Organ Trafficking

[Groovenstein]

I'm watching Law & Order SVU. The episode deals with people who break the law to sell organs. There's an amazing exchange between Detective Stabler and a young boy in his hospital bed. The young boy is days away from death if he doesn't get a transplant. His father has just been arrested for illegally buying a kidney to save his son's life. I was filled with sadness and rage when I saw this. To hear such simple words from a child that so accurately capture the essence of the situation was amazing. I can't remember it verbatim, but here's the essence of the exchange:

Boy: Where's my mom?

Stabler: She's down in the cafeteria.

Boy: Where's my dad?

Stabler: He's not here. He did something wrong.

Boy: Did he rob a bank?

Stabler: No.

Boy: Did he hurt somebody?

Stabler: No. [pause] He broke the law when he bought a kidney to try to save you.

Boy: What's wrong about that?

Wow. So, in my spare time I now have another interest to pursue: the body of law dealing with the banning of organ sales. What are the relevant statutes, what arguments have been raised in favor of and against them, etc. Maybe one day I'll get together a plan to take them down. It will probably be tough, but the fight is just if I decide to take it on.

Step one: statutes. It looks like we start with 42 U.S.C. 274e.

My preliminary reaction to the statute: crap. The first challenge that comes to mind is substantive due process, but that one is well, tough.

If and when I have more to say on this subject, I'll say more on the subject.

[JMeganSnow]

*snort* Gotta love that the companies that remove, transport, preserve, process, quality control, etc. human organs are entitled to be paid for those services but the actual producer of said organ (or his family) is not entitled to be paid for it. I wonder if, since the definition of "human organ" listed in this statute doesn't specify that said human organ actually has to be removed from an actual donor, only that it has to be human, it would be illegal to sell a functioning liver that you'd grown in a test tube. Or would that count as a "processing" expense that you could charge for?

And consider the fact that the family has to provide a crapload of information for the suitability of these organs to be evaluated: could they call that "quality control expenses" and charge for it? They're not being paid for the organ, they're being paid for enabling the recovery company to evaluate said organ.

[Groovenstein]

You broke down that statute like a champ, Jenni. Ever think about law school?

I'm not much for a detailed response at the moment, as I soon leave for an area music conference. Before I go, however, I offer a link to this law review article I found on the subject. I haven't read it in its entirety, so don't assume I agree with any of it.

[JMeganSnow]

Lol, Matt, you're going to give me a swelled head. I found this to be particularly interesting:

Drawing heavily on the wisdom of renowned philosopher Emanuel Kant, Stepyhhen Munzer similarly urges that it would offend human dignity to allow unrestricted market transactions in organs . . . When organs are donated to prevent another human death, this represents the ultimate altruistic "gift" of life, one which has no monetary strings attached.

Furthermore, a strong belief in inalienable rights justifies the prohibition on sales of body parts . . .

I don't get that last sentence, it seems like a typo, as the author proceeds to give examples of rights that are alienated by the government (the right not to wear a seat belt, for instance). Anyone that ACTUALLY thinks rights are inalienable would not be opposed to people selling their organs; he or she would understand that they have no right to interfere with an individual's choice in the matter.