This video describes the dilemma of compensating bone marrow donors (bone marrow regenerates so there is no permanent loss or damage to the donor) and differentiate it from organ transplants which are gone permanently when donated.
The decision to lump bone marrow donors in with organ donors was, apparently, an arbitrary one. (We are back to my pet peeve that too many people try to simplify decisions by trying to put too many decisions into one category in a one-size-fits-all attempt).
As of October, 2006, 29 states have enacted laws that provide paid or unpaid leave for bone marrow and/or organ donors. Eight states (Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska and Oregon) allow a leave of absence for private sector employees. The period of leave is usually 30 days for organ donors and 7 days for bone marrow donors. Some state laws have provisions which require authorization for requested leave or prohibit states from penalizing employees from taking such leave. For more info, click here.
In December 2009, a suit was filed to challenge the decision banning compensation.
Kevin B. O'Reilly, amednews staff. Posted Dec. 21, 2009 and describes the issues.
Sherry F. Cole also wrote a description of the suit.
The argument to prevent this change seems to be one that we so often see from people who think in 'slippery slope' logic and fears, thus allowing many to die for lack of medical help. Will those who fear change continue to make enough noise to control decisions that would save lives? What has happened to this country...can the media not work with the people to make it better instead of supporting all the obstructionists? We can only hope the tide will soon turn, before the desperate begin to act as heedlessly as they feel their government is acting on their behalf.
No comments:
Post a Comment