lawrocket 3 #1 December 2, 2011 http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/01/10-55643.pdf Under the National Organ Transplant Act, an organ donor cannot be compensated for the donation (though the donation's costs can be covered, right down to meals and travel expenses). This is a limited decision that relates ONLY to donation of blood marrow via blood (and not from the hip). The argument is that harvesting bone marrow from the blood is no different from blood, which is exempt from the NOTA. They won on a statutory interpretation basis and NOT on an equal protection basis. This is really interesting. I'm not going to say that this opens the door for commercialization of organ donation. I do, however, see this as a good decision that will help save lives. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #2 December 2, 2011 I didn't know they could collect bone marrow from the blood, that is interesting. Even if this decision applied to harvesting from the hip I doubt you would see bone marrow harvesting to go the way of plasma banks! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #3 December 2, 2011 I understand that this particular form of donation is a bit on the uncomfortable side. Was this intended to encourage greater participation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 December 2, 2011 That's the thought. People can't get compensated for donations of organs. Thus, the agony a person may be in after, say, donated a kidney, isn't something that a lot of people will go through. A little money on the side is viewed not only as an inducement for people to donate, but actually to maintain contact with the appropriate agencies. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertAttorney 0 #5 December 2, 2011 QuoteThat's the thought. People can't get compensated for donations of organs. Thus, the agony a person may be in after, say, donated a kidney, isn't something that a lot of people will go through. A little money on the side is viewed not only as an inducement for people to donate, but actually to maintain contact with the appropriate agencies. I really fail to see why selling one's organs is illegal... The lefties could even be quelled by setting a hyper-inflated mandatory price for the organs so the poor could cash in... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 December 2, 2011 Quote The lefties could even be quelled by setting a hyper-inflated mandatory price for the organs so the poor could cash in... that wouldn't quell them. While the poor could then be "exploited for millions," it also means that they wouldn't be able to get organs themselves. There was no small amount of discord around the way Steve Jobs got himself a transplant, seemingly well ahead of others. Due to the scarcity of supply, the attitude has been that for the most part it is a first come, first served, with some adjusting based on merits (ie, chronic alcoholics are a lower priority to get and destroy a new liver. Oddly, people who eat wild mushrooms get higher priority than perhaps they should) And who can forget the story of the Chinese kid who sold a kidney so he could get a bunch of Apple shit. That sort of story is the one that alarms people the most when we talk about a system where you can sell your semi spare organs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #7 December 2, 2011 QuoteI really fail to see why selling one's organs is illegal... ...as opposed to blood? To prevent exploitation of the vulnerable, but within a particular factual context, namely: donated blood eventually regenerates, whereas donated organs do not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #8 December 3, 2011 QuoteQuoteI really fail to see why selling one's organs is illegal... ...as opposed to blood? To prevent exploitation of the vulnerable, but within a particular factual context, namely: donated blood eventually regenerates, whereas donated organs do not. Seems to conflict with Roe Vs Wade. What business is it of the governments what I do with my body. If someone wants a kidney and is willing to pay another person $1million for it, who is the government to interfere and say it's illegal to charge money to the highest bidder? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #9 December 3, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI really fail to see why selling one's organs is illegal... ...as opposed to blood? To prevent exploitation of the vulnerable, but within a particular factual context, namely: donated blood eventually regenerates, whereas donated organs do not. Seems to conflict with Roe Vs Wade. What business is it of the governments what I do with my body. If someone wants a kidney and is willing to pay another person $1million for it, who is the government to interfere and say it's illegal to charge money to the highest bidder? The "Commerce Clause" is involved. ( Yeah, I know about wino's selling their blood.) This is a big decision. How it finally plays out will be worth watching. We reject this argument, because it proves too much, and because it construes words to mean something different from ordinary usage. If the government’s argument that what comes from the marrow is a subpart of the marrow were correct, then the statute would prohibit compensating blood donors. The red and white blood cells that flow through the veins come from the bone marrow, just like hematopoietic stem cells. But the government implicitly concedes that these red and white blood cells are not “subparts” of bone marrow under the statute, because it explicitly concedes that the statute does not prohibit compensation for blood donations. 