Editorial
Nettraskan
University ol Nebraska-Lineoln
Mike Reilley, Editor, 472-1766
Jeanne Bourne, Editorial Page Editor
Jen Deselms, Managing Editor
Mike Hooper, Associate News Editor
Scott Harrah, Night News Editor
Joan Rezac, Copy Desk Chief
Linda Hartmann, Wire Editor
Dollars, no sense
Faculty pay stands in monument's shadow
It seems the priorities of
the Nebraska Legisla
ture are once again on
the wrong track.
Recently the site was dedi
cated and the design chosen for
a Veterans Memorial to be built
near Lincoln.
Sen. James Pappas of North
Platte was quoted Nov. 11 by
The Lincoln Star as saying he
thinks enough money can be
raised through private dona
tions to build the memorial. The
goal for the fund drive is $1
million.
“If we can raise large
amounts of money for an indoor
practice field or for a perform
ing arts center, I think our goal
is realistic,” Pappas said.
The goal may be realistic,
Sen. Pappas, but it happens to
be for the wrong outcome. If we
can raise large amounts of
money for an indoor practice
field and a perfomiing arts cen
ter and the Veterans Memorial,
why not for faculty salary in
creases or something that will
help this state’s sagging ccon
j omy?_
It appears the Legislature
docsn't notice the problems this
state is having and is overlook
ing an easy answer to some of
these problems: Fix them with
money.
The Legislature continues to
alkxalc money or raise money
through private donations for
unncedcd items.
If we’re going to be “realis
tic,” let’s be realistic about what
this slate really needs.
The argument is the same
with the University of Nc
braska-Lincoln’s fund-raising
for the Lied Center for Perform
ing Arts and the indoor practice
field. If the funds can be raised,
raise them to remedy existing
bad situations, not to create new
ones.
Where are funds going to
come from for the upkeep of
these two buildings? The uni
versity is already having trouble
keeping Morrill Hall open and
paying its faculty worthy
wages.
The responsibility to remedy
these situations lies not only
with the university and the
Legislature. It lies with the citi
zens of this state, too. Enough
Nebraskans were found who
were willing to donate for these
two buildings.
Because Nebraskans con
tinue to gripe atx>ul the death of
higher education in this state,
w hy can’t they donate money to
save education?
All Nebraskans should take a
hint from an old saying: “If you
want something done right, you
have to do it yourself.”
Quibbles & bits
Enter UNL roaches in big bug race
• An obstetrician sewed up
the problem of his wife’s infi
delity, but he’s now paying a
multimillion-dollar lawsuit
because of it. It seems the “good
doctor” sewed his wife’s vagina
closed because he suspected her
of having an affair.
• The Palm Beach Atlantic
College will have its fifth an
nual Great American Bug Race
next Wednesday. If the Univer
sity of Nebraska-Lincoln en
tered some of the roaches who
live in Harper/Schramm/
Smith’s food service, the uni
versity could gain national ac
claim. Just think, the prize
money could be used for an ex
terminator.
• A worthwhile philanthropy
project is going on this week
end. Operation Clean Stream is
sponsored by the Clean Com
munity System and the Veter
ans of Foreign Wars. Any inter
ested parties should contact the
VFW auxiliary.
• A University of Illinois
coed calendar that features nude
women hasn’t sold well and has
drawn protests from Grassroots
Group of Second Class Citi
zens. The publishersaid the Illi
nois students were paid $2(X)
for posing topless or $3(X) for
posing nude. In a Daily Ulini
article, Miss October, who
wished to remain unidentified,
said, “$1(X) for each boob isn’t
that bad. It was $2(X) in two
hours.”
Letter Policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief
letters to the editor from all readers
and interested others.
Letters will be selected for publica
tion on the basis of clarity, originality,
timeliness and space available. The
Daily Nebraskan retains the right to
edit all material submitted.
Readers also are welcome to submit
material as guest opinions. Whether
material should run as a letter or guest
opinion, or not run, is left to the
editor's discretion.
Letters and guest opinions sent t(
the newspaper become property of th<
Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned
Anonymous submissions will not b<
considered for publication. Letter:
should include the author’s name, yea:
in school, mtyor and group affiliation, i
any. Requests to withhold names Iron
publication will not be granted.
Submit material to the Daily Ne
braskan, 84 Nebraska Union, MOOR St.
