Mar 23 2010
Voicing concern about the potential impact on patient and donor safety,
nine leading international health organizations have formed a coalition
to oppose compensating people who provide bone marrow for
transplantation.
“To
risk potentially undermining support for marrow donation by allowing
donor compensation is irresponsible and short-sighted.”
The organizations — each a leader in the field of transplantation and
transfusion therapies — have joined forces in the face of a lawsuit
aimed at overturning current U.S. law regarding bone marrow donation.
The Institute for Justice is seeking to reverse the National Organ
Transplant Act of 1984, as it applies to the prohibition on compensating
bone marrow donors.
Bone marrow transplantation can be the best option for a cure for
thousands of patients battling leukemia, lymphoma and other critical
illnesses.
“Decades of experience and research have shown that a donor system that
relies on the human, purely altruistic desire to help others is safer
than one that focuses on personal gain,” said Jeffrey W. Chell, M.D.,
chief executive officer of the National Marrow Donor Program® (NMDP).
“There is no sound evidence that compensating donors will save more
lives or increase racial diversity of donors. In fact, doing so may
expose marrow recipients to greater risks of infectious diseases.”
The coalition includes the NMDP, America’s Blood Centers, AABB (formerly
American Association of Blood Banks), the American Society for Blood and
Marrow Transplantation, American Society of Histocompatibility and
Immunogenetics, the American Society of Transplantation, International
Society of Cellular Therapy, The Transplantation Society, and the World
Marrow Donor Association.
They oppose changing the current law, citing these reasons:
Protecting Recipient and Donor Safety
A complete and truthful health history is critical to ensure that
individuals are eligible to donate and that donated cells are free from
infectious diseases. There is a substantial body of experience that
people wanting to sell their body parts are more likely to withhold
medical details and information that could harm patients.
Maintaining Altruistic Motivations
Studies have shown that compensating donors would deter those who are
willing to donate for purely altruistic reasons. The eight million
members of the Be The Match Registry® — in addition to the five million
volunteer donors on international registries — are proof that people do
not need material incentive to save a life. Current law already allows
donors to be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages. The
NMDP and other organizations maintain funds expressly for this purpose.
Avoiding the Creation of Markets in Marrow Donation
Compensation has the potential to create markets for marrow, which could
have detrimental effects for both donors and patients. Sellers
influenced by possible financial gain could ignore the health risks
associated with donation or be coerced by third-party organizations that
would profit from a marrow sale. In addition, markets put physicians in
the morally dubious position of carrying out medical procedures solely
so that sellers may profit.
”The creation of markets is likely to elicit criticism from groups that
oppose treating the human body and its parts as property,” said Art
Caplan, professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. “To
risk potentially undermining support for marrow donation by allowing
donor compensation is irresponsible and short-sighted.”
Ensuring Patients’ Access to Treatment
While the Institute for Justice’s lawsuit alleges compensation might
increase patients’ access to bone marrow, the opposite is true.
Changing the U.S. law to allow compensation for marrow donors would set
a precedent that could hurt the current voluntary systems for organ and
blood donation, potentially undermining some patients’ access to safe
organ transplants and blood transfusions. If donors were compensated,
the United States would no longer conform to international standards for
the use of volunteer donors in cell therapies. Thus, patients in the
United States may be unable to have access to the worldwide search
process. This would restrict Americans’ chances of finding a match and
lives may be lost.
The historical record clearly established that paid blood donors were
more likely than voluntary donors to transmit infectious agents, such as
HIV and hepatitis viruses. It is a matter of concern that such increased
risk could also occur among paid marrow donors.
The NMDP is a global organization that works with leading transplant
centers and 70 donor registries in 35 countries. These international
partnerships are vital to helping increase patients’ access to potential
donors, coalition members say. In fact, about half the transplants
facilitated by the NMDP in 2008 involved either an international donor
or patient.
“In the best interests of patients and donors, the existing law must be
upheld,” said Dr. Chell, who called on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
to vigorously defend the challenge.
Source The Institute for Justice