very tough.
This is done with pain medicine but given that you're conscious and can see what's going on the mental anxiety is a huge load. The pain medicine is a local anesthetic and sometimes doesn't fully take effect before the procedure starts. Also, there's no way to numb the interior of the bone where the marrow resides.
Once it's done you then have to deal with the pain of having a hole in your skin and having your bone drilled into. This is after the local anesthetic wears off. Then there are possible complications from infections due to having a hole in the bone which protects the marrow.
Still sound as easy as giving blood?
In fact, most donations do not involve the invasive procedure in which marrow is harvested from the bone. Most donations involve the collection of peripheral blood stem cells -- and yes, it's very much like donating blood. Go to the National Marrow Donor Program website (www.marrow.org) for details.
someones always wanting to get paid, wow, really?? To save a life would be payment enough for me!!
You're an idiot. You donate your organs and some tissue. Next, a team goes into the funeral home and extracts the organs, lower spine, shin bones, etc. The funeral home is left with the hopeless mess to clean up...and the "donation people" walk out with $200,000 of easy profits...screw you!!
I am still wondering about the "cadaver" bone material the surgeon used to patch up my splintered radius after I broke my arm in a motorcycle crash. I paid an astronomical amount for that ground up bone that they mixed with my blood to make a paste to fill in the blanks. The dead guy they took it from certainly didn't get paid, but they charged me over a thousand dollars for it!
Let's see how many people sign up because they can get paid. When it really comes down to it they find out that they won't make as much money as they want so they don't do it. As many people have said most people don't read the fine print on types of donation. So now someone who thought they had a donor now that person backs out because they don't want a scholorship or a donation. This just clogs up the system, waste of money. Lots of people already on the list and they don't end up matching anybody. So many people only care about themselves. They don't care if they could save a childs, mom, dad, grandma, grandpa, brother, sister etc. life. Look around this is the world we live in. Some people still beleive you shouldn't have to get paid to do right, you just do the right thing. That is why so many people are already on the list.
If I can make more, and somebody needs what I have, I'll share. No need for compensation. Saving a life is enough for me. Once I learned how to register, I signed up. That was around 9 months ago.
For those interested, you can start the registration process at www.giftoflife.org
I've also donated probably close to 2 gallons of blood in total, and I'll keep on going as long as I can.
There are plenty of people who sell their blood for money and it doesn't seem to have diminished the donations at all. If I'm going to make a "gift" of my organs or blood marrow, it will be to someone I know and love. I might consider going through the pain for a price. I don't give gifts to strangers.
To be honest, the money would be nice for school, but in the end I would rather see the other person live and be happy... no amount of money can equal that.
better to pay an get some, than not to pay and get none.
I dunno. I'm just a little skeptical of commercialization of human body tissue. Will you be able to get it at WalMart one day? Laugh if will, but I remember ballparks that used to be named for cities and teams, not insurance companies; and rockets blasted into space were painted USA, not SpaceX.
Human body tissue is already commercialized. It's just not commercial enough to pay the donor.
nkorb1 - apparently it's been a long time since you got your medical degree and you haven't bothered with studying the newer technique's and practices.... or you just didn't bother to read the article and decided that you are the authority on bone marrow transplants.
"Under the ruling, donors who provide marrow cells through a process similar to blood donation, called peripheral blood stem cell apheresis, can be compensated because those cells are no longer regarded as organs or organ parts as defined in the National Organ Transplant Act.
The ruling does not apply, however, to bone marrow obtained through traditional techniques that use a needle to aspirate the cells from the hip."
TRANSLATION: This type of donation is collected via the blood. This is the type of donation that people will be compensated for.
I myself would do it for free, but if the supply doesn't meet the need, I see nothing wrong with paying someone if it will save my child's life. It's no different than paying for medication.
You're an idiot. Do you donate 10% of your pay to Bill Gates? Same thing.
I don't having a problem with people receiving compensation for BM. If you have something that people need why not get paid for it? If you need a doctor you have to pay them, if you need medication you pay for it? If you need BM why not pay for it if you can?
Some people aren't as well off as others, if you need the money, and you have something that people need, you should be able to make a dollar.
However, if you are financially stable, feel free to donate. I know if I or a love one needed BM I would like to have more donors willing to give even if they were making money.
