Why we need to rethink the Organ Transplantation Act
Kidney failure is one of the most devastating conditions faced by thousands of Bangladeshis leading to painful procedures and early death. Thousands of kidney ailment patients are forced to undergo the painful process of kidney dialysis every second day until death. The rigorous provisions of the Organ Transplantation Act 1999 make it almost impossible for many of those unfortunate ones to opt for kidney transplant, which is one of the most common transplant operations in the US, and allows kidney patients to lead a normal life.
For many such sufferers, it means going to the hospital or clinic to go through the painful procedure of dialysis as many as three times a week. The only way they can lead a normal life is by having a kidney transplant, but the provisions of Organ Transplantation Act 1999 are standing in the way.
Section 6(1) (Ka) of the Act stipulates that the recipient of a human organ must not be above 70 years. This is a rather surprising provision. I have consulted the laws on kidney transplant of many countries and except for Bangladesh no other country has set an age limit for the recipient of the organs. What they require is that doctors performing the surgery be satisfied that the recipient's health is in suitable condition for transplantation. This provision needs to be scrapped to bring our law in line with other countries. This will help give new life to many a kidney patient but for my wife, who suffers from this condition, she will only cross the first hurdle.
The second hurdle is the provision u/s 3 which stipulates that the donors be close relations (the definition of close relations has recently been expanded) who are in good health and can lead a normal life even after donating one of the kidneys. In the US, where kidney transplants are one of the most common transplant operations, the donated kidney may be from: (i) a living related donor; and (ii) a living unrelated donor such as a friend.
Bangladesh should also amend the Act so that an unrelated donor like a friend, well-wisher, close associate, etc., can donate. This will bring it in line with the US law.
A third point is the provision u/s 9 of the Act prohibiting any financial benefits to the donors which is in line with the laws of other countries. Life is sacred in Islam. Surah Al-Baqarah provides: To save life one can even eat prohibited meat. In the same analogy, why should rewards for an organ to save life be a criminal act? Is it justified to penalise a donor for selling one of his organs to save another life without endangering his own and be able to lead a normal life?
In the US, the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 made it illegal to compensate organ donors, but did not prevent payment for other forms of donations such as human plasma, sperm and egg cells. Although bone marrow is not an organ, the Act made paying bone marrow donors illegal. In 2009, a public interest litigation was filed to allow donors to be compensated for giving bone marrow harvested through a non-surgical safe procedure. In December 2011, the Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that donors giving bone marrow were eligible for compensation. Harvesting kidneys is also a safe procedure and donors should be made eligible for compensation.
Md Matiul Islam is a former senior civil servant.