Kidney exchange in Germany?

 A draft law to make kidney exchange legal in Germany, and to allow nondirected donation, is making some progress: here (with the help of Google Translate) is a news story on the proposed new law.

Living kidney donation should be made easier

"In order to reduce the organ shortage in Germany, Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) wants to make living kidney donations easier. This emerges from a draft amendment to the Transplantation Act. The Star first reported.

"According to the draft, the previously prescribed “proximity ratio” for so-called cross donations will no longer apply in the future. To date, couples in which one person wants to donate a kidney to the other but this is not possible due to incompatibility are only allowed to “cross-donate” with another couple in a comparable situation if there is a close relationship between the couples. This is intended to prevent organ trafficking and commercialization.

"In the future, this cross donation could be made without proximity, thereby significantly expanding the circle of recipients. According to the draft bill, the donation should be anonymous and organized by transplant centers. The aim of anonymity is to prevent money from being paid for an organ.

"Anonymous kidney donations should also be possible in principle. In the future, people in Germany could donate a kidney for selfless reasons without knowing who it is going to. In countries like the USA, this option has existed for a long time."

HT: Dorothea Kubler

Menthol cigarettes get a reprieve

 The WSJ has the story:

Biden Administration Shelves Plan to Ban Menthol Cigarettes. White House had been weighing health benefit of ban against angering some Black voters   By Jennifer Maloney, Liz Essley Whyte, and Andrew Restuccia

"The Biden administration is reversing course on its plan to ban menthol cigarettes, after the White House weighed the potential public-health benefits of banning minty smokes against the political risk of angering some Black voters in an election year. 

...

Menthols account for more than a third of all cigarettes sold in the U.S. each year and are predominantly used by Black and Hispanic smokers. Some 81% of Black smokers used menthols in 2020, compared with 30% of white smokers and 51% of Hispanic smokers, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Some Black community leaders had fought the measure, saying a ban would expand the illicit market for cigarettes and lead police to racially profile Black smokers. The American Civil Liberties Union and some members of the Congressional Black Caucus expressed similar concerns.

...

"By contrast, Rep. Robin Kelly (D., Ill.), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust, said she was “deeply disappointed that the FDA has chosen to abandon its established plan to ban menthol cigarettes… This is a common-sense plan which could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”

"Political considerations have swayed the Biden administration’s thinking on this public-health issue, said Mitch Zeller, who served as director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products until 2022. “The science is clear that there will be a massive health benefit from removing menthol cigarettes,” he said."

###########

All my posts on menthol here.

Proposed age-adjusted smoking ban in the U.K.

 The BBC has the story, about a proposal to ban smoking for everyone currently under the age of 18. (What could go wrong?)

What is the UK smoking ban, how will it work and when will it start? By Aurelia Foster, BBC News

"Prime Minister Rishi Sunak effectively wants to ban smoking in the UK.

MPs have voted to back the government's plans to create a "smoke-free generation", and reduce the number of smoking-related deaths.

What is the smoking ban?

The restrictions will apply to the sale of cigarettes in the UK rather than the act of smoking itself.

Under the new law, each year the legal age for cigarette sales - currently 18 - will increase by one year.

It means that people born in or after 2009 will never be able to legally buy cigarettes, leading to an effective ban.

The law will not affect those who are allowed to buy cigarettes now.

To crack down on under-age sales, the government says it will introduce £100 on-the-spot fines for shops in England and Wales which sell tobacco and vapes to under-age people.

Local authorities will retain the proceeds to reinvest into enforcement of the law.

This would be on top of £2,500 fines that courts can already impose.

The government says it will spend £30m on enforcement, which will include tackling the availability of cigarettes on the black market.

The new rules will apply in all duty free shops in the UK, but anyone buying cigarettes abroad would be able to bring them back to the UK as long as they were legally acquired elsewhere.

The government aims to have the new system in force by 2027.

Mr Sunak wants to work with the governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to introduce the legislation across the UK."

HT: Oğuzhan Çelebi

#######

Earlier: 

Thursday, March 14, 2024

New Zealand repeals anti-smoking law that would have prevented tobacco sales to anyone born after 2008

The Ethical Limits of Markets by Kim Krawiec

 Here's a new summary by one of the leading scholars of "taboo trades."

