Cash incentives and the payment of funeral expenses are two ideas being put forward to encourage people to donate human organs and tissue. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is asking the public if it is ethical to use financial incentives to increase donations of organs, eggs and sperm. Paying for most types of organs and tissue is illegal in the UK. The public consultation will last 12 weeks and the council's findings will be published in autumn 2011.
We provide our bodies or parts of our bodies for medical research or for the treatment of others in a number of ways and for a variety of reasons. However, there is a shortage of bodily material for many of these purposes in the UK. What should be done about it? The Council has set up a Working Party, chaired by Professor Dame Marilyn Strathern, to explore the ethical issues raised by the provision of bodily material for medical treatment and research. Questions to be considered include: * what motivates people to provide bodily material and what inducements or incentives are appropriate? * what constitutes valid consent? * what future ownership or control people should have over donated materials? * are there ethical limits on how we try to meet demand?
Britain’s Orthodox Jews have been plunged into the centre of an angry debate over medical ethics after the Chief Rabbi ruled that Jews should not carry organ donor cards in their current form. London’s Beth Din, which is headed by Lord Jonathan Sacks and is one of Britain’s most influential Orthodox Jewish courts, caused consternation among medical professionals earlier this month when it ruled that national organ donor cards were not permissible under halakha (Jewish law). The decision has now sparked anger from within the Orthodox Jewish community with one prominent Jewish rabbi accusing the London Beth Din of “sentencing people to death”.
The United Kingdom’s chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, has issued an edict that carrying donor cards is unacceptable and that the current organ donor system is incompatible with Jewish law. The ruling comes after years of debate among rabbinical authorities over the definition of death and when an organ may be removed for transplant purposes. The new statement from the chief rabbi and his rabbinical court, the London Beth Din, says that organs may be removed for transplantation only at the point of cardiorespiratory failure, rather than at brain stem death. The latest figures for 2010 show that 66% of donations came from donors after brain death and 34% from donors after cardiovascular death, NHS Blood and Transplant said.
An investigation is under way into how two transplant patients were given kidneys from a donor with a rare and aggressive form of cancer. The incident at the Royal Liverpool University hospital involved organs from a woman who died at another hospital, and was later found to have had a hard-to-identify disease called intravascular B-cell lymphoma. Both patients had been preparing for live transplants from their sisters but accepted the donor kidneys instead. The recipients are now receiving chemotherapy treatment. Although cancer transmission is a known risk of transplantation among clinicians, the case raises questions about guidance to patients and whether sufficient checks are made. One senior of
NHS Blood and Transplant associate medical director Professor James Neuberger said transfer of malignancy was a very rare occurance but more organs were likely to carry diseases as donors get older. He admitted the scale of the problem was not known. A research fellow has now been appointed to find out how often infected organs are passed on to patients. Professor Neuberger said his first role was to try and get all the data together from transplant centres and then to work out strategies with clinicians to reduce risk.
This paper explores the issue of donation of organs from deceased donors for transplantation into a specified recipient. It argues that proper account should be taken of the principles underlying the Human Tissue Act 2004, which grant the donor a form of proprietary control. Three hypothetical scenarios are then used to draw out the implications of these principles for existing regulatory policy and the common law response to excised human organs. The paper concludes that the law should be understood as recognising ownership in organs removed from living and deceased persons and as offering opposition to the prohibition of directed donation that can only be coherently removed by reform of the 2004 Act.
When Penny Wark's brother died last year, her family did not hesitate to donate his organs. Despite the trauma, she thinks it was the right decision - but says grieving relatives must be treated with more care.