Editorial
EDITORIAL: Bone marrow donors should be compensated
People are dying for want of bone marrow donors. Some small compensation for those who give could make more marrow available, increasing the chance that those in need would find a genetic match. But the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 makes it a crime to pay donors.
Blood was exempted from the law, so those donors can be paid. Bone marrow was not. Now a group of activists has sued the federal government, charging that the distinction is so irrational that it's unconstitutional. That's a stretch. But what isn't is the contention that marrow is more akin to blood because, unlike organs, both are regenerated after they're donated. MoreMarrowDonors.org - the nonprofit corporation that sued with the help of the Institute for Justice - is right, but it shouldn't take a federal case to change this deadly state of affairs.
Congress should revisit this issue and allow bone marrow donors to be compensated in some way that won't unleash an exploitative free market in marrow.
Those who sued don't want to radically change the registry system that matches donors and recipients anonymously. People willing to donate marrow sign up and are genetically tested. Doctors treating someone in need of a transplant search the registry for a genetic match. Donor and recipient never meet and never know one another's identity. That anonymity should be preserved, so that deep-pocket recipients won't be able to bid up the level of compensation.
Under MoreMarrowDonors.org's proposal, donors would contact the organization after giving marrow. With proof of the gift, donors would receive $3,000 - but never in cash. It would come as a college scholarship, rent or mortgage payments, or a contribution to a charity. Such modest compensation as an incentive to give marrow is worth a try. It could save lives. hN
