Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 7, 1999)
The Ba le Battalion 11 iptlave a heart Money for donated organs loes not cheapen value of life O PINION Page 5 • Monday, June 7, 1999 r he story of the man io wakes up a hotel am bathtub, vered in ice .di lissing, itlne, but r o, of his kid- H is one of BEVERLY MIRELES e more popular urban myths of elarly ’90s. The myth, like most ^nr stories, serves to illustrate 2l|igs of societal helplessness. ^Bever, taken at face value, the <,prj comes to one basic conclu- ■— organs are in high demand. ^Bom the moment transplant ■nology became a viable surgi- 11 procedure, the availability of or- ^ to transplant became an is le. |i order to make transplantation ire democratic process, organ Implant lists were created to cat- 1 the order in which a patient * v jt; iiujd receive a life-giving kidney, ? jSt or other organ. But for many, ^.e lists were more of a pipe dream an actual solution, as the gap tween the number of organs ail able and people waiting for fin continued to widen. Years later, organs are still ewed as legally priceless. Dreams genetically engineered organs S - Mave not been realized yet, which, »imbined with the fact that there ^Bnore people on the waiting list kiow than there were 10 years ago, J'las only served to to fuel a black r/th.- b«' narket for organs. This year iventadohe, nearly 60,000 people are on Qk cor he [organ donor list, and concur- the it; ently, black-market kidneys can fl, 1S } ; etch up to $20,000 a piece. In view of all of these problems, ;'' one state has come up with a plan ^ a increase organ donations. Penn- ,^pyania will become the first state 11 P propose a policy of monetary "‘r ompensation for organ donors, i ■he plan, which will be formal- f presented June 9, states that for very cadaver with organ-trans- lant potential, the state would ay up to $3,000 in medical or fu- eral costs for the deceased donor. he bioethics behind the plan re definitely controversial. Opponents of the plan have ac- Iffld used the state of putting a mone- „ jry value on human life. As life is :l a,,c ;Ue ethical gold standard, any at- loreoll , mpt to devalue it is not only so- , ally wrong but criminal as well. I’vegot. | 6 liller si .-15 d 1 tlii »e morer. It However, this plan would do the exact opposite. By offering to pay some of the expenses of the donor, Pennsylvania is not putting a price on life but giving value to life-saving. Doctors, nurses and even pharmaceutical companies are paid for their life-giving ser vices. It seems that the donors themselves are the only ones not benefiting. What many people are over looking is that the money is more of a goodwill offering than a pay ment. Funerals and medical bills are rarely only $3,000; the money is more a thanks than an incentive. Besides, the plan only covers or gan donations of the deceased. It does not even mention or make a supportive case for live-donor transplants, which are often de scribed as fearsome and Gestapo- like, even though eggs, sperm, blood and plasma are harvested and paid for every day. By offering a small compensa tion for cadaver organs, the possi bility of increased donation is promising. People often need just a little extra incentive to do the right thing, even if it is only a symbolic one. With 60,000 people waiting for organs, the plan is definitely worth a shot, especially when the odds of getting an organ donation are not incredibly optimistic. In 1996, according to a Health Resources and Services Adminis tration report to Congress, only 32 percent of possible organ donors actually gave away their hearts and kidneys. So, for the 8,000 to 15,000 possible organ donors each year, only about 5,000 donations actual ly take place. For people waiting patiently for organs, this means that unless they can manage to outlive their trans plant expectations, many of them will die. Depressing as those numbers may be, people should take heart in the fact that because of this plan, organ donations could soon be on the rise. At this point, anything that can be done to help the thousands of people unable to do anything but wait for decent citizens to grant permission for donation would be a step in the right direction. Beverly Mireles is a junior microbiology major. Jeff Smith/The Battalion University streets in desperate need of immediate repair CHRIS HUFFINES T he saying goes that one has to walk a mile in another per son’s shoes to really un derstand them. Unfortu nately, most students will begin to test this theory as the roads around the Texas A&M campus have gone from merely annoy ing, past unhealthy and straight to hazardous for all vehicles. The roads around A&M need serious at tention, and they need it now. The primary concern is that bad lines of sight and poor drivers make driving on cam pus the vehicular equivalent of Russian roulette with a bazooka. Not only are drivers unlikely to make it back alive, but there will almost always be a mess left behind. However, that is a result of poor planning and stupid students, two things with which the University is perennially plagued. A&M really cannot be held