Who/What caused the cancer? You don't know?? Then the treatment should be free, no questions asked. You were BORN with the RIGHT to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Why would you even consider paying 1 penny for health care???????
Exactly-- LIBERTY. That means we as citizens should have the LIBERTY to NOT have to foot the tax bill for every greedy person running to the doctor with a stuffy nose. I'm all for helping sick/aging people who cannot work, or cannot make enough to cover big health care bills, but everyone should not have the right to get a bunch of freebies that taxpayers have to pay for. Not to mention doctors who spend 10 years paying for school shouldn't get a minimal government wage to pay for their time.
Hey, I'm from Long Island. I know all about greed and people looking for an entitlement.
Furthermore: what is the hypocratic oath? I WILL DO NO HARM?????? Does that include finacial harm? No? Then phuck Amerika!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because somebody has to pay the doctors and the nurses and the hospitals and the medications and the research. It's you who need the help, why should you get it for free?
Why does the medical establishment insist on getting some of it's most vital supplies donated? As much money as there is floating around in that industry it would be nice to be compensated for such a valauble commodity. I have a shoulder that could probably be fixed up and if I could make a partial trade it would go a long ways towards being financially feasible.
Here is a fact. I'm expected to make a "donation" of a kidney, or blood marrow, or a liver, at no charge to the hospital. The recipient that I made that gift to is charged a whole lot of money. How fair is that? You charge the patient, pay the recipient for what you want donated.
The people who collect the bone marrow are paid, the doctors who administer the bone marrow are paid and everyone in between who process and store the bone marrow are paid. It's a commodity that can literally save another person's life and that person has to pay for the marrow and the wages of everyone who dealt with it-- EXCEPT the person who provided it. There's something wrong with this system in my opinion.
I like your idea of trading, Tdub! At the very least, a person should be compensated with an equal value of medical services. With so many people living without health coverage and needing attention that they cannot afford, bartering blood, bone marrow or even a kidney would solve several people problems all at once.
please people.................compensated or not, donate to save a life!! Someday it might be you or your loved one that needs a stem cell transplant.
I'll donate if and when the person I'm "donating" to, actually receives the "donation" at the same price I charged. If I'm giving it away to save a life, who the heck has a right to charge for it?
Does anyone else get the feeling that those who are opposed paying volunteers for this donation, are the ones who get the BM donation for free right now, and then sell it to the hospitals for a huge profit?
I know that when I go to the doctor my insurance gets billed $600 for a simple flu shot..... so those providing the HM treatment have to be billing the patient or the insurance quite a bit. Now instead of getting free donations from "volunteers" they have to compensate the donor somehow... that must be killing those shareholders. LOVE the capitalism here.
please people...............compensated or not, donate and save a life!! Someday it might be you or your loved that needs a stem cell transplant.
Unless you are a Catholic, like me. Then you are screwed......... Now can I smoke pot?
Being screwed is not a bad thing, ask a broad. :))
Mark n John, you brought a huge smile to my face on a cold rainy day. Have a good one.
Compensation endangers the safety of the bone marrow supply. If you give money for it, people will do it for the money and not the altruistic reasons. People with less than ideal circumstances will look to this as a way for payment. Often these people come from lower socio-economic lives, live higher risk lifestyles, and may not be as healthy as healthcare for them is limited due to their income. Also, this adversely targets poorer people who need the money more and takes advantage of their bodies as a cash of tissues to be harvested by the richer population. Keep it volunteer, makes the gift truly a gift and not an economic choice.
Bone marrow won't be taken if the donor doesn't pass the qualifications.
So what? Blood donation may not be accepted if the potential donor has rare deseas. We are so uptight if somebody has such medical problem, there are billions of people, and it is normal that some of them (us) will succumb to sicknesses that may be cured. Let's be happy that we lived awhile.
Tests or qualifications? Not the same.
So it's okay that the donor is supposed to be altruistic, but the doctors and nurses and the hospital don't have to be? I don't think so. If you're going to charge someone for my donated organ, cut me in too....I'm the donor and should be getting the lion's share.
