You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2007.

Here’s a business model for you: (1) you have a highly-technical specialty with very few competitors, and (2) better yet, federal law dictates that the materials you use will be provided to you at zero cost. That’s the business model that biotech firms such as LifeCell Corp. are using to make money hand over fist. (LifeCell brought in the tidy sum of $140.6 M last year.)

So how is it that these biotech firms are profiting from our bodies while we get no compensation? The answer is fairly simple. The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 made it illegal for individuals to sell their body parts. This law might be comforting for ethical reasons. After all, we don’t like the idea of people hawking their organs like used cars. But, as with any law, we should be aware of its unintended consequences, one of which is the apparent windfall for ambitious biotech firms.

Those who support NOTA will argue two things. First, they’ll suggest that a donor-based system is the best way to meet the serious life and death health concerns of those who need organ transplants. This argument seems fairly naive when you look at the services these biotech companies, whose customers often rely on human tissue for ever-important procedures such as lip implants. The second tack NOTA proponents will take is the classic slippery-slope argument: creating a property right in one’s body parts will result in greed, exploitation, and unsafe practices. A look around the biotech field makes it pretty obvious that avarice is already afoot– it’s now just a question of who can share in the profits. And, as for the safety argument, we (and all those participating in overseas black markets) would all be a lot better off if we create an open, regulated market for human tissue.

Kerry Howley, writing for the LA Times puts it nicely:

“Saner rules would treat the human body as the increasingly valuable property it is, allowing potential donors to will the value of their bodies as they do the rest of their assets. At the very least, donors should know they’re giving to a system that will sell their parts, not a charity that funnels them to those in need.”

This misnomer– the idea that this is an area of charity, not of big business– is what keeps our system of mandatory donations alive. We think it crass to sell our body parts, especially to nonprofits who are trying to save lives. But when the veil is lifted, and we start to see the growing cadre of biotechs getting rich off our bodies, we shouldn’t hesitate to ask: where’s our cut?

I will admit that I’ve only skimmed the surface of this issue. I haven’t discussed the ethics, or for that matter the economics, of creating property rights in human tissue. Am I way off base in arguing what I’ve argued? Are there serious risks I’m overlooking?

Daniel Corbett


When we get behind the wheel, many of us feel like something of an expert.  And when it comes to the streets in our neighborhoods, we know the lay of the land, the best shortcuts to take, and perhaps most importantly, we know which stop signs we can get away with running.  So why not just turn people loose on their neighborhood streets?

That’s exactly what they’re doing in Sunriver, Oregon, according to a story in Saturday’s Seattle Times.  Residents in the community of 2,000 will no longer have to fear being stopped for “minor infractions” in the 5-square mile area that makes up Sunriver.  The roads in Sunriver are privately-owned, but are open to the public.  The Sunriver Service District has voted to limit law enforcement’s ambit to “serious traffic offenses” such as drunk driving and reckless operation.   Residents of Sunriver are now free to coast above the speed limit, breeze through the occasional stop sign, and pay no mind to the irritating flicker of that broken turn signal.

And while drivers in Sunriver celebrate this decision by perfecting their “rolling stop,” there are no doubt those who are dismayed by the situation.  After all, how does an officer know what’s “reckless” and what’s not?  Why should we allow the denizens of these private streets to so blatantly break the law?

My first inclination is to reply very simply: “why not?”   First, these are private roads, so any argument about civic obligation stemming from shared roadways is bound to fail.  Second, and perhaps more importantly, state and local bodies should always enjoy the ability to experiment.  John Stuart Mill is famous for praising “experiments in living” as a means to develop better government.  And our own federal system rests on the notion that local entities must compete with the federal government for the affections of the people.   If Sunriver wants to let its citizens run stop signs why not let them?

At this point, we might hear arguments that it’s “crazy” to let people run stop signs.  While this is an appealing common-sense argument, it is dangerous because it assumes that our traffic laws are somehow “natural.”  Traffic laws, like any other area of health and safety regulations, are simply tools that states and municipalities use to achieve certain goals.  They naturally shift according to the local context and the goals being served (compare Montana’s speed limits to Connecticut’s; California’s health care spending to Alaska’s).  For this reason, these laws are best determined at the local level and are not some sort of unimpeachable “right” that cannot be taken away by the legislative will of a particular area.  As evidenced by this new law, it looks like Sunriver’s interest in maintaining safe roads is no longer being served by nit-picky traffic rules.

Federalism means that states and municipalities have the right to set up different laws, and maybe it also means that they have the power to get rid of them altogether.  At least that’s what I’ll think until I can hear a good argument otherwise.

Daniel Corbett 

March 2007
« Feb   Jan »

Erin Pyles Photography

Blog Stats

  • 12,929 hits
Bloggers' Rights at EFF

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.