Glenn Cohen has a very nice write-up on Flynn v. Holder, the bone marrow transplant case, in the New England Journal of Medicine. Here’s an excerpt:
The Ninth Circuit decision represents both a win and a loss for advocates of organ markets. On the one hand, patients can now buy and sell peripheral-blood stem cells derived through apheresis, which the court claims is the method of bone marrow transplantation used in two thirds of U.S. cases — a significant victory. On the other hand, this narrow win was achieved through a statutory interpretation of NOTA, and Congress can always change the law by adding the words “peripheral-blood stem cells.” Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' broader constitutional theory — that Congress is barred by the Equal Protection Clause from banning the sale of substances with substantial similarity to blood, sperm, or eggs. So unless advocates for the sale of other body parts can find applicable statutory gaps similar to that regarding peripheral-blood stem cells, their claims will probably fail.
The article is here. The case, here.
HT: Bob Gutman