Human Organ Transplants (Amendment) (Hansard, 20 October 1993)

§ Mr. John Heppell (Nottingham, East)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 further to provide for the circumstances in which an organ may be retrieved from a dead person for the purposes of transplant; to require the anonymity of the donor and the recipient; to define death for the purposes of that Act of 1989 as the total and irreversible loss of brain function; and for connected purposes. I notice that the Minister for Energy had so much support for his statement that hon. Members have disappeared from the Government Benches. I hope that when I make my contribution I do not empty the rest of the Benches.
The main purpose of the Bill is to do away with the current opt-in system for donors of kidneys and other human organs, and to bring in a new opt-out system, under which it will be presumed that people are willing to donate their organs unless they have expressed a wish not to do so.
Every year, the number of people who have transplants in this country grows. Last year, more than 5,000 people had major organ transplants. Thousands of other people would have benefited from cornea transplants, heart valve transplants, bone grafts or bone marrow transplants, and the only reason that those operations did not go ahead was the lack of donors.
Many other countries recognised the difficulties in obtaining donors and chose opt-out schemes several years ago. Those countries include France, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Israel. They have a higher rate of donors for heart transplants as a result. Let us compare. Austria manages to achieve a rate of 53 donors for every million of its population each year and Belgium manages 40 per million, but the United Kingdom receives only 30 per million. If we could achieve the same record as Austria, 1,000 more kidneys would be available for transplant, and 1,000 people would be spared the indignity of constant dialysis and would effectively be given a new lease of life.
There are 4,000 people on dialysis machines in this country, and they need them to stay alive. However, because they stay alive, people believe that that is an end to the problem, and see dialysis as a cure. It is not. People would realise that it is not a cure if they spent a major part of their life—three times a week—attached to a machine. They would realise that it is not a cure if they had to suffer the pain and discomfort of constant dialysis.
If people knew that their child could have rosy cheeks and be healthy instead of being pale and weak, they would realise it. If they had seen the knots caused by the constant insertion of needles in people's arms, legs, stomachs and elsewhere on their bodies, they would realise that dialysis is not a cure. People must recognise that children who are on dialysis will still be on it when they die. For them, the transplant will never come. If it did, the transplant would not merely keep them alive but would give them life.
I am sure that I am not alone in having carried a donor card for many years. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members do the same, because they have made a conscious decision that, after their death, they want one, or several, of their organs to be available to help other people. They have a right to have their views considered, and people should respect their wish.
299 If I had requested to be buried or cremated after my death, I think that everyone would respect my wishes. I think that they would respect them if I said that I wanted my ashes to be scattered across the Nottingham Forest football pitch, or the Oval or in the Thames or Trent. So why, when I say that I want my body to be used to help other people after my death, is my view so blatantly ignored?
For years I was under the illusion that I had already made the choice, as I carried a donor card, which meant that my organs would be used to help someone else when I died. I now know that when I die—I nearly said, if I die —my choice will not be respected. If I am involved in an accident, even if the donor card is found on me, my next of kin will be asked for their permission for my organs to be used.
I find that totally unacceptable. It is my choice, not my wife's, my son's or my daughter's. If I am involved in an accident, I do not want someone to ask my wife whether they can have my organs. It would probably be a doctor she had never seen before. I do not want her to suffer that sort of trauma while I am lying dead in hospital or on a mortuary slab. I do not want her to suffer that sort of pain at such a time. If my organs can be of use, I want my body to be used for other people.
It is time for us to accept that the present system is inadequate.

§ Dr. Joe Hendron (Belfast, West)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
Order. Interventions are not allowed in ten-minute Bill speeches.

§ Mr. Heppell
The present system was introduced 22 years ago, in 1971. Ten years ago, a Gallup poll showed that 70 per cent. of the population were willing to donate their organs, and a recent poll showed that 72 per cent. would be willing to do so. There has been little variance during those years. However, only 18 per cent. of people carry kidney donor cards, and, as I have explained, those cards are not a guarantee that one's organs will be donated. To me, that smacks of failure.
After all the campaigns and education, it is time to consider a different means of organ donation. A recent poll 300 of transplant doctors showed that 40 per cent. were in favour of an opt-out system; 31 per cent. were in favour of the present system; and 29 per cent. were prepared to work with either system. I agree that that result is not conclusive, and that there is no overwhelming majority. However, in all the reviews carried out during the past few years, the public seem generally to accept the idea of opting out, and it gets more support as time goes by.
The most recent public poll, conducted by the British Kidney Patient Association, shows that 61 per cent. of the population are in favour of an opt-out scheme for donors. On top of that, the overwhelming majority of recipients of organs are in favour, as are people who are waiting for an organ. I think that such a scheme is sensible.
When hon. Members decide about the Bill, I want them to concentrate on two things, because this is what it all comes down to. The first is the needs of recipients and the second the wishes of donors.
The needs of recipients are fairly clear. Any hon. Member, or their wife, daughter, son or grandchild, may require a transplant, so I hope that they will bear that in mind when they decide. The idea that, as a donor, when I die my eyes could give someone sight, my kidneys could give someone a better quality of life and my heart could give someone life itself is very reassuring to me. It means that death has less of a sting. I want hon. Members to give me the chance to make that choice and to have that consolation. The Bill will do just that.