Kimberly D. Krawiec, "The Ethical Limits of Markets: Market Inalienability," Forthcoming, The Research Handbook On The Philosophy of Contract Law (edited by Mindy Chen-Wishart and Prince Saprai)   3 Apr 2024

Abstract: Although ethical critiques of markets are longstanding, modern academic debates about the “moral limits of markets” (MLM) tend to be fairly limited in scope. These disputes center, not on the dangers of markets per se, but on the dangers of exchanging particular items and activities through the marketplace. Proponents of MLM theories thus do not want to eliminate markets entirely, but instead seek to identify the moral and ethical boundaries of the marketplace by considering which goods and services are inappropriate for market trading. This chapter summarizes and categorizes some of the more important arguments within this debate, with a focus on recent research, controversies, and applications. The goal is to provide an overview of these debates, highlighting some of the topics that have generated robust discussion, particularly when relatively recent empirical or theoretical work may shed new light on a topic. Specifically, I focus on crowding out, corruption, leaving a space for altruism, equality, and a trio of related debates regarding paternalism (coercion, unjust inducement, and exploitation).

Here's her opening paragraph:

"Markets have limits—even the staunchest libertarian agrees with that idea.1 But the consensus ends there. There is no agreement on what those limits should be or why, as demonstrated by the vast variation in legal regimes around the world. For example, markets in sex are legal in much of the world and illegal in most of the United States.2 Markets in gametes and surrogacy services are legal and thriving in most of the United States and illegal in much of the rest of the world.3 Most of the world prohibits payments to plasma donors and, as a result, are forced to meet their domestic plasma needs by importing plasma-derived products from the United States, which in turn meets demand by paying plasma donors.

New York is about to end its legal ban on adultery

A 1907 New York state law criminalizing adultery (as a misdemeanor) looks likely to be repealed.

New York adulterers could get tossed out of house but not thrown in jail under newly passed bill  by MAYSOON KHAN, Associated Press/

"A little-known and rarely enforced law from 1907 that makes adultery a crime in the state of New York could soon be a thing of the past, after lawmakers passed a bill Wednesday to repeal it.

"The state Senate approved the bill almost unanimously. It's now up to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is in the midst of budget negotiations, to make the ultimate decision. Her office said she'd review the legislation. The state Assembly passed the measure last month.

"Laws banning adultery still exist in several states throughout the country, but they are seldom enforced. The New York law was initially implemented to bring down the number of divorces at a time when adultery was the only way to secure a legal split.

Adultery, classified as a misdemeanor in state penal code and punishable by up to three months behind bars, is defined in New York as when a person “engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse.”

...

"Adultery is still a crime in several other U.S. states, mostly as a misdemeanor, though Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Michigan treat it as a felony offense."

##########

Here's the bill that is awaiting the Governor's signature. 

Still illegal in Idaho

 Here's a map from The Hill of places where marijuana will be legal to various degrees by the end of this year. Grey states are where marijuana is still entirely illegal.  Despite the best attempts of the previous presidential administration to make America grey again, Idaho is one of only three states that remain grey: they are surrounded by states in which cannabis is legal in some form, and most of Idaho's neighbors have legalized marijuana (even) for recreational purposes (bright green on the map).

But Idaho is holding the line, which seems to be politically popular there.

The NYT has the story:

A Legal Pot Pioneer Was Busted in Idaho With 56 Pounds. He Has a Plan.  By Corey Kilgannon

"In retrospect, the Idaho shortcut might have been a bad idea.

...

"Idaho is surrounded mostly by pot friendly states and is strict about people driving through with the stuff. The authorities are especially vigilant in “corridor counties” along Interstate 84, of which Gooding County — where Mr. Beal encountered the state police — is one.

"Under state law, carrying more than 25 pounds of marijuana is a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of five years; the maximum is 15 years, with a maximum fine of $50,000.

“It’s one of the worst places in the country to possess marijuana, definitely,” Michelle Agee, Mr. Beal’s court-appointed lawyer, said. “Idaho is stuck in the 1950s as far as marijuana goes. It’s definitely the wrong place, wrong time for a person to be accused of having marijuana.”

...

"Reached for comment, Idaho’s attorney general, Raúl R. Labrador, a former Republican congressman who helped found the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said that legalization in neighboring states had done nothing to deter the strict enforcement of the laws in Idaho.

“We’ve watched how those decisions to legalize drugs have ruined other states, and Idaho demands just a bit better for our citizens and communities,” he said. “If you are trying to transport marijuana across state lines through Idaho, take the long way instead. It’ll save us money on your incarceration.”