accountable for them. However, the roads are in such disrepair that portions look like they have barely sur vived a bombing. This is unacceptable and the University can and should do something about it. Moving around campus, Ross Street, run ning between Reed McDonald and the chem istry buildings, is sinking into the ground. The parts that aren’t actively forming a fault line are graced with more potholes than Brooklyn. The half-circle portion of Bizzell Street running in front of the Jack K. Williams Administration Building is no longer pavement but more like a series of rumble strips. These are two of the worst of fenders, but every student could catalog a list of less-than-desirable streets. The. administration’s excuse (and it is a pretty good one) is that there simply is not enough money currently budgeted to take care of these problems. Without the cash, they cannot fix the problem. Of course, this is the same administration that just built Reed Arena, is remodeling and repainting buildings right and left and is con stantly increasing student fees. It makes one curious as to where all the money is going and if priorities are entirely straight. What can be done about this? The American way would be to vote the offending members of the administration out of office and vote in members who would re spond to what the students want. Except for the fact that the University is not a democra cy, that plan would work fairly well. Dropping to the level of action in the Third World would mean firing squads or a coup are in order. However, that probably will not work either. Pity — fresh blood might be helpful in making A&M a top-10 university. Two things can be done by students and staff alike, however. The first is to try to drive as little as possi ble on campus. While this will mean that fewer of the obnoxious bicyclists will be weeded out in the most satisfying way possi ble, fewer drivers on the roads will result in less wear on the roads until they get fixed. The second thing that can be done is to use the off-campus shuttle system. Again, this will result in fewer drivers, which will lead to less Wear. However, both of these are stopgap, des peration measures. What really needs to occur is a thoughtful consideration of what the University needs from its road system. Is A&M going to be a campus open to cars or will the recent trend of closed streets and pedestrian malls evolve into an automobile- free campus? If the former is the case, then the current roadways are simply inadequate for the amount of traffic that passes over them. If the future holds the latter in store, then the current street system needs to be demol ished immediately, as it is both an eyesore and a source of significant wear to any car driving over it. In the beginning days of the University, no one could foresee how common cars would become at A&M. Now that the problem is here, it needs to be aggressively solved. The passive approach that has been taken lately is unacceptable to the students, and should be unacceptable to the administration. Chris Huffines is a senior speech communications major. Mike policies still sound sneaky EDITORIAL -1 robably every chief execu- rdayn$-^tive officer of every major ide arai| corporation in the world l seconiinced last May when Philip H. tight, founder and CEO of till updke, admitted in a public an- ficial teuncement, “The Nike product ig (herds become synonymous with owed iiaye wages, forced overtime and caleb came bitrary abuse. ” 2Johns 1 * Ouch. MCDANIEL After years of immense international pressure, ike had caved in under the evidence against them, bird T fhat evidence included stories of violent abuse i the foreign floor supervisors in Nike’s Vietnamese put ants; some factory workers were slapped in the ce with rubber sneaker soles or made to lick the tree-potitory floor as punishment for errors. There were I bashvironmental hazards; some female employ- mrthM reported birth defects from breath head g harmful vapors without a face \ to gf ask at work. There were rumors were at Nike had found ways to cir- j na l qulmvent minimum wage laws (Vietnam. Sadly, the list cut Jes on. he foef In the tidal wave of interna- 1 64-6Dnal outrage occasioned by 3 ws " iese and other accounts, Nike undered again with a Stalin- ,int p^Qne suppression of informa- in Ellon about its practices. iointpl ; I°r whatever reason, principled on a'Practical, Nike has now begun to , it piiake a show of straightening up. ||s evidenced by Knight’s chastened attitude in ma nfUblic, Nike’s redemption began last year with an of- hnutethal policy of perestroika. In keeping with a new e gaiiiJblic openness, Nike recently released a circular to bU ( fredia outlets in May pledging its commitment to im- ie Rt'oved corporate behavior. th a 1' “We a h recognize there is more work to be done ad our teams in the field, with outside assistance, t j ie lf?e; tackling issues such as workplace temperatures, 3_poi' ?a hh care and nutrition this year,” the release said. t he li J They certainly sound penitent, but Nike’s public j hy mouncements about its changes continue to have a ,34 