Lincoln, Neb. 08588-0448.
Organ donors are hard to find
Marketing donor organs for transplants poses ethical questions
Technological advances have
forced our society to con-"
front some serious moral
questions in the past several decades,
and those relating to medicine are
certainly among the toughest to an
swer. Abortion, of course, commands
the headlines, but the subject of organ
transplants — and the selling of
human organs in particular — de
mands attention, too.
Today wc have the capability to
transplant lungs, hearts, livers, the
pancreas, corneas, bone marrow and
even some brain tissues. Now that wc
are in our fourth decade ol organ trans
plant technology, the magnitude of
the question is much greater. The
invention of cyclosporin, an anti-re
jection drug, in 1980 and its approval
for use in 1983 have provided the “key
that unlocks the door to transplants,”
according to heart transplant special
ist Dr. Thomas Star/.yl. Although
cyclosporin is not the only factor,
transplant operations have increased
dramatically since the mid-1970s.
In 1985, about 6,900 kidneys, 300
livers and 350 hearts were trans
planted in patients in the United
States. However, experts estimate the
number of patients that would benefit
from transplanting stands at 20,(XX)
kidney patients, 8,500 liver patients
and 15,(XX) heart patients. Of these,
! 6,000 to 8,(XX) need a transplant to
sustain life. These waiting lines arc
matters of 11 fc and death, as most heart
and liver patients can survive for only
a few days or weeks without a trans
plant. In 1983,40 liver patients died at
the University of Pittsburgh School ol
Medicine alone. To even qualify as a
tran^lant “candidate,” one must be
on L ; “threshold of death” and unable
to benefit by more medication or
conventional surgery.
Quite clearly, the supply of viable
organs is lacking, and to an individual
in need of a new liver or pancreas the
consequence of too lengthy a wait can
be death.
Partof the problem lies in the inher
ently difficult process of obtaining
human organs. Except for kidneys,
nearly all organs suitable for trans
planting come from accident victims
who, though brain dead, have their
bodies kept “alive” artificially. A
human liver is viable after brain death
for six to eight hours, and a heart for
only four.
Additionally, organs must be
“matched” according to tissue type
and si/e, among other things. If a
match is found, there is often little
time to transport the organ to the re
cipient, who may be hundredsof miles
away.
Asking a victim s lamily tor ms
heart or kidneys is a very difficult
ethical and moral matter, hut that is
the way things arc. About 20,(XX)
accident victims a year (less than 2
percent of all deaths in the United
Slates) have suitable organs after
brain death, but less than one-fourth
become donors. Most transplant doc
tors say the problem is that physicians
and hospital staff do not always make
this difficult request. At least four
states have passed laws requiring
them to do so, and as of 1984,21 states
were considering similar measures.
Congress passed the National Organ
Procurement and Transplantation Act
in 1984 to improve the information
network involved with matching do
nors to patients.
Despite these efforts, there remains
a serious shortage of human organs for
transplant. One very controversial
suggestion has been to begin allowing
the sale of human kidneys on a central
market (it is possible to live on one
kidney and donate the other). The one
year survival rate is 5 percent better
for kidneys from live donors than for
those from accident victims.
Sell a kidney for money? How
much? Now, there’s a good question .
.. but for the right price, say $5,000 or
so, lots of folks would be more willing
to go under the knife than to give a
kidney away for nothing.
Some say this would be immoral,
because it is wrong to ask for money to
save another's life. But does this not
occur already? People sell blood and
blood plasma for money all the time,
and blood saves lives. And, though not
directly life-saving, pharmaceutical
testing at places like Harris Labs leads
to life-saving drugs.
If a market for the sale of human
kidneys would entice more “dona
tions” and help save lives, then it
would seem the ihing to do. But then
an even tougher ethical question
arises — w ho will buy the organ? Is it
conceivable that the rich could buy the
organs they need or take out “options”
on the next available liver or heart?
The poor would be unable to benefit in
a world where they must compete to
buy such expensive goods. In 1984,
the average transplant operation cost
$57,000 to $110,000 for a heart,
$22,000 to $30,000 for a kidney and
$135,000 to $238,000 for a liver.
Guess who will benefit from such an
arrangement?
Ihcsc arc ihc questions that sci
ence and medicine have put to us, and
we have side-stepped them all so far.