Cannabis in US airports

 An anomaly of US Federal law is that marijuana is illegal on airplanes (interstate commerce) even when the airports involved are in states where marijuana is legal.

The WSJ has the story and a picture:

Don’t Put Your Stash in the Overhead Bin. A ‘Cannabis Amnesty Box’ at Chicago’s Midway Airport.  By Bob Greene

Mexico’s Law Suit Against US Gun Dealers

U.S. gun dealers are protected against lawsuits stemming from crimes committed by their customers. by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), But that law doesn't protect them from lawsuits resulting from their own actions, and a U.S. judge has permitted a suit by Mexico to go forward which accuses five Arizona gun dealers of violating American laws.

Law.com has the story:, 

Federal Court in Arizona Allows Mexico’s Case Against US Gun Dealers to Proceed. The federal gun industry shield law should not keep the suit from moving forward, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Márquez ruled. by Amy Guthrie 

"A federal district court judge in Arizona has ruled that a lawsuit filed by the government of Mexico against five Arizona firearm dealers alleged to be engaging in weapons trafficking should be allowed to proceed.

"U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Márquez held that the federal gun industry shield law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), should not prevent the suit from advancing. 

...

"The complaint “adequately alleges that defendants’ knowing violation of firearm-specific statutes proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries for purposes of the predicate exception to the PLCAA,” she wrote in her ruling, dated March 22.

"Mexico’s lawsuit seeks to hold the dealers accountable for “reckless and unlawful business practices,” alleging they facilitated gun trafficking across the border into Mexico and contributed to gun violence in that country. "

New Zealand repeals anti-smoking law that would have prevented tobacco sales to anyone born after 2008

 In an earlier blog post, I wrote about a New Zealand anti-smoking law, saying "And now there's a law that cuts nicotine content of cigarettes, and (get this) "bans the next generation of New Zealanders — anyone born after 2008 or currently 14 years old or younger — from ever buying cigarettes in the country. " (That's going to be a complicated age restriction to administer in, say, 10 years from now...)  

Well, people born in 2008 are turning 16 this year, and New Zealand just repealed that law, for reasons that New Zealand's prime minister Christopher Luxon says include concerns about black markets.

Here's an article from Medpage today, reporting on the change in the law. However the article takes the point of view that black markets are just a smokescreen thrown up by tobacco companies.

Up in Smoke: What Happened to New Zealand's Tobacco Ban Plan?— It appears the new government is making an embarrassing attempt to fend off a budget shortfall. by Eric Trump, March 6, 2024

"As part of the newly elected coalition government's rush to tick 49 "actions"  off its 100-day list by March 8, it has repealed  the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Act of 2022. This act, passed by the previous Labour government, would have banned selling tobacco products to those born on or after January 1, 2009, reduced the nicotine in tobacco products to non-addictive levels, and slashed the number of outlets allowed to sell tobacco by 90%, from 6,000 to 600. Overall tobacco use was predicted to drop from the current 8% to lower than 5% by 2025, and the act was expected to create a tobacco-free generation.

...

"Why would New Zealand's new coalition government, an alliance opens in a new tab or window

of the conservative National Party along with the libertarian ACT and populist New Zealand First parties, repeal data-driven and life- and money-saving legislation? Without a shred of evidence, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and his coalition partners have repeatedly claimed restricting tobacco and reducing nicotine levels is experimental (as though that were a bad thing), leading to black marketsopens in a new tab or window and a proliferation of crimeopens in a new tab or window. ACT's health spokesperson Todd Stephenson, for example, said thatopens in a new tab or window the "radical prohibitionism" of creating a smoke-free generation would "push smokers into the arms of gang members."

"This rhetoric uncannily echoes the tobacco lobby. Public health experts at the University of Otago recently released a damning reportopens in a new tab or window showing that the coalition government's arguments in favor of a repeal closely mirror the tobacco industry's own narratives on this subject.

"So suspicious are the similarities between the flimsy remarks of coalition partners and tobacco companies' talking points that the report's authors are calling on all members of parliament to declare any past associations with tobacco companies.

######

 

Here's the story about the Prime Minister's concerns, from Radio New Zealand (RNZ):

Smokefree legislation would have driven cigarette black market - Christopher Luxon

France amends its constitution to protect access to abortion

 The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v.Wade and end a constitutional right to abortion in the U.S. prompted France to amend its constitution to guarantee access to abortion.

