Clause 3 - ''Appropriate consent'': adults
Human Tissue Bill
3:45 pm
Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful to the Minister and other hon. Members that we have been able to have a debate on the issue and for the manner in which the debate was held.
I, along with many others who support the measure, would not be proposing a change if the system were working and if we had 80 per cent. of people on the organ donor register, and therefore less than 48 per cent. of relatives were not disagreeing to organ donation. We are not in that position.
Although I hope that I am wrong, the trends are not encouraging. We now have the figures for the first three quarters of the year 2003–04. In the calendar year 2003, there were 710 cadaveric donors. That takes the figures from the last quarter of 2002–03 and from the first three quarters of 2003–04. The number for the calendar year 2002 was 766 such donors. That is a drop of 7.3 per cent. calendar year to calendar year at a time when the number of people registering on the organ donor register has been increasing thanks to the work of the Minister, her officials and UK Transplant. The signs are not good. I hope that I am wrong and that there will be a sudden turnaround, but it does not look good.
If the hon. Lady is arguing that the problem is that people approaching relatives are not yet sufficiently trained, and that she has a programme of training, she must explain why the rejection rate by relatives of donors, which was only 30 per cent. in 1993, according to the Sheila Gore study, has increased to 48 per cent. That was the previous study, and was the only one that we could examine before we had the donor audit. People have not become less trained in the past 10 years; if anything, they have become more experienced. There has been a particular drive in that area thanks to the resources allocated in recent years by the Government, so I ask the Minister to reflect on whether she can rely on that defence.
The evidence from abroad clearly shows that presumed consent would work. Gimble et al conclude:
''Evidence from this study, and from the studies previously discussed''—
those are the other reviews—
''clearly suggest that the practice of presumed consent (opting-out) legislation has had a significant effect on the number of cadaveric donors per million population. As the gap between the supply and demand for transplant organs continues to widen, professionals and policymakers should consider revisiting the implications of this legislation, or some hybrid of alternatives, as an effort to expand the 'gift of life' to those in need.''
There is a pressing urgency. The evidence, rather than the anecdotes and the opinion of Mr. Matesanz, who I am sure is well respected in Spain, suggests that it would work.
Before we revisit the matter, we must consider the figures on public acceptability that the Minister has provided. In seeking the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendments, I thank her for setting out some of the hurdles that those of us who support the measure will have to cross. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 69, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.