Recently a friend on Facebook, Jeff Collins (myHaberdasher.com), posted a status update about his intention to donate bone marrow. Several people gave praise for his action (which he definitely deserved). One wrote: “That is one of the most selfless, courageous things I have ever heard.”
He responded:

Donating bone marrow isn’t what people think it is, i.e. painful. They do not have to tap into the pelvic bone anymore. Over a few days they give you an injection of Filgrastim which causes increased stem cell production & they then flow through your blood stream. They do apheresis (like in platelet donation) to cycle your blood through a machine where they collect what they need and send the rest back to me. It’s a few hours off work and some flu-like achiness but that is about it.

It’s easy to get on the registry because all they need is a cheek swab to get your DNA. And it is one in a bunch to even get called. Here’s how you can look into registering: http://www.psbc.org/programs/marrow.htm

What he did was compassionate and caring: someone is going to live because he was willing to sacrifice time, take medication, endure some pain and discomfort, and give his life’s blood to someone not close to him.

An organization called the Institute for Justice recently began making the case that many more patients are in need of bone marrow donations than are available; there are too few people making the sacrifices Jeff did.

If they could only be legally compensated, the IJ contends, more people would do it:

From  IJ’s Bone Marrow Case: An Intro:

Bone marrow transplantation is a lifesaving treatment for 70 deadly blood diseases, including cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma.  Most people who need a transplant need one from a stranger, and tens of thousands have died because they lacked donors.  Our clients want to increase the number of unrelated donors by having a charity offer them a $3,000 scholarship, a housing allowance, or gift to the donor’s favorite charity.  Unfortunately, using scholarships to save lives is considered organ-selling under NOTA, a major federal crime….

Congress didn’t intend to criminalize compensation for renewable cells such as blood or sperm.  In fact, the Conference Report the House and Senate jointly sent to President Reagan with the bill he signed said so.Congress included bone marrow in the statute by mistake.  A “bone marrow” transplant involves the collection of immature blood cells, not the removal of an organ or tissues.  Most marrow cells are now collected using the same equipment and methods for blood donation.  Donating marrow cells is safe and they quickly replenish themselves just like donated blood.  Bone marrow wasn’t discussed in the legislative hearings and was inserted in the statute at the end of the drafting process, probably by a staffer….

Hard to imagine anyone on the floor of the House or Senate arguing against this… however the IJ is taking a judicial rather than legislative route. I hope someone in Congress decides to take this on: if another member attempted to employ a “slippery-slope” fallacy, the fact that it’s not much different from giving blood should stifle any animus. Who could be bombastic about preventing an outpatient procedure that causes no negative health effects?

The compensation is pretty tame, too: scholarships, credits, or charitable donations. I would support legal compensation for bone marrow donation even if it were plain old cash!  It’s purely rational. Objective reality should factor in at least the time-cost to the donors. Many sick and hurting people would be helped by lifting the ban.

In the meantime, I hope more people follow Jeff’s lead.

Here are some other articles about the case:

• IJ’s Bone Marrow Case: History of NOTA
• IJ’s Bone Marrow Case: Judical Engagement, Not Activism
• IJ’s Bone Marrow Case: Rational Basis Test