Carl Levin: Senate Floor Statement on Living Kidney Organ Donation

[okarol]

Carl Levin: Senate Floor Statement on Living Kidney Organ Donation
Wed, 07/11/2007 - 13:15 — admin
Levin substitute to H.R. 710

July 9, 2007 -- "Mr. President, this bipartisan substitute is nearly identical to S.487, which I introduced along with Senators Bond, Dorgan, Graham, Durbin, Mikulski, Pryor, Cardin, Isakson, Coleman, Brown, and Chambliss, and which passed the Senate on February 15, 2007. Companion legislation was introduced in the House where it was renamed in honor of our House colleague, the late Representative Charles Norwood, a longtime advocate of organ donation, who sponsored the legislation earlier this year along with Representative Jay Inslee.

Our legislation, the Living Kidney Organ Donation Clarification Act, will save lives by increasing the number of kidneys available for transplantation through a process called paired organ donation. It addresses this relatively new procedure, which is supported by numerous medical organizations, including the United Network for Organ Sharing, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, the National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology. Paired organ donation, which did not exist when the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) was enacted more than two decades ago, will make it possible for thousands of people who wish to donate a kidney to a spouse, family member or friend, but find that they are medically incompatible, to still become living kidney donors.

The legislation is necessary because the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), which contains a prohibition intended by Congress to preclude purchasing organs, is unintentionally impeding the facilitation of matching incompatible pairs. Our legislation would simply add kidney paired donation to the list of other living-related donation exemptions that Congress originally placed in NOTA. It removes an unintended impediment to kidney paired donations by clarifying ambiguous language in Section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA). That section has been interpreted by a number of Transplant Centers to prohibit such donations. In Section 301 of NOTA, Congress prohibited the buying and selling of organs. Subsection (a), titled "Prohibition of organ purchases," says, "It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration..." This legislation does not remove or alter any current provision of NOTA, but simply adds a line to Section 301 which states that paired kidney donations do not violate it.

Congress surely never intended that the living donation arrangements that permit kidney paired donation be impeded by NOTA. Our bill simply makes that clear. Some transplant professionals involved in these and other innovative living kidney donation arrangements have proceeded in the reasonable belief that these arrangements do not violate Section of 301 of NOTA, but they contend that they are doing so under a cloud.

In the process of kidney paired donor transplants, a pair consisting of a kidney transplant candidate and a biologically incompatible living donor is matched with another such pair to enable two transplants that otherwise would not occur. In other words, the intended recipient of each donor is incompatible with the intended donor but compatible with the other donor in the arrangement.

Mr. President, no Federal dollars are needed to implement this change. And, for each patient who receives a kidney, Medicare will save roughly $220,000 in dialysis costs. It is essential that we make the intent of Congress explicit so that transplant centers which have hesitated to implement incompatible living kidney donation programs can feel free to do so."

Source: Senator Carl Levin

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48726803_carl_levin_carl_levin_senate_floor_statement_living_kidney_organ_donation

[RuthWells]

Thanks for posting this -- glad to see it!

[Sluff]

I'm not knocking his intentions but I wonder how he comes up with his figures ( $220,000 in dialysis costs) is he basing this on life expectancy of how many years?

[jbeany]

More likely basing it on the fact that 3 years after the transplant, the transplanted patient doesn't get any Medicare at all - at least not until they lose the kidney from being unable to pay for the drugs and have to start dialysis again. . .

[whitehorse]

But after transplant most people should be well enough to go back to work. Then they work and op to get health insurance with a medication plan.
The end point of getting a transplant is to be well enough to work like before they got sick.

[Rerun]

Yes, and that was true when I was 25 and just received my first transplant.  But, now I'm 46 and by the time I receive another transplant who in there right mind would hire me and give me full benefits. 

I think the $220,000 is missing a few zeros. 

What I want is to get my transplant and remain on disability and Medicare and that won't be the case.  I'll get a transplant and get kicked off disability in 12 months and even though Medicare pays for my drugs 3 years who will pay for my food, rent, living expenses and other medical bills??

[whitehorse]

Getting a job depends on a lot of factors, that you have control of. But if you are sure you can not get a job nor are you upgrading your abilities to the goal of supporting your self, then why bother looking for an other transplant? Maybe you should get off the list and let the rest advance one place, if you do not want to learn new job skills .
   Do you really intend to waste a gift of life or are you just down in the dumps ?