4242 U. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,397 #10 December 3, 2011 >What business is it of the governments what I do with my body. None. And today you can do whatever you like. You can keep your kidneys or donate them. Up to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #11 December 3, 2011 Quote>What business is it of the governments what I do with my body. None. And today you can do whatever you like. You can keep your kidneys or donate them. Up to you. But I can't sell them. Who do they belong to, me or the government? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,397 #12 December 3, 2011 >But I can't sell them. Who do they belong to, me or the government? You - and no one else. You might argue that they SHOULD be able to belong to someone else, but selling people (or pieces of them) has a sort of checkered history here in the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebabin 0 #13 December 3, 2011 To be clear, they are harvesting Stem Cells from the blood, not marrow. The harvesting process is very similar to harvesting plasma cells from the blood. Blood is taken out through an IV, the stem cells are seperated out, and the remainder is reinfused into the donor through another IV. The Donor is usually given a growth hormone that spurs production of these stem cells. This process involves very little risk to the Donor. I have been both a donor and a recipient of this type of transplant."Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings." "Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #14 December 3, 2011 QuoteSeems to conflict with Roe Vs Wade. What business is it of the governments what I do with my body. If someone wants a kidney and is willing to pay another person $1million for it, who is the government to interfere and say it's illegal to charge money to the highest bidder? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "Commerce Clause" is involved. Which could be used to ban abortion now. I'm serious. If the Commerce Clause can be used to ban private cultivation and non-commercial use of medical marijuana it could certainly be used to ban commercial abortions. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #15 December 3, 2011 QuoteQuoteSeems to conflict with Roe Vs Wade. What business is it of the governments what I do with my body. If someone wants a kidney and is willing to pay another person $1million for it, who is the government to interfere and say it's illegal to charge money to the highest bidder? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "Commerce Clause" is involved. Which could be used to ban abortion now. I'm serious. If the Commerce Clause can be used to ban private cultivation and non-commercial use of medical marijuana it could certainly be used to ban commercial abortions. That would assume the Commerce Clause was not designed to dictate social policies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #16 December 3, 2011 QuoteWhat business is it of the governments what I do with my body. If someone wants a kidney and is willing to pay another person $1million for it, who is the government to interfere and say it's illegal to charge money to the highest bidder? A reasonable question, and the type that comes up frequently in "Law and Ethics" and Constitutional Law courses. One reason (aside from regulating supply, demand and price) has to do with a government's policy to regulate, and even prohibit, what's known as "repugnant markets". There are many examples of repugnant markets; historically, the classic example is that of human slavery. Why shouldn't I have the right to sell myself into slavery if that's what I want? The public policy answer to that question is that in order for me to sell my kidney, or myself into slavery, in exchange for some valuable consideration, there has to be some kind of commercial market for it in the first place. The reason why governments (all over the world) prohibit various types of repugnant markets is to prevent involuntary exploitation; in other words: there is too much opportunity for vulnerable people to be forced to participate as "donors" in a repugnant market. In the case of organs, children, the elderly, the mentally deficient, etc. could be physically coerced or deceived into donating their organs. So, the logic goes, even though some competent adults may voluntarily do so, there is too much potential for the vulnerable to be exploited, and it's too cumbersome for governments to regulate it on a literally case-by-case basis, so the practice is simply banned outright. Granted, repugnant markets are frequently banned for reasons (and/or biases) of social morality, too (drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.); but I'm trying to address the more practical aspect of the policy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #17 December 3, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteSeems to conflict with Roe Vs Wade. What business is it of the governments what I do with my body. If someone wants a kidney and is willing to pay another person $1million for it, who is the government to interfere and say it's illegal to charge money to the highest bidder? