This letter from the chief executive of the National Marrow Donor Program, Jeffrey W.Chell, and the president of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Claudio Anasetti, appeared in the New York Times last week. They argue that changing current laws that bar bone marrow donors from being compensated is a mistake.

“International standard-setting organizations and experts in the field of transplantation and transfusion therapy, including those at the World Health Organization, agree that offering incentives could have a negative effect on patients and donors.”

The letter appeared in response to Give Theses Donors a Bone, an op-ed that appeared in the Times on Jan.7 , supporting compensation for donors.

Chell and Anasetti close by pointing out there are all ready millions of donors worldwide who have done so without pay, and making  the process about money will deter good will.

“Studies have shown that compensating donors may deter those who are willing to donate for purely altruistic reasons. Eight million members are listed on the Be the Match Registry, part of the National Bone Marrow Donor Program, in addition to nearly five million donors in other registries worldwide. They are proof that people do not need a material incentive to save a life.”

Last month myPICCline addressed this issue by agreeing that compensation could help, but more importantly awareness must be spread. Knowing that every day two people die waiting for transplant, anything that can increase the registry and therefore save more lives should be explored. Read Chell and Anasetti’s  argument closely, there is a lot of “may” do this, or “could” mean that. The empirical evidence just is not there. Before we assume incentives will destroy the altruism of the system, let’s see what happens. In the Jan.7 op-ed the contributors explain precisely how they will attempt to protect the integrity of a revised donor process.

“If our suit is successful and incentives are allowed, it would not create a freewheeling market in bone marrow donation. Marrow donation would, and should, remain anonymous — and there should be no negotiation with donors. There would be no buyers or sellers, no possibility of market-like transactions.”

Still, no system is going to be perfect and if compensation does happen, there very well may be a few horror stories. There always are people who will take advantage of a demand and exhibit the worst of  humanity. But the opportunity to tell one more person, one more family “yes,we have a match” makes those possible negatives worth the risk.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post