"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
Mom of Girls in Need of Transplants Wins Fight to Compensate Bone Marrow Donors
"Jordan Flynn is doing well ten months after her bone marrow transplant. The 14-year-old has been back at school for a few months and is making the honors list. Her eight-year-old sister Julia is healthy, according to her mother Doreen, but her twin Jorja’s blood counts are dropping. Her doctors say a transplant may be necessary."
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
It is unethical to demand payment for the donor(be it bone marrow or another
organ)because of the dire situation of the donee, but the medical staff will
get paid for their work and the hospital for providing the surroundings as
rooms, equipment, logistics for transportation of the transplants etc.
At least in countrys with a mandatory social security / health insurance
system they will get their payment anyway, no matter if the donee can afford
the treatment or not.
And the pricetag is no way near 3000 USD, as an example the whole procedure for
a kidney transplant is somewhere in the Region of 80000 Euros.
Just try and deny those involved Parties their Payment for the same ethical
reasons as the donor and then see how many transplantations will still be performed.
Perhaps I misunderstood you, tomcat, but why is it "unethical to demand payment for the donor"?
The donor (the person supplying the marrow or other body part) has exclusive ownership of that part, by the self-ownership axiom. So why should he not charge money for supplying it, if he so wishes? Surely the transaction is almost identical to selling one's labor?
In the case that the donor chooses to give away the marrow without charging money, his "pay" or compensation is the huge satisfaction of having helped save someone's life. Such pleasure is the motive for all kinds of charity, and is a big part of human experience. But it is ruined by compulsion, or by twisting the nature of ethics so as to become obligatory, making it unethical to refuse.
Would you be implying that the hospital, doctor and etc donate all the effort and skills, logistics and etc involved.
I guess though, when I donate, I donate. It's free. That is what donate means "give me for free" donations are made numerous times a day. The true shame is, if you agree to donate and do not then you are a what? I have a few names for them. I am not certain that the hospitals and doctors ever agreed to donate their time and supplies.
I wonder if the senators and representatives would consider writing a law that says you have to donate regardless. Hm-m-m.
Another thought that struck me is that at least someone is trying to do something to change the way things work. Sounds decent to me. But If I donate, that is exactly what it is--a donation--free.
You wont even get in the door here. You will be deemed unfit to live and be denied the treatment.
This is most certainly a misunderstanding.Sorry I didnt make myself clear enough.
The pseudo-"moral "demand for charity from the donor while all the other parties involved
(Medical staff, hospital, even the donee) receive huge benefits from the treatment
is pure hypocrisy.
Got you, yes, thanks. Fully agree.