TITLE 42 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/index.html) > CHAPTER 6A (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/ch6A.html) > SUBCHAPTER II (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/ch6AschII.html) > Part H (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/ch6AschIIpH.html) > Sec. 274e. Prev (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/274d.html) | Next (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/274f.html) Sec. 274e. - Prohibition of organ purchases

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce.

(b) Penalties

Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Definitions

For purposes of subsection (a) of this section:

(1)

The term ''human organ'' means the human (including fetal) kidney, liver, heart, lung, pancreas, bone marrow, cornea, eye, bone, and skin or any subpart thereof and any other human organ (or any subpart thereof, including that derived from a fetus) specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services by regulation.

(2)

The term ''valuable consideration'' does not include the reasonable payments associated with the removal, transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, and storage of a human organ or the expenses of travel, housing, and lost wages incurred by the donor of a human organ in connection with the donation of the organ.

(3)

The term ''interstate commerce'' has the meaning prescribed for it by section 321 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/321.html)(b) of title 21 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/index.html)

So, it seems that U.S. law permits the donation of organs with reasonable payment for the operation. That is, I can legally give away my testes to someone who wants to pay for the removal operation.

Since the testes are not viable for use in human organ transplantation (have we ever heard of testicular transplants?), we are left in a legal gray area as the premise of the prohibition is not satisfied. Neither the penalty nor the protection apply.

Assuming that the organs removed are viable for use in human organ transplantation, if the donor is compensated for wages lost and cost of the operation, then the proceedure is probably legal under this statute for the premises of the law have been satisfied.

My state's law is silent on the issue. By the prohibition on ex post facto legislation in the US, the state does not prohibit for the state has not exercised its sovereign duty to promulgate a law contrary.

Let anyone who wishes to speak contrary also cite the legislation or a document speaking of common law.

awen

Awen,

#1) I don't see how you read that as permitting payment for the operation with your testicles going to the person paying... That's all the elements of a contract that is strictly forbidden by law (section a)... Organ donation is not the same thing as whatn you propose.

#2) your State law is properly mute on the matter because Federal Law supercedes state law.

#3) As for the constitutional prohibition on "Ex Post Facto" laws - they only apply to a law that is enacted after a deed that makes the deed illegal and then a person is prosecuted for that deed. "Ex post facto" refers to a law being passed "after the fact" declaring the deed illegal after the fact and then the prosecution of the perpetrator (for lack of a better word) ...

You haven't had an operation yet and the prohibition of the deed in the law already exists.

#4) there may be more regualtions concerning this - the executive branch was given the rights to promulgate regulations that have the force of law.

Dave,

The intention of the law is to prevent rich folk from buying organ transplants. Money is permitted to exchange hands in amounts reasonable to cover expenses (e.g. the operations) by provision c).

Provision a says nothing about the disposal of what would otherwise be considered medical refuse. After all, my testes are my personal property whether inside or outside. I may dispose of them as I wish just as I would dispose of a tooth or a lock of hair. Thus, the entire law is sidestepped because organ transplantion is not occuring. Transfer for profit to an organ donor is illegal, but giving a piece of medical waste as a memento of the surgery to the person who funded the operation does not seem to be illegal because it is the transfer of private property without intention to engage in organ transplantation and without profit motivation. The premises are not satisfied. The law does not apply. The action is permitted.

As a priestess, my testes would be considered a first class relic, a religious artifact. As such, they may be transferred at cost without committing simony.

awen

I'd like to have explained why some urologist insist on keeping the testicles as medical waste and supposedly disposed of, while not allowing the patient to have his own nuts, when the patient should be able to have the right to them. Something tells me that the nuts are not really disposed of but actually in fact kept and used as souvenier/trophies/fetish's, because all of the urologist that insist on keeping them are women, and I've heard other women admit that they have, or would like to have a set of nuts as a trophy display!! Does anyone here agree with me on this subject?? I've heard that doctors will give the patient's their other organs with no problems, but the testicles, one receptionist said "there's no way that they can have them back cause I checked with Marci Bowers and two other female urolist said the same thing. Am I being paranoid/cynical/pessimistic about this, or are my beliefs justified???;)

awen (imported) wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:56 pm So, it seems that U.S. law permits the donation of organs with reasonable payment for the operation. That is, I can legally give away my testes to someone who wants to pay for the removal operation.

Since the testes are not viable for use in human organ transplantation (have we ever heard of testicular transplants?), we are left in a legal gray area as the premise of the prohibition is not satisfied. Neither the penalty nor the protection apply.

Assuming that the organs removed are viable for use in human organ transplantation, if the donor is compensated for wages lost and cost of the operation, then the proceedure is probably legal under this statute for the premises of the law have been satisfied.

My state's law is silent on the issue. By the prohibition on ex post facto legislation in the US, the state does not prohibit for the state has not exercised its sovereign duty to promulgate a law contrary.

Let anyone who wishes to speak contrary also cite the legislation or a document speaking of common law.

awen

To most human males even the idea of cutting off ones balls is sacrilege, so I think this is a legal grey area that most Americans would like to pretend no ones interested in it.

"Valuable Consideration" is a catch-all phrase to prevent quid-pro-quo deals as payment. The trouble is, one has to offer "proof" of it to make the penalties of the law stick.

For example, if I offered information on inside commodity trading and the person whose organ I possessed for transplant was given this information there would have to be proof that the two occurrances were connected.

That is hard to do in a court of law. However, in the case of kidney transplants, which are fairly common now, if the donor was still alive and donated one of his kidneys through the standard medical protocol unless money chaned hands or other renumeration occurred the law would not be broken.

Later, if I decided to give my 1932 Dusenburg to the individual who donated a kidney to me, they would have to prove that these two actions were connected. This is especially hard if the donor is a sibling or other relation to me.

I think that the law is there to make it easier to prosecute those who drug somebody who later wakes up in a tub of ice missing a kidney. It would also prevent exploitation of individuals in poor countries from selling an organ to an individual from a rich country. I have never heard of somebody being prosecuted under this law.

The question is, do any of you want to lose testicles so badly that you would seriously consider being a donor for a testicle transplant? I suppose in a place like this that is a rather stupid question on my part...

I don't think that such elective surgery as this is likely to become common, and I have never heard of such a surgery actually taking place, although in today's world nothing surprises me...

Someone could probably pay for the cost of your operation, but you could not receive any compensation for the testicles that would appear like you profited from their removal.

The exchange of money is only allowed in the amount necessary to pay for the procedure. You can't sell your nuts, but someone could front the money for the cost of their removal, I'd think.

Yes, there is at least one documented case in China of testes transplant.

Maybe there are more such cases, I don't know.

The law was created to protect the poor and indigent. Untold thousands of people in other countries have been coerced into selling healthy organs, and paid little, or nothing. Rich patients, rich Doctors preying on the poor is what the law is intended to prevent.

It is impossible to document how many such operations have been prevented because the law exists.

And laws don't prevent people from doing things.

But at least if someone does break the law, and if they are caught and tried and convicted, the person(s) who broke the law will receive some kind of legal punishment.

Reputable Doctors are not included to perform novelty operations of convenience where no medical need exists. It takes a lifetime for a Doctor to build a good reputation and only one event to ruin it. (Ask Tiger Woods about building and destroying a reputation).