Language
Country/Area
No result found
Why was bone marrow donation once unpaid? Can the legal controversy behind this change the future?
In the United States, the issue of bone marrow donation is a long-standing one, involving multiple aspects such as law, ethics, and public health. As early as 1984, the U.S. Congress passed the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) to establish a complete organ transplant framework. However, the bill prohibits monetary compensation to organ donors, including non-organ donations such as bone marrow, which has sparked numerous legal and ethical controversies.
Legal Background
Before NOTA was founded, there was no clear definition of ownership of human remains in the United States. At the time, relatives had the right to decide on the burial or disposal of the body, but did not have the right to transfer or sell the organs. As the problem of organ shortage worsens, some criminals have begun to try to commercialize organ trading. For example, a businessman named H. Barry Jacobs once proposed a plan to buy human organs with money, and even quoted the price of a healthy kidney, which touched a nerve in society.
“NOTA explicitly prohibits the use of human organs as part of monetary transactions, which was intended to prevent the deterioration of marketization at the time.”
The Dilemma of Bone Marrow Donation
Although bone marrow donations are not legally considered organs, NOTA includes them in the regulations prohibiting compensation. Back then, bone marrow donation was a risky procedure, and the pain and discomfort involved discouraged many potential donors. With the development of apheresis in recent years, bone marrow cells have been successfully collected through non-surgical methods, and the safety of the donation process has been greatly improved.
Legal Challenges and Changes
In 2009, public interest law firm Institute for Justice filed a lawsuit against compensation for bone marrow donations, arguing that with the advent of new technology, donors should be able to receive appropriate compensation. They argue that allowing compensation would help increase the pool of available donors, while about 3,000 Americans die each year waiting for a compatible bone marrow donor.
"If donors can be reasonably rewarded for their contributions, the overall number of donors will increase significantly, ultimately saving more lives."
Objections and concerns
While there are supporters pushing for the implementation of the compensation system, there are also many critics. They worry that the system could lead to a reduction in donations, potential disease risks and the exploitation of the poor. Some have even compared the practice to modern-day slavery.
Future legal framework
In December 2011, the Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled that bone marrow donors who received plasmapheresis donations were eligible for compensation. Subsequently, in 2013, the federal government proposed a regulatory amendment that attempted to change the legal definition of bone marrow to maintain the compensation ban, but the proposal was ultimately not implemented.
ConclusionIn the face of the continuous evolution of the field of organ transplantation, legal adjustments and technological innovations are still ongoing. How to balance the rights of donors, the needs of patients and the ethical considerations of society will be an important issue that needs to be considered in the future. When it comes to compensation for bone marrow donations, can the law change as technology advances?