Here's the WSJ story:

France becomes first country to explicitly enshrine abortion rights in constitution  By Karla Adam

"With the endorsement of a specially convened session of lawmakers at the Palace of Versailles, France on Monday became the first country in the world to explicitly enshrine abortion rights in its constitution — an effort galvanized by the rollback of protections in the United States.

"The amendment referring to abortion as a “guaranteed freedom” passed by a vote of 780 in favor and 72 against, far above the required threshold of support from three-fifths of lawmakers, or 512 votes.

"French President Emmanuel Macron announced that a “sealing ceremony,” a tradition reserved for the most significant laws, would take place Friday, coinciding with International Women’s Day.

“We’re sending a message to all women: Your body belongs to you, and no one can decide for you,” Prime Minister Gabriel Attal told lawmakers assembled in Versailles."*

#########

Le Monde has the story, in an editorial supporting the amendment:

Enshrining abortion access in the French Constitution is a win for feminism and democracy, EDITORIAL, Le Monde, March 4

"The joint session of both houses of Parliament convened in Versailles on Monday, March 4, to enshrine access to abortion in the French Constitution, marks an important moment in the life of the nation. And a proud moment, too. A few days before International Women's Rights Day on March 8, women's freedom to control their own bodies should be anchored in French law. It also comes at a time when abortion, once thought to be a widely accepted procedure, is being undermined in a number of democracies, most notably the United States.

...

"The three-fifths majority required in Parliament means that a consensus has been reached, despite the fact that abortion still disgusts some on the right and far right. It's a sign that democracy works, despite the distress signals it is sending out.

"At every stage of the lengthy procedure initiated in November 2022, the drafting of the Constitutional reform constantly required perseverance and tact. First in the Assemblée Nationale, where, in response to the shockwave caused in June 2022 by the US Supreme Court's decision to revoke the federal right to abortion, the radical-left La France Insoumise party and the center-right presidential majority agreed to work together on a common cause.

"Then the fight continued in the Sénat, where, in loyalty to Simone Veil's 1975 battle to decriminalize abortion, a number of right-wing Les Républicains elected representatives fought hard to ensure that the debate, which they had reframed, could continue against the advice of their group's president, Bruno Retailleau, and Sénat President Gérard Larcher. Finally, in the government, Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti facilitated the drafting and adoption of the final text. The compromise consists of enshrining the notion of "guaranteed freedom" for women to have access to abortion, without introducing an enforceable "right" to abortion as demanded by the left."

#######

*Regarding the Prime Minister's remark to women that "no one can decide for you" I note that surrogacy remains illegal in France.

Friday, October 18, 2019

Will IVF become more widely legal in France?

Medical aid in dying--the ongoing debate in Britain

 The Guardian has this opinion piece, connected to the current debate in England about medically assisted dying, and the slippery slope:

I’m glad the debate on assisted dying is forging ahead. But few understand why it frightens so many  by Frances Ryan

"On Thursday, MPs published the findings of a 14-month inquiry into assisted dying. The inquiry – which attracted more than 68,000 responses from the public – made no conclusive statement but instead collected evidence as a “significant and useful resource” for future debates.

That debate is no longer abstract. Legislation is making its way through the parliaments of Scotland, Jersey and the Isle of Man that, if passed, would enable competent adults who are terminally ill to be provided at their request with assistance to end their life.

...

"And yet it also feels a disservice to pretend that any of this is simple or that giving autonomy to some would not potentially harm others. It is deeply telling that among the many voices calling for a new assisted dying law, I have heard no human rights groups, celebrity or politician mention concerns – as advocated by many disability activists – that a law change could lead to disabled people being coerced into euthanasia, or feeling they had no other option.

We only need look to the countries that have legalised assisted dying in recent years to see these fears realised. One study reported the euthanasia of a number of Dutch people who were said simply to have felt unable to live with having a learning disability or autism. Many included being lonely as a key cause of unbearable suffering.

...

"This is not to say that the UK shouldn’t go down the path of legalising assisted dying, but we must at least do so with eyes wide open. The right to die does not exist in a vacuum: it fundamentally alters the doctor-patient relationship, and risks making members of society who are already vulnerable that little bit more insecure. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to end some terminally ill people’s suffering. Perhaps it is too much to ask. There are no black and white boxes to tick labelled “right” and “wrong” – just the messy, painful grey of being human.

In the coming months, politicians will correctly dedicate hours to discussing the right to a good death. Imagine, though, if they were to give equal attention to the right to a good life: from building social housing, exploring a basic income, investing in mental and physical health services, to – as the inquiry recommends – funding universal coverage of palliative care and more specialists in end-of-life pain."

