The Times of India Delhi 18th Feb 2008 Page 17
Had there been a ‘mercenary course’ for cocking a snook at the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, Amit Kumar aka ‘Kidney Kumar’ would have been a gold medalist. The Act restricts organ donation to a patient only by his close relatives. A stranger can donate his organs to a patient only if his consideration is nothing but ‘‘affection”. These provisions, along with the enforcing authorities, were taken for a ride by Kumar, who reportedly claimed before Nepal Police shortly after his arrest that he had conducted 3,000 kidney transplant operations in the last 15 years at his state-ofthe-art hospital functioning from residential premises. He also claimed he rendered a service to society by saving many persons, awaiting death while in an advanced stage of renal failure, by providing them with kidneys, and of course, by giving the poor donors a few bundles of cash. The Organs Act came into force on February 4, 1995, to regulate removal, storage and transplantation of human organs for therapeutic purposes and for prevention of commercial dealings in human organs. Section 9 of the Act deals with ‘‘restriction on removal and transplantation of human organs.’’ Section 9(1) says: ‘‘No human organ removed from the body of the donor before his death shall be transplanted into a recipient unless the do-nor is a near relative of the recipient.’’ Section 9(2) says if the donor is not a near relative, then the former has to mention in his application, consenting to donate the organ, that he is doing so because of his love and affection for the patient or ‘‘any other special reason.’’ Dealing with a kidney donation case, the SC, in its judgment on March 31, 2005, said the foundation of the laudatory law was to stop ‘‘shocking exploitation of abject poverty of many donors for even small sums of money’’. Since the object of the statute was crystal clear that it intended to prevent commercial dealings in human organs, the ‘‘special reasons’’ could, by no stretch of imagination, encompass commercial element, the court had said. The authorization committees, set up by every state which adopted the central law, should expeditiously investigate the real purpose of the organ donation before okaying it, the court had said and added to the statute a m a n d at o r y clause seeking disclosure of donor’s earnings for three preceding years from the date of consent to donate. Has the law made any difference to the prevailing situation? ‘Kidney Kumar’ has provided the answer. The donorbroker-doctor nexus has hoodwinked the legal requirements and bypassed the committees set up to inquire the real reason behind donation. All this was done in active connivance with the law enforcing machinery — the police. In India, more than 95% of end-stage renal disease patients die either because they cannot afford dialysis nor get an affectionate donor, who would gift a kidney. Can one fault a patient, who is fully aware that he is going to die if he does not get a kidney for a price he can shell out and who knows that he can not afford the repeated dialysis, for going to ‘Kidney Kumars’ who dish out instant donors? Would he be bothered whether the provisions of the Act had been complied with or not? Heightening this uncertainty is the manner in which the authorization committees function. Whether a donor’s application goes through it or not and whether the patient lives till it decides the application are major considerations that need a fresh look. If the government wants to stop commercialization of organ trade, does it have enough kidneys in the organ banks in hospitals? As long as there is a shortage of kidneys, there would always be a price for it. Till all these basic points get resolved, desperate people will continue to go to ‘Kidney Kumars’. If they follow the law strictly, they would be awaiting a call from God. And as long as the poverty stricken mass can be cowered into silence with coercion or bundles of money, there is little the Kidney Kumars need to be afraid of.
With Thanks from the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in
No comments:
Post a Comment