Bone Marrow Donor Payments

I saw a very quick story about this online a few days ago, and haven't seen much about it since: a federal appeals court ruled that some bone marrow donors can be paid for their donations. Because bone marrow transplants are a significant part of the treatment package for lymphoma (and other cancer) patients, this is a pretty significant change.

It is against the law to sell or be paid for an organ donation. Up until now, the law applied to bone marrow as well other organs. This is because bone marrow transplants at one time involved aspiration -- sticking a very large needle into the donor's hip bone and sucking out the marrow. (As far as I know, it's the same procedure as a bone marrow biopsy, which I've had done. It's not fun.)

These days, most bone marrow transplants are not done this way. They aren't even called that name anymore; now they're stem cell transplants, and they're done very differently. The donor is given medication that causes the bone marrow to release stem cells (immature blood cells) into the blood stream, where they are collected (similar to the way someone donates blood), and eventually used for stem cell transplants for cancer patients and others.


The court ruled that this newer procedure is basically the same technology as donating blood, and since blood donors can get paid, then stem cell donors should be able to get paid as well. (The older, aspiration bone marrow donation is still invasive enough to have payments for donation remain illegal.)

Proponents say that this change will increase the pool of donors. This is important because it is sometimes very hard to find a bone marrow match for a transplant. Opponents, though, say that this might just cause more problems than it solves.

I've written about stem cell transplants before -- they represent a cure for many lymphoma patients. The patient is given heavy duty chemo, enough to wipe out their immune system, and the transplanted stem cells help jump start the immune system and keep the patient from getting a life-threatening illness. Donors might now be paid up to $3000 in the form of scholarships, housing allowance, or gift to charity.

I have mixed feelings about it. I can see how it might create problems. But I don't have to think too hard to imagine the frustration a cancer patient might feel because a donor match couldn't be found. (In fact, I know some folks in the support group who have been in that situation.) So I guess I'm thinking that anything that helps a cancer patient can't be bad.

***************************

On a related note: I heard about this change in the law again on a radio show this afternoon. The person explaining it all did a really good job, until the host asked her to explain how this could save people's lives. She said, "Oh, it can help lots of people. Leukemia victims--"

Grrrr.

I hate cancer patients being referred to as "victims." There's a helplessness that goes along with that word, and I don't like other people assuming that someone with cancer is helpless. Because sometimes it makes the patient feel helpless. And helplessness and victimization are about the loss of hope. And making people lose hope pisses me off.

And she was doing so well in the interview up to that point....