HC Deb 25 June 1968 vol 767 cc49-50W
Mrs. Joyce Butler

asked the Minister of Health whether the conference on the transplantation of organs has yet reached conclusions on the safeguards which will be necessary, in any amendment of the Human Tissue Act, for those who object to the removal of organs from their own bodies after death, or from those of their close relatives.

Mr. K. Robinson

The conference has held a further meeting and has sent me a report of its conclusions which is reproduced below. I agree with the recommendation in paragraph 2 of the report that it should not be necessary to seek the views of relatives other than the next of kin. But I am not convinced that the suggestions in paragraph 3 of the report relating to the recording of objections could be made effective at this stage.

Conference on the Transplantation of Organs Conclusions of the Meeting on 4th June, 1968

  1. 1. The conference discussed the possibility of organising a campaign to enrol would-be donors of organs. Experience with the eye donor campaign which had been run by the Royal National Institute for the Blind since 1961 suggested that it would not be possible, however vigorous the campaign, to enrol a sufficiently large proportion of the population to yield an adequate supply of organs for transplantation.
  2. 2. The conference therefore reaffirmed that, if transplantation was not to be held back by a shortage of organs, it would be necessary to relax the requirements as to consultation with relatives contained in s.l(2) of the Human Tissue Act. There was general agreement that if neither the deceased nor his next of kin had any objection, the views of other relatives need not be sought; and on the other hand that if either the deceased or his next of kin were known to object that objection must be respected.
  3. 3. Discussion concentrated on the case where the views of the deceased are not known and there is no relative present at the time of death, as may for example happen after a road accident. Those members of the conference who are actually engaged in transplantation emphasised that vital organs need to be removed within a short time after death, and that it is often not possible to consult relatives within this time. The general feeling of the conference was that it should be permissible in these circumstances to remove organs for transplantation (but not for other purposes) without enquiry of the relatives, in the absence of known objections, subject to the following provisos:
    1. (a) that death should first have been certified by not less than two doctors, each independent of the transplant team and one of them being at least five years registered; and
    2. (b) that an effective system should be devised and effectively publicised, under which persons could record objections during life with certainly that these could be ascertained and would be respected.
      • However a small number of those present did not think it right to take organs without further enquiry or explicit consent.