htiturbing sense of surreptitiousness about them. 1 ie figures on wage increases in Nike’s circular, for stance, are presented in Vietnamese currency, leav ing the average American reader with no idea about how much workers are actually paid. And even in this latest release, Nike continues to argue that all things considered, their workers do not have it so bad, a gross rationalization if ever there was one. Propagandistic interviews with workers who are very happy with their jobs pepper the release, but one is left to fear that these employees are the excep tions rather than the rule. Even so, Dara O’Rourke, an environmental re searcher at Berkeley and long-time Nike critic, seems convinced. According to a Los Angeles Times article in April, he praised Nike for its improvements with out dismissing its still-needed reforms. Even the (few) statistics cited by O’Rourke, how ever, smell suspiciously of chicanery. At one factory, for instance, the number of workers reporting respi ratory problems fell from 86% of the workforce in 1997 to 18% of the work force in 1998. Aside from the fact that without knowing the size of the work force, these percentages could mean anything, this figure proves only that workers are not talking about their health problems not that they are now free of them. Nonetheless, in spite of these concerns, Nike is at least abandoning its former stance, which is a good start. Meanwhile, though, other companies should take note. Nike’s meekness, genuine or other wise, is witness to the power moral suasion still has in the market. After its dramatic fall from grace, other shady operations who run to foreign countries will not be able to hide there for long. Unfortunately, Texas A&M University itself is no stranger to these controversies. Allegations earlier in the year about sweatshops used by collegiate licens ing companies strike an unsettling chord at home. It is time, like Nike, that we face the music as well. Here’s hoping Nike — and others — will do a bet ter job walking a mile in their workers’ shoes than they have in the past. Caleb McDaniel is a junior history major. Editorials Board KASIE BYERS Editor in Chief SALLIE TURNER Managing Editor VERONICA SERRANO Executive Editor CALEB MCDANIEL Opinion Editor NONI SRIDHARA Campus Editor Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views of the edito rials board members. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of other Battalion staff members, the Texas A&M student body, re gents, administration, faculty or staff. Columns, guest columns, car toons and letters express the opinions of the authors. Sleeping Giants Vision 2020 should combine insights with more student input At Friday night’s official un veiling of the Vision 2020 strate gic planning report, the language in the air was almost as apoca lyptic as the coming of the mil lennium itself. In a keynote speech, Vision 2020 co-chair Jon L. Hagler de scribed the project as Texas A&M University’s “rendezvous with destiny. ” “The stars are aligned,” he said. These prophecies are impres sive indeed, and the report they refer to is no less impressive. Vi sion 2020 is a powerful call to action. It features a refreshing focus on academics, a clarion call for more multicultural diversity on campus, a vision for enriching the University’s impoverished arts community and many other laudable goals. Most encouraging of all. Vi sion 2020 is characterized by a sober understanding of where the University is and how far it still has to go. In his Friday speech, Jon Hagler reminded the assembly again and again, “We have much to be proud of, but we are still a sleeping giant.” But hidden in the background of Vision 2020 lurks a 40,000- pound sleeping giant — the stu dent body — and the project’s lack of substantial student input is alarming. Of the over 250 members of the Vision 2020 task force, only about a dozen were students. Administrators have failed to include students in the planning process for Vision 2020. Student opinions have not been solicited except in small numbers, and student awareness of the admin istration’s activities has been minimal at best. Vision 2020 can erect an Emerald City at the end of the yellow-brick road, but so far it has been too much like the wiz ard behind the curtain. To be successful, school offi cials must pull back the curtain. and soon. Without a formal plan to rally student support. Vision 2020 will leave a bad aftertaste of a policy handed down from on high instead of collaborative- ly built from the bottom up. A failure to include students more proactively will spell doom for Vision 2020. Today’s students are tomor row’s alumni, tomorrow’s donors, tomorrow’s legislators and the parents of tomorrow’s students. By 2020, the students who are not included in the project now will be the ones called upon to fund it. They must be convinced early that it will be an investment worth making. Vision 2020 does have the po tential to be a rousing success, and its findings may indeed waken the University’s sleeping giant. But to do so, administrators will simply have to awaken the sleeping student body first.