New Clause 6 - Removal of relevant material following death
Human Tissue Bill
2:45 pm
Ms Rosie Winterton (Minister of State, Department of Health; Doncaster Central, Labour)
What the new clause does and what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is trying to get at seem to be two different things. Let me give some background information about the Human
Tissue Act 1961, on which the measure is based. That Act was introduced to made it possible for tissue and organs to be removed for transplantation; it also authorised the removal of tissue for other purposes. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Act originally provided that only doctors could remove the tissue. However, in 1986, an exception was made for eyes, when approval was given, as the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) said, for less qualified technicians to undertake the removal of eyes to retrieve corneas. As has been said, although that is to be done under the supervision of a medical practitioner, the measure builds on experience in other countries which shows that properly trained technicians can retrieve a wide range of tissue, such as bone, tendons and heart valves.
The Bill works differently from the 1961 Act. It does not specify exactly who must do what. Removal of human tissue from the deceased for transplantation will fall within the remit of the Human Tissue Authority, which will have a duty to prepare codes of practice on the definition of death and on removal of tissue from the deceased for scheduled purposes, including transplantation. Those will set out the standards of training and experience, and the practices to be followed by persons undertaking such activities. It is clearly preferable—and I feel that this is what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was getting at—for retrieval of organs, tissues or cells to be undertaken by people who are specifically trained for the purpose, whether or not they are medical practitioners.
I was asked why it need not be a doctor who confirms death before tissue can be removed. The general requirement regarding death certification remains unaffected; it has to be done by a doctor. However, the Bill is about the removal of tissue after death. Removal before death without consent and where it is not in the person's best interests is an offence. No further provision is, therefore, needed with regard to that matter.
To an extent, the hon. Gentleman and I are approaching the matter from the same angle. I hope that I have clarified it and that he feels able to withdraw the motion.