#########

Earlier:

Friday, January 12, 2024

Medical aid in dying, and slippery slopes--the debate in Britain

Frozen embryos are children: Alabama Supreme Court ruling

 The Washington Post has the story, which emphasizes the implications this ruling could have on in-vitro fertilization (IVF).  That would also impact surrogacy, and possibly deceased donor transplantation (depending on how it impacts the definitions of who is alive and who isn't...) 

Frozen embryos are children, Ala. high court says in unprecedented ruling. By Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff, February 19, 2024 

"The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that frozen embryos are people and someone can be held liable for destroying them, a decision that reproductive rights advocates say could imperil in vitro fertilization (IVF) and affect the hundreds of thousands of patients who depend on treatments like it each year.

"The first-of-its-kind ruling comes as at least 11 states have broadly defined personhood as beginning at fertilization in their state laws, according to reproductive rights group Pregnancy Justice, and states nationwide mull additional abortion and reproductive restrictions, elevating the issue ahead of the 2024 elections. Federally, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this term whether to limit access to an abortion drug, the first time the high court will rule on the subject since it overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

"The Alabama case focused on whether a patient who mistakenly dropped and destroyed other couples’ frozen embryos could be held liable in a wrongful-death lawsuit. The court ruled the patient could, writing that it had long held that “unborn children are ‘children’” and that that was also true for frozen embryos, affording the fertilized eggs the same protection as babies under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.

...

"The push for defining personhood has even affected tax law: Georgia now recognizes an “unborn child” as a dependent after six weeks of pregnancy.

The DOJ on competition for workers

 A lot of market design is done by regulators, and some of that is done to enforce existing laws.  Here's a report from the Department of Justice, focusing on four cases involving payment to workers (including authors of books).

Athey, Susan, Mark Chicu, Malika Krishna, and Ioana Marinescu. "The Year in Review: Economics at the Antitrust Division, 2022–2023." Review of Industrial Organization (2024): 1-20.

"In this review article, we report on five enforcement matters that expanded the scope of enforcement by the Division. The first four enforcement matters highlight a number of the Division’s actions to protect labor market competition in criminal and civil merger and non-merger cases. These include: criminal enforcement against a provider of contract health care staffing services that allocated nurse employees through a no-poaching agreement and agreed to fix the wages of those nurses; civil enforcement to stop an e-Sports league from effectively imposing a salary cap on its players; civil enforcement to stop a conspiracy among poultry processors to share information about worker compensation; and the successful challenge of a merger between two of the largest book publishers in the U.S., which preserved competition for books that will benefit authors."

Medical aid in dying, and slippery slopes--the debate in Britain

 The Oxford blog Practical Ethics considers medical aid in dying (MAID), and the slippery slope arguments that accompany current debates on the subject in Britain.

Medical assistance in dying: what are we talking about? By Alberto Giubilini, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics

"Medical assistance in dying  – or “MAiD”,  to use the somehow infelicitous acronym – is likely to be a central topic in bioethics this year. That might not be true of bioethics as an academic field, where MAiD has been widely discussed over the past 40 years. But it is likely true of bioethics as a wider societal and political area of discussion. There are two reasons to think this.  First, the topic has attracted a lot of attention the last year, especially with “slippery slope” concerns around Canada’s policies. Second, MAiD has recently been in the news in the UK, where national elections will take place in 2024.  It is not hard to imagine it will feature in the heated political polarization that always accompanies election campaigns

...

"Canada is often taken as the best example in support of ‘slippery slope’ arguments against legalizing MAiD. According to these arguments, even assuming MAiD was acceptable in some form, legalization would open the door to clearly wrong or problematic practices down the line. For instance, legalizing physician-assisted suicide in cases of “unbearable suffering” for someone whose death is reasonably foreseeable in the short term might lead to relaxing our attitudes towards MAiD for those suffering only from mental illness. In the bioethics literature, slippery slope arguments against MAiD have often been put forward and traditionally been dismissed as fallacious, overly cautious, or easily addressable (for an overview and a critical appraisal, see Fumagalli 2020).  However, contrary to the prevailing view, they are not necessarily fallacious in nature (Walton 1992). To many people, Canada is a case in point, calling for a more nuanced take.

