Clause 3 - ''Appropriate consent'': adults
Human Tissue Bill
2:45 pm
Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
I am happy to send the hon. Gentleman the references. I tend to refer to the Belgian model, but many countries were considered. Consideration was given not only to their legislation but to their practice,
and the reviewers concluded that there was a significant impact. In fact, even where a very soft system of presumed consent was practised, it was felt that having the legislation in place had an impact, because it changed the mindset.
It is not sufficient to consider the evidence for beneficial downstream effects, because there are other hurdles to jump. One must demonstrate that the system would be more likely to meet the wishes of the donor, because I agree that the wishes of the donor should be primary. There is increasing evidence that our current system, under which we ask relatives to second-guess the wishes of their loved ones, makes it difficult for those wishes to be acceded to. Opinion poll and survey data consistently show that between 70 and 90 per cent. of people are willing to become donors when they die, but only 50 per cent. of relatives give consent. Some 48 per cent. say no, according to the latest survey, which was carried out by UK Transplant.
That gap is significant. People who are willing to donate are not enabled to do that, because relatives, at the height of their grief, are asked, ''What do you think your loved one would have wanted? And if you haven't a clue, what do you think?'' That is not the best way to ensure that the donor's wishes are primary. Until we get a full opt-in system under which knowledge is available to relatives, we will still have the problem of that gap. We are still a long way away from that system.