I have mixed feelings about paying bone-marrow donors. Before anyone thinks that I don't know anything about bone-marrow donation and transplants, I do. My husband had a 'maxi' bmt done the same day as the woman's daughter mentioned in the above article. He was hospitalized for 30 days, 6 days to prepare him with chemo to totally destroy his existing bone marrow to make sure that the leukemia he had would be gone and then the hospitalization afterwards to await the results of whether the bone-marrow 'engrafted' - which it did, 100%. It was not an easy procedure. If anyone thinks that bone-marrow donation is just sitting there and donating your stem cells, let's set the record straight - it's not always done that way. Many transplant centers still opt for the older type of bone-marrow transplant where the blood & bone marrow is aspirated from a donor's hip and then infused into the patient. This is not always an easy procedure for the donor and I have the highest regards to anyone who donates this way. My husband was lucky, our son was his haplo-identical match and there was also an unrelated donor on the registry for him. This is no 'piece of cake' or 'walk in the park' as this news article seems to make people believe it is. It is a life-altering/life-saving procedure. There can be complications for both the donor and the patient. Our son passed out twice after harvest and had to be hospitalized until they figured out what was going on. He is ok.
We were told at the transplant center where my husband's procedure was done that they prefer to use bone-marrow that is harvested from the hip as they have found over the years that there is less chance of GVHD (Graft vs. Host Disease) from bone-marrow transplants done this way than just stem-cell transplants, although they do these also. The type of BMT that is done is based on the patient's needs, etc.
What is misleading to me is the way this segment has been presented about bone-marrow donation. Paying a donor? How? How much? When? Where? Before or after donation? Who? What type of criteria will be set for payment? Why? Would paying someone to be a donor really add more people to the registry? When will Greed set in? Will we start finding potential donors on eBay offering to sell their bone marrow - starting bid 99cents? Will the prospective patients now get into a bidding war for the life-saving bone-marrow they need? Who will pay for it - the patients themselves, the insurance companies, third-party companies? Will brokers now be on the lookout for bone marrow? Sell it to the highest bidder?
I think a Pandora's box of legal and ethical questions are going to be raised about compensation/payment. If my husband had not been able to find a match, would offering to pay for bone-marrow have made a difference for him or, in fact, would it have made a difference to a lot of other people? Maybe there would still not be a match. Yes, we need more donors on the registry. Will people still donate just to save a life or will there be an underlying hidden financial motive to the donation now?
Our son's medical expenses for pre-transplant testing and the harvest was completely paid for by our insurance company and he was darn lucky. What about someone who has no insurance, or not enough insurance? What do we do to help them?
I really do not feel that bone-marrow is a commodity to be bought and sold. I also think that NBC and Dr. Snyderman owe it to all the viewers to fully present all aspects of what bone-marrow donation is, how it is done, etc. AND how all types of transplants are done - not just stem-cell transplants.
Is this all or just the first chapter of your book? :)))
Mary, Thank you for the well stated arguement but I have to admit that I do not have mixed feelings about this ruling. For the record I am very against the idea of paying donors. Along with your questions of how much, who, why, etc. I would like to know where the line will be drawn? Will they begin to pay for solid organ transplant donors? As a solid organ transplant recipient the very idea of this scares me for the 114,000+ individuals currently waiting for a transplant today. There is already such a huge financial burden to transplant recipients that I feel that this will only increase this problem. What will happen to the donor / recipient registry? Will your placement on the list now consider your financial status ?
I understand how the mother of three young children in need of bone marrow transplants must feel. My family would have done anything to find a donor for me. There are 18 people that die every day waiting for that perfect donor. Vice President Cheney waited more that a year longer than I for a heart, because your financial / personal status has no bearing on where you fall on the transplant list. If it did I would not be alive today.
Well Cindy that is what you NOW say, but if your child of two, needed it and the only way you could get a donor by paying directly, I am not sure what your decision would be. Getting paid in cash or not should be the donor's choice.
What a waste giving Chaney the heart. He never had one to start with. The bastard.
But even in your husband's case, your insurance company paid for that bone marrow. Your husband had the pain and the fear and the recovery, but your insurance company paid. If your husband donated the bone marrow, he should have been in on the deal. At least give him a discount...a substantial fee. Why is it less ethical for the donor to actually be paid for HIS or HER organ, than it is for the hospital to receive a fee for having procured it, and for giving it to the recipient?