"Canada started off by decriminalizing medical assistance in dying in 2016. In 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec found the “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” unconstitutional as an eligibility criterion for MAiD. The criterion was removed in 2021, making MAiD available for patients without terminal illness. From March 2024, patients suffering solely from mental illness will also be able to legally access MAiD. According to Government data, nearly 45,000 people died through MAiD in Canada from 2016 to 2022. Between 2020 and 2022, the number of requests for MAiD increased on average by 28% per year. At the same time, the number of patients found ineligible consistently declined from 8% in 2019 to 3.4% in 2022.

...

"One question is about whether suicide is morally permissible. As mentioned, many religious  and non religious views consider suicide in most cases morally impermissible. However, the moral impermissibility of suicide is not a decisive reason against legalizing MAiD. More important is whether suicide is a right and, if so, what type of right it is. That is a different type of question, because arguably we often have the right to do morally wrong things (Waldron 1982). I might have a right to kill myself even if suicide is morally wrong.

...

"I have not provided any answer to any of these questions here. I just want to point out that some of the differences in ethical and religious views about suicide or about the right to end one’s own life are less relevant to a debate on MAiD than one might initially assume.

"At the same time, many concerns around slippery slopes are more relevant than one might initially assume. As a matter of fact and of logic, MAiD legislations tend to expand by extending their eligibility criteria. When debating MAiD legislations, we need to ask if we are prepared for that."

Ned Brooks on Coalition to Modify NOTA

Ned Brooks (about whom I've often blogged) is putting his eloquence and organizational skills to the task of increasing organ donation by allowing organ donors to be compensated. Below is a short video of an address he gave to the National Kidney Donation Organization (NKDO) which he founded, about his new effort, the Coalition to Modify NOTA.

 

Here's a copy of the email that came with the video:

To the NKDO Membership:   Thank you for your responses to the survey asking if NKDO should support the Coalition to Modify NOTA (CMN), formed by non-directed donors Ned Brooks, Elaine Perlman and Cody Maynard.   87% of our membership supports the mission statement of CMN as follows:   The Coalition to Modify NOTA (ModifyNOTA.org) is created in response to the inability of the current system to adequately address the crisis of kidney failure in the United States. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 prohibits the compensation of organ donors.   The current system of deceased donations and voluntary living donation is grossly inadequate to the task of completely ending the shortage of transplant kidneys and saving the lives of patients in kidney failure who are dying unnecessarily each year.  We believe that the solution to this crisis is to have the government compensate donors in a manner that is neither exploitative nor coercive. The Coalition to Modify NOTA seeks the modification of the National Organ Transplant Act to allow such government compensation.   Watch this presentation on the Coalition to Modify NOTA by Ned Brooks.   To sign your name in support of the Mission Statement, please go to Join the Coalition.   Kind regards,   Matt Cavanaugh, CEO and President

Modify NOTA: a new effort

 Ned Brooks, who has been a force in promoting living kidney donation, is turning his efforts towards a new organization, dedicated to modifying the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984, to allow some compensation of kidney donors.

Here's the organization's website:  Join the Coalition to Modify NOTA

The website starts off with a quote with which I'm in full agreement:

“It’s long past time to modify the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act.”   - Al Roth

*********

Recent related post:

Monday, July 10, 2023

Compensating kidney donors: a call to action by Brooks and Cavanaugh in the LA Times

The Cost of Inaction and the Urgent Need to Reform the U.S. Transplant System: participant statements

 Yesterday's Senate Finance committee hearings on The Cost of Inaction and the Urgent Need to Reform the U.S. Transplant System are on video, and the following witness statements (delivered beforehand) are now also available.

If you only have time to read one, I'd recommend clicking on the testimony of Matthew Wadsworth, the President And CEO of the OPO, Life Connection of Ohio.

Witnesses 

---

1. LaQuayia Goldring
   Patient
   Louisville , KY
   • Download Testimony
2. Molly J. McCarthy
   Vice Chair & Region 6 Patient Affairs Committee Representative
   Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)
   Redmond , WA
   • Download Testimony
3. Matthew Wadsworth
   President And CEO
   Life Connection of Ohio
   Kettering , OH
   • Download Testimony
4. Raymond J. Lynch, MD, MS, FACS
   Professor Of Surgery And Director Of Transplantation Quality And Outcomes
   Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
   Hershey , PA
   • Download Testimony
5. Donna R. Cryer, JD
   Founder And CEO
   Global Liver Institute
   Washington , DC

**********

Thursday, July 20, 2023

Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care --testimony on organ transplants, going on now