ILNews

Dollars for donors

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

More than 9 million people in the United States and about 19 million worldwide are registered as bone marrow donors. Yet, doctors sometimes struggle to find donors compatible with their patients. About 70 percent of people who need a bone marrow transplant don’t have a compatible donor in their extended family, according to the National Marrow Donor Program.

A nonprofit corporation has proposed that offering financial incentives for bone marrow donors may lead to an increase in donations. But bone marrow is a human organ, as defined by the National Organ Transplant Act, and that means marrow – like other human organs – cannot be sold.

A recent court decision, however, has opened the door for financial compensation of marrow donors and left many people wondering what the legal, medical and ethical implications may be.

Developments in medicine, law

Doctors used to harvest marrow primarily by aspiration – using a needle to draw marrow directly from the donor’s bone. While that method is still in use today, about 20 years ago peripheral blood stem cell apheresis was introduced allowing doctors to stimulate the production of peripheral blood stem cells in the bloodstream and extract them with a machine that filters the cells out of the blood.

MoreMarrowDonors.org argued in its complaint against United States Attorney General Eric Holder that the ban on bone marrow extraction was a

violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The nonprofit contended that bone marrow extraction is not materially different from blood donation or the harvesting of a human ovum – both of which are legal. The corporation argued that it should be permitted to offer $3,000 in incentives for marrow donors, in the form of housing allowances, scholarships and donations to the donor’s favorite charity, if a donor signed up for and followed through with marrow donation.

The 9th Circuit rejected the Equal Protection Clause claim. But, the court did agree that PBSCs cannot be classified as an organ, as defined by NOTA.

Holder has since filed a petition for an en banc review of that decision.

The debate

Jennifer Girod, attorney for Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman, was a nurse and assistant professor of bioethics before she attended law school. She said her interpretation of NOTA is that it intended to prevent a market for human organs. And while supporters of the 9th Circuit opinion have argued that NOTA, enacted in 1984, could not have predicted the process of peripheral stem cell apheresis, amendments to the act in the past decade have.

“(Holder) is saying Congress knows what bone marrow is, and they may not have explicitly said it when they passed NOTA, but they did say it when they passed the amendments,” she said. “It doesn’t seem to matter at all that this is a less dangerous procedure, or less painful, or similar to blood donation. It just matters whether Congress intended to prevent a market.”

bone marrowFred Cate, co-director of the Center for Law, Ethics and Applied Research in Health Information for the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, sees a subtle distinction between financial incentives and direct payment with regard to organ donation.

“Compensation rarely means I’ll give you $25,000 for a kidney. It’s rather the thought of modest financial incentives and recognizing that everyone is getting paid for this, why can’t I,” he said, in reference to the high cost of medical care.

Cate is licensed to practice in the 9th Circuit, and he thinks the court’s decision in Flynn could be a sign of progress.

“I have the greatest respect for the attorney general, but I think he’s dead wrong on this issue,” Cate said.

Cate doesn’t see how compensating bone marrow donors could ultimately result in a black market for organ peddling.

“I don’t buy it as a justification for not paying. There’s always going to be wrongdoing and for perfectly good reason. If you were watching a loved one die, you too would say, can I buy an organ? Can I go to Mexico? Can I go to China? Can I save my mother?” Cate said. “I think you can say we’re going to regulate a market – just like we do with pharmaceuticals – to protect vulnerable and ill people from being taken advantage of.”

The National Marrow Donor Program, which oversees the world’s largest donor-matching program, said Holder’s argument is that if the court’s decision about compensation stands, it will create a potential for serious health risks to patients and donors. The NMDP is not a party in the suit but supports Holder’s appeal.

;were we worried about nothing? Should we try this with solid organs?’”


Risks and rewards

The NMDP reports that about 76 percent of the time a patient’s doctor requests a PBSC donation, and about 24 percent of the time a patient’s doctor requests a marrow donation. But Dr. Paul Haut, chief medical officer for Riley Hospital for Children at Indiana University Health and director of its pediatric stem cell transplant program, said whether one method of marrow donation is better than the other is a difficult question to answer.



“Peripheral stem cells have become more popular over time. It is generally safe,” he said. “A lot of donors would rather do that than harvest. The cells that you collect that way tend to grow back faster.”

But in pediatrics, Haut said, research suggests that PBSCs may be more likely to cause graft-versus-host disease, when transplanted stem cells attack the patient’s body.

Recent research suggests a similar pattern may be occurring in adults.

“It may be that in the next few years we see the pendulum swinging back” toward a preference for marrow aspiration, he added.

“The implication from this lawsuit in part is about the donors, but primarily it’s about making the best choice for my patient,” he said. Haut wonders if offering compensation for PBSC donation could cause fewer people to donate by aspiration. If so, Haut may have even more difficulty in finding a good match for his pediatric patients.

The process

For four or five days preceding PBSC donation, donors receive injections to stimulate the production of stem cells. In rare occasions, this medicine can cause the body to produce too many white blood cells too quickly, which can increase the risk of stroke or cause the spleen to rupture, Haut said.

“Ninety-nine percent of the time, it goes fine,” he said. “But it’s definitely not like going to donate blood, where you get hooked up to an IV, and an hour later you walk out with a cookie and juice.”

PBSC donation may offer quicker recovery time for patients. Aspiration generally requires patients to be off work for about a week as the body works to restore its own stem cells.

Unknown outcomes

“Having people die or living lower-quality lives when we could improve the quality of their lives if only we had an organ is a big issue,” Cate said. “These are very longstanding fights, and they are often waged by people of enormous goodwill on both sides, and I guess that’s why I don’t understand why the attorney general would be getting involved in this case.”

Cate thinks that an issue of statutory interpretation would be more appropriately addressed by Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services, and individual states.

Girod said that one of the traditional arguments against compensation for organ donation is that the process must be voluntary. And Haut said that in compensated blood donation, people have been dishonest about medical conditions that would make them ineligible to donate blood, so he could see that being a problem in compensated marrow donation, too.

If the 9th Circuit’s decision stands, it may lead to a new way of thinking, Girod said.

“So far, people have been making proposals that we pay people for kidney donations for 30 years or more, and there’s just tremendous resistance to it because nobody knows what it’s going to do to the voluntary market,” she said. “But I think people might be willing to see how it plays out in the bone marrow transplant context and say, were we worried about nothing? Should we try this with solid organs?

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  2. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  3. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  4. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  5. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

ADVERTISEMENT