We deny that a price can be put on
human life, but one certainly exists,
and it is very high. Only time will tell
if we arc able to come to grips w i th th is
dilemma or morality and ethics. But
until we do, the lines of patients wait
ing for organs necessary to sustain
their lives will grow and force us to
think harder about the morality of a
human organ market.
Snodgrass is a senior economics major.
Liberal plot against Ginsburg
Should a man's career be judged by a moment of youthful folly?
My conservative friend Grump
gave me his most menacing
scowl as 1 took the next bar
stool.
“Not one word about it,” he said. “I
warn you, I’m capable of violence.”
What in the world do you mean?
“You know1 exactly what I’m talk
ing about, you low -life pinko. I know
what your intentions arc. You hope to
provoke me.” —
Mike
Royko
Honest, I thought we might talk
about Sunday’s football games.
“Nonsense. It’s obvious that you
want to gloat about the defeat of
Douglas Ginsburg.”
“See? I knew you would try to
provoke me. You are taking the words
right out of my mouth. But you arc
insincere.”
Not at all. I mean what I say. A few
. puffs of marijuana in years past
shouldn’t have disqualified him. Just
1 about everyone from his generation
tried it. If we applied the pot-smoking
standard to all Americans younger
than 45, few could practice law or
, medicine, hold public office, write
columns or preach from the pulpit. For
f that frisky, unwashed generation, it
was the illegal substance of choice.
“Exactly. But if that is true, which
it is, why was Ginsburg deprived of
the opportunity of being judged on th^'
• basis of his intellect and his grasp of
the Constitution? Why did you liberal
jackals drag him down for having
engaged in a leisure-lime activity that
was common among his peers?”
The answer to that is simple.
Grump. It wasn’t the liberals who did
it. You conservatives, being so admi
rably faithful to your rigid, conformist
views — you did him in.
“Us? What are you talking about?
The true conservatives, such as Ed
Mccsc, got him nominated because
he’s a true conservative, not a wishy
washy imitation. And as our great
conservative president said, he is a
true advocate of law and order.”
Ah, but it was the liberals who
defended the impulsiveness of inhal
ing a bit of brain-addling smoke.
Remember, Joe Biden, the liberal,
senator, was one of the first to speak in
Ginsburg’s behalf. And Biden even
used his own words in saying the pot
issue was irrelevant.
“Hah! Naturally Biden would say
that. He’s just a shallow youth. He
probably smoked the foul weed at one
time or another himself. And he’s
hI wayscuddling up to the youth vote.”
That may be so. But consider that
some members of the ACLU, not a
favorite conservative organization,
also defended Ginsburg. So did many
other liberal politicians and organiza
tions.
“Naturally. They were just trying
to make Ginsburg look bad by giving
him their support.”
You mean it was a liberal plot?
“Of course. I could sec it develop
ing. The moment the marijuana busi
ness came out, all the liberals leaped
to his defense. They knew that would
make him look had to the conserva
tives.” •
Ah, very devious of them. By dc
fending him, they were trying to de
stroy him?”
“Sure, the liberal plot was obvious
to everyone with any brains.”
But it was the conservatives who
pulled the rug out from under his
nomination, who pressured him to
withdraw.
‘‘Well, w hy couldn’t the press have
kept its mouth shut about it?”
Because if they hadn ’t revealed it,
the conservatives wouldn’t have
known that they were unwittingly
nominating someone for the Supreme
Court who used to smoke pot.
“Who cares if he did? It was a
trivial matter.”
Right, that’s what Joe Biden said.
“Biden is an idiot.”
But if Biden is an idiot, why did the
conservatives pressure Ginsburg to
withdraw?
“Because we’re against people
smoking pot. Don’t you listen to any
thing Nancy says? Our motto is: ‘Say
no.’
In that case, you should be pleased
that his pot-smoking was exposed,
since what he did was illegal and
wrong.
“f>on’t be silly. As we agreed ear
lier, it was no big deal because almost
everybody was doing it in those days.”
Did you?
“Of course not. I never smoked that
kind of trash in my life. It is illegal and
immoral. What kind of liberal weak
ling do you think I am?”
I apologize. Would you like an
other martini?
“Yes. And make it a double, with
two olives. I’m getting hungry.”
Koyko is a Pulitzer Prize-winning colum
nist for the Chicago Tribune,
c 1987 by the Chicago Tribune