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "Commerce Clause" is involved. Which could be used to ban abortion now. I'm serious. If the Commerce Clause can be used to ban private cultivation and non-commercial use of medical marijuana it could certainly be used to ban commercial abortions. That would assume the Commerce Clause was not designed to dictate social policies. It may not have been designed for it, but it certainly is used for it; and it's become so tightly weaved into the jurisprudential fabric of US law that there's probably no turning back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #18 December 3, 2011 QuoteSeems to conflict with Roe Vs Wade. What business is it of the governments what I do with my body. If someone wants a kidney and is willing to pay another person $1million for it, who is the government to interfere and say it's illegal to charge money to the highest bidder? I'd probably do that. Only know for sure if the offer was actually made, but with 2 good kidneys, it would seem to be a beneficial transaction for all involved. Heck, I've been pretty good to mine; I could probably command a premium - say $1.25 million. Do I hear $1.3?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #19 December 3, 2011 Quote>But I can't sell them. Who do they belong to, me or the government? You - and no one else. You might argue that they SHOULD be able to belong to someone else, but selling people (or pieces of them) has a sort of checkered history here in the US. that's quite the tangent from the stated argument - he's not selling parts of someone else, he's selling parts of himself and the whole "you can DONATE, but you don't get to choose who it goes to" is also a non-starter to the point. what if you want to donate a kidney to your brother, or kids, or someone close - how is that different than selling it to anyone else you preference? As for any cash transaction associated with it - that's separate and private transaction separate from the "donation" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #20 December 3, 2011 QuoteThe reason why governments (all over the world) prohibit various types of repugnant markets is to prevent involuntary exploitation; once again - the idiocy of legislators. They prohibit the market instead of prohibiting the exploitation. It's a lot like prohibiting guns instead of prohibiting murder by gun. Indirect laws should be outlawed - talk about opportunity for exploitation. This is the basis for pretty much all social exploitation by government Big Brother is just amazing ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #21 December 3, 2011 QuoteQuoteSeems to conflict with Roe Vs Wade. What business is it of the governments what I do with my body. If someone wants a kidney and is willing to pay another person $1million for it, who is the government to interfere and say it's illegal to charge money to the highest bidder? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "Commerce Clause" is involved. Which could be used to ban abortion now. I'm serious. If the Commerce Clause can be used to ban private cultivation and non-commercial use of medical marijuana it could certainly be used to ban commercial abortions. You're very right. The MJ decision by the Supremes was, is and remains baffling to many. I can see that decision being revisited. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 December 3, 2011 QuoteYou're very right. The MJ decision by the Supremes was, is and remains baffling to many. I can see that decision being revisited. Raich was, in my opinion, Clarence Thomas' finest moment after Gonzalez v. Oregon, where he called out the SCOTUS in his dissent. Read the dissent in Gonzalez v. Oregon. It's one of the better "I call bullshit" moments I've ever read. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #23 December 3, 2011 QuoteQuoteYou're very right. The MJ decision by the Supremes was, is and remains baffling to many. I can see that decision being revisited. Raich was, in my opinion, Clarence Thomas' finest moment after Gonzalez v. Oregon, where he called out the SCOTUS in his dissent. Read the dissent in Gonzalez v. Oregon. It's one of the better "I call bullshit" moments I've ever read. Angel Raich and Diane Monson... Huge. Whoop..! The Commerce Clause is getting broader and more encompassing. While the scope of the CSA and the Attorney General's power thereunder are sweeping, and perhaps troubling, such expansive federal legislation and broad grants of authority to administrative agencies are merely the inevitable and inexorable consequence of this Court's Commerce Clause and separation-of-powers jurisprudence. See, e.g., Raich, supra; Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457 The Lefty's and Libertarians might just start losing sleep if they read this stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #24 December 4, 2011 I thought things like needing bone marrow or a spare kidney were one of the main reasons for having children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #25 December 4, 2011 QuoteI thought things like needing bone marrow or a spare kidney were one of the main reasons for having children. Well, since the advent of a thriving nursing home culture, that's pretty much become it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