I wouldn't donate anything, unless it was to someone I know and love. We have a very warped system. My husband and I are getting older and we won't sign a living will that allows anyone to take our organs. Do you have any ideas how many doctors have harvested organs by declaring patients to be brain dead. How would my husband know any different? I don't know either....but the subject has happened. For that reason, we will not sign anything donating an organ. We would like to have the right to decide when we want to die.
It's all well and good to be altruistic, but when people start telling you that you will be "unethical" if you want to keep your organs or your bone marrow, but it's okay for them to make a profit on what you donated...I happen to think that's hypocritical.
Hospitals charge the recipient of a donated organ thousands of dollars for that organ and the donor gets nothing. Everyone of us will eventually die of something. I don't see why some should keep receiving new organs to have a longer life. The earth is already overpopulated.
Only the doctor and hospital benefits financially. Now if both would donate their services I could agree with no-cash-compensation to donors. Otherwise stop ripping off the donors and the public. The medical profession is a BUSINESS, doctors are out to get the most for their services, and I personally do NOT trust that lot. They are like plumbers with a PhD, immagine what they would charge. Greed is the doctors' secret code.
The recipient is being ripped off too. If someone is donating something, it ought to be free to the recipient. I can understand the aftercare and drugs being charged for, but the hospital had nothng to do with that organ. They didn't have to grow it or anything else.
I, personally, would not accept any compensation. It would be my gift of life to someone who desperately needs it. However, it could motivate more people to become donors, which could greatly increases of cures. Now, the question is who wants to pay or who can afford to pay?
CS/CRNP:
I don't want your organ. I don't know where it has been and I have no idea why you don't want it anymore.
I, personally, could not take any compensation for the donation of my marrow to someone who so desparately needs it. However, receiving compensation may tempt more people to donate, which, in turn could save many more lives. The question is, who is going to pay for it? What price would they put on this life-saving material?
That is your choice, but let others decide their own.
It's really a tough choice for me. If someone I knew was in desperate need I would do it because I know them but even though your helping them out the hospital is going to rape the living hell out of the receiver for it even though it was given free.
When there are donations Hospitals should be under strict federal guidelines that under no circumstance can they charge for a donated organ,tissue or marrow. When people give of there own free will no hospital should be allowed to try and charge the receiver for it period.
I think that is between the donor and the recipient. The hospital should have nothing to do with how much. The doctors and nurses need to test the donor well, to be sure it's healthy. But it's not their organ. They ought to have nothing to say about it. Don't be so worried about poor people. That is just another excuse to justify stealing organs for transplant.
If receivers want to pay donors then they should be allowed to compensate the donor. If hospitals are trying to get people to come in and donate bone marrow then the hospital should compensate the donor. Hospitals already rip every patient off in the first place with unsubstantiated price gouging so donors should be allowed to charge for there marrow.
If they have to do the screw and cork screw type device in your bone to get to it then the donor has every right to be compensated because that s the most painful experience one can go through donating.
I think it is more than that. The present rules have allowed anyone to steal organs from people and sell them. If the organ belongs to me, I can be seen giving permission. I don't believe anyone, anywhere ought to be able to sell organs from anywhere or anyone that doesn't belong to them. That will eliminate the sale of stolen organs because the recipient has to be seen and has to give permission. Whether or not they charge for their organs should be strictly between the donor and recipient.
Millions of kids are dying of hunger, and a small amount of money could save them. Money should be allocated to treat hunger and those deseases of the poor that can be easily cured. Then if there is any left ovet cover those hard to cured ones. If the person has the finances let them pay and buy it for cash too. Even a poor homeless may have rare blood and offering him/her a scholarship is dumb when he has not eaten for days. Give them Cash and you'll find a lot more donors. Aren't there people who regularly sell their blood for money. What's the diff?
I've been on the registry for years and wouldn't hesitate to donate for no compensation. But if it was offered, I'd take it. Probably not 3K, but for my time off work, gas money, etc. Why shouldn't I? Whether my reward for donating is the feeling of having done something good or the feeling of being compensated with a little something, what's the difference? Neither are purely altruistic motivations, but my actions still serve the greater good. How many people would serve in the military, be medical professionals, rescue workers, teachers, etc., without a paycheck. That doesn't make them greedy, either.
Sure i will donate as long i get 200K from the Rich and the Poor get it for free...
Yeah Robin that is the way even if your name is not Hood. :))