ORGAN TRANSPLANTS (Hansard, 26 February 1969)

§ Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to rationalise and reform the law on the transplant and donation of organs. The question of organ transplants presents us with one of the most searching and difficult problems of our time——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Will hon. Gentlemen who wish to transplant themselves do so quietly.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
Perhaps the most acute problem which faces mankind as he moves through the second part of the 20th century is how are the discoveries of science to be used in the service of man without dehumanising him? The advance of science, particularly in the field of transplantations, has moved forward at a breath-taking pace. Only this month, we have had the first successful experiment in the transplanting of a larynx. In the face of these very rapid changes it is reasonable that there should be widespread fears that the technology which can, on the one hand, promise the delivery of a paradise, could, in fact, leave us with a hell.
This fear is not unreasonable; it is held by those with religious views and by those with none at all. While we should certainly take this into account, and while it should make us cautious, it should not determine our attitude towards this subject. We should nevertheless bear in mind that the right to die in dignity is an important and valuable human right, and that respect for the body as such, the remains of a person who has been precious to relations and others, should be upheld. The duty of burying the dead is one of the corporal works of mercy.
Even more important than this principle is the principle of the value of life. Some people have expressed surprise that I should be sponsoring a Bill which attempts to liberalise the law in this direction. I am animated in this matter by respect for life, which is why I have been against abortion and capital punishment but for these transplants. It is necessary to draw a line to balance the considerations which I have outlined. The Human Tissue Act, governing the existing situation, draws the line in the wrong place. The purpose of my Bill would be to shift 1738 the line, although not to abolish it altogether.
Today, people are dying because of a shortage of the necessary organs. In many cases donors have been put off coming forward because of the repellent and sensational publicity which has accompanied a number of these operations. I have had discussions with surgeons about this. A most distinguished surgeon told me that within the last four months, in his experience, at least five people had died who might have been saved had organs been available. In his experience, at the end of 1968 there was a list of people who had been waiting for one year, but were still not in sight of receiving the organ they needed. Another surgeon has revealed publicly that last year two patients died because no heart was available for a transplant.
My Bill would apply to all organs, hearts, kidneys, livers, etc., because it is not sensible to try to distinguish between them. The Bill would make three principal changes in the law. First, it would give full legal effect to the directions of the deceased that his body, or part of it, should be used for transplanting or research. At the moment, there is no property in a dead body and the carrying out of the wishes of the testator depends upon executors and the relations, if any. Equally, the Bill will give effect to his wishes if those wishes forbid his body being used in this way.
The second and major change the Bill makes is to remove from relations their right of veto. This faces one with a painful choice. I very much respect the feelings of survivors, but the social and human need is so pressing that one has to make a choice. The painful choice has to be made that the wishes of the survivors may have to be overridden.
At this point one should bear in mind the pain and distress themselves caused to relations if, at the moment of bereavement, they have to make a decision of this kind. In many ways they are better off, being relieved of having to make such a decision. I cannot believe that the vast majority of people, if they knew that an organ, either belonging to themselves or to someone else, could save a life would do other than say, "Take it".
The third provision of the Bill is a safeguard. There is a fear that doctors, 1739 instead of being healers, will become a species of medical vulture, waiting to snatch organs away from people as soon as they are dead. There is the even more pertinent fear that they will be worse than vultures, and will attack the body even before it is dead.
This is a reasonable fear and my Bill provides a safeguard that certification of death must be made by two doctors, one of five years' standing, who have no connection with any possible transplant operation. The Bill will contain no definition of death, because it would be a mistake at this stage for the law to commit itself to one. I offer one to the House, namely, that death is the final and irreversible cessation of perceptible heartbeat and respiration. But the working out of this is much best left to the medical profession.
Finally, the Bill would provide a conscientious objection for people like Jehovah's Witnesses. They may be a very small minority, but, precisely because of that, their needs should be respected.
I hope that the House will give permission for the Bill to be introduced. If nothing else, it may jolt the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security into taking the energetic action which is urgently needed in this field. The Bill concerns a particular problem, but I hope that eventually a commission of a semi-permanent character will be set up to consider all the ethical problems raised by the advances of science in so many directions.
The Bill affirms the value of life. It would make it easier to save it. It offers hope in certain instances to those who are despairing. I believe that it is worthy of support and I ask the House to give me leave to introduce it.