Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    A Culture of Cybersecurity
    Opportunities in the Hard Sciences
    Career Preparation
Sign In
Brainstorm Logo-Icon

Brainstorm

Ideas and culture.

Transplant Rules Are Out of Touch With Reality

By Michele Goodwin January 21, 2012

This post responds to my reader, Chuck Kleinhans, who asked for a follow-up to my previous post: Too Disabled For An Organ Transplant, which ran last week. Chuck wanted to know a little more about the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA).

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

This post responds to my reader, Chuck Kleinhans, who asked for a follow-up to my previous post: Too Disabled For An Organ Transplant, which ran last week. Chuck wanted to know a little more about the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA).

The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) was enacted in 1984. It is the first federal organ transplant law. Prior to that time, states organized their own organ transplant rules and they worked! The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) was enacted in all states, which means that states preserved their autonomy, but strove for consistency and uniformity with regard to organ transplant rules. The UAGA was first adopted in 1968 and was revised in 1987 in accordance with NOTA.

In short, NOTA limits all contributions to the U.S. organ supply pool to organs that are altruistically supplied. In other words, it prohibits any “valuable consideration.” At the time, Congress was directly responding to one rogue doctor, who had previously lost his license to practice medicine. That doctor, Barry Jacobs, proposed brokering organs from poor people of color in the Caribbean. His proposals represented the worst of ideas to bring more organs into the supply pool. It’s unlikely the platform would have gotten anywhere.

ADVERTISEMENT

But, Congress ran with the issue and drafted a NOTA, which federalized organ procurement and allocation. That wasn’t so bad as information sharing was maximized. Problematic, though, was the stipulation that there could never be any valuable consideration for an organ. This means that a prospective patient or third party can’t even provide a cup of orange juice, piece of toast, thank you gift of any sort, let alone money to a potential donor. The law is that restrictive. In fact, violations of NOTA could lead to steep penalties including a $50,000 fine and five-year incarceration. It also means that states lost the ability to experiment with different procurement platforms (Pennsylvania pulled back on a burial benefit law). Some states have pushed at the margins, but only after numerous communications with the Justice Department lawyers, hiring attorneys, and setting up committees for very modest reforms.

In human terms, this means that a factory worker who wants to donate an organ to his friend is stuck with hard options. Donate an organ and possibly lose his or her job (for taking time off), or not be paid for the five weeks of recovery. During that time, who is to pay the rent, utilities (gas, electric, phone), and food for the family? A third party’s effort to assist the family in exchange for the factory worker’s donation would be in violation of NOTA, the 1984 law. Pragmatically speaking, NOTA is a disincentive to organ procurement for most Americans who would otherwise like to donate, but cannot afford to do so. They simply cannot take the risk that they might lose their job or not be paid for the wages lost. They can’t take the risk that they might be prosecuted, fined, and incarcerated for receiving bags of food or clothes for their kids as an acknowledgment for donating an organ. Only federal workers are guaranteed to keep their jobs and get paid during that time for donating an organ. Some states have experimented with this too. But for the most part, the middle class and working poor put a lot at financial risk to donate an organ.

Such restrictions are very difficult to justify in 2012 when biotech firms are built on the supply and demand (buying and selling) of human body parts or when the buying and selling of reproductive material is common--and there are no federal rules restricting or regulating incentives in that industry. Potential solutions are within reach, but they would violate the 1984 law.

So thousands of American men, women, and children die each year because the U.S. does not have an adequate supply of organs. Meanwhile, members of Congress lack the commitment, compassion, and courage to change a law that is sorely out of touch with reality.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Illustration showing two professors outside a university building sunk down in a large canyon, looking up at an unreachable outside world above them.
Stagnant pay
Professors Say They Need a Raise. They Probably Won’t Get One.
Photo-based illustration depicting a basketball scene with a hand palming a quarter, another hand of a man wearing a suit sleeve, and a basketball goal made from a $100 bill and the Capitol building.
Sports shakeup
A New Normal Looms in College Athletics. Can Trump Help Shape It?
Illustration showing three classical columns on stacks of coins, at different heights due to the amount of coins stacked underneath
Data
These 35 Colleges Could Take a Financial Hit Under Republicans’ Expanded Endowment Tax
Illustration showing details of a U.S. EEOC letter to Harvard U.
Bias Allegations
Faculty Hiring Is Under Federal Scrutiny at Harvard

From The Review

Solomon-0512 B.jpg
The Review | Essay
The Conscience of a Campus Conservative
By Daniel J. Solomon
Illustration depicting a pendulum with a red ball featuring a portion of President Trump's face to the left about to strike balls showing a group of protesters.
The Review | Opinion
Trump Is Destroying DEI With the Same Tools That Built It
By Noliwe M. Rooks
Illustration showing two men and giant books, split into two sides—one blue and one red. The two men are reaching across the center color devide to shake hands.
The Review | Opinion
Left and Right Agree: Higher Ed Needs to Change
By Michael W. Clune

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin