THIS LETTER WAS SENT RECENTLY TO ALL MSPs

Dear MSPs,

We listened to the press releases from the BMA and we have grave concerns about the fact that they are now pushing for the opt out system to increase the number of organ donations for transplant.

The people in this organisation are in a particularly unique position, they can tell of the trauma of discovering that their child or relative had their body parts removed without knowledge or consent. They lived through the ordeal of discovering that the body of their child or loved one had been invaded and now cannot be whole in the grave. Many suffer the psychological consequences now, which include alcohol addiction, drug addiction, depression and attempted suicide. Death of a loved one is traumatic enough without discovering that something has happened to their body that was not their wish. What of the future will you be the one to discover a relative of yours had an organ removed against their request.

As an organisation, we fully support and openly encourage organ donation for transplant, research and the use of bodies for teaching and education to show the benefits of organ donation for transplant providing full authorisation is received from the donor.
We have often given suggestions as to how we can increase the number of people who would be willing to donate. (See separate sheet).

At this time, the father of one of our members awaits a Kidney transplant. In conversation, he made the point that he could not live with an organ taken by deception.

We have often made the point that organs donated are and should be a gift of life. We cannot and must not lose this right to choose, this will put lives in danger and give doctors the right to decide whether one person will die to allow another to live. This can so easily happen if no relative is there to protect this person as they lie in a hospital and a decision, must be made, whether or not to continue treatment or harvest organs for transplant.

A nurse contacted us not long ago, she had worked for many years on the wards dealing with head injuries, and she and other staff had often expressed reservations about the methods used to decide on the presence of brain activity.
Consider the people who have recovered from coma when doctors stated they could not.

What of the people who carry a card to say no to organ donation for transplant and go out without the card for any reason and are in an accident. What if they are white and Moslem, what if the person is not intelligent enough to decide for himself or herself, and how could anyone tell if this person is in a coma. What if the person decided to depend on their relative and the relatives are on holiday, what if this is a homeless person and they have no address to identify them, what if ,what if, there are too many what ifs.

Page 2
We are blessed in this country of ours, in that within our main services most are honest people who have a real sense of integrity and dedication to whichever service they give. Unfortunately, though we are dealing with people. Within our main services we have police officers who have committed crimes we have firemen who have committed crimes we have social workers who have committed crimes and why because no service can be perfect and people are not faultless.

Now we come to the NHS the people that we will depend on to be honest enough and skilful enough to run the opt out system. Currently there are enough dishonest people in the NHS to run up a bill of 100 million pounds. We can go back to the story of a GP who would kill his patients for money. Dr David Southall, Dr Rashid Sandu. A junior doctor charged with manslaughter over a spinal injection. We can go to the story of a nurse who would inject a child with insulin, an NHS worker so involved in the world of paedophilia that he had images stored on an NHS computer. We then go to the story of thousands of organs and body parts taken from children and adults in the name of research without their knowledge or consent. Proof that our old people can lie in a hospital bed not fed. Do you really believe the NHS has changed that much after bringing in the new human tissue act or are they feeling frustrated because so many relatives now protect the bodies of their loved ones by refusing access. Just go on to the internet and read the page that details nurses and midwives appearing before the regulator 7- 11 January this year.

If you vote for the opt out system you will vote that we must trust doctors alone to make the decision about whether or not to treat a patient or harvest organs for transplant.

This public attitude will not be changed by using the opt out system many will refuse to donate as a protest against this system.

If we use education and the media in the right, way the opinion of a nation can be changed, people can be convinced that donating for transplant can save lives and if they expect their life to be saved by transplant then they should make their own organs available.

The people who will be most in danger of losing this right to choose are the people who are alone or less intelligent or less educated with no access to a computer to opt out and perhaps no knowledge of how to do so. Not all the homeless or alone people in Scotland have health or drug or alcohol problems many are poor but healthy and prime candidates for donating organs for transplant. We must wonder what the motive behind this attempt from the BMA is so soon to change out law again.

It is perhaps indicative of our society and the problem in general that most of the people in this organisation with complaints that the organs of their children were taken without knowledge or consent come from poorer areas, less salubrious areas of Scotland.

The point made here is that the system we have now is to say the least precarious. We must put the most enormous trust in the sincerity of members of the National Health Service and this we cannot do because the truth is they are all human beings and therefore by definition a percentage even if small will be less than trustworthy.

Do we want in a few years to discover that the bodies of our relatives are being raided to gain access to the thymus which it was reported was sold by technicians during the last organ scandal it has a huge financial worth on the world market.

Do we want to be like America where a relative must sit with the body until it goes to the undertaker and even then cannot be sure the body has not been invaded?
Do we want relatives insisting that the body of their loved one be opened and checked in their presence?
Do we want to be like the Asian nations where organs are freely traded and you cannot trust a hospital not to remove a kidney from you or your relative under anaesthetic.

If this were your relative lying on a bed in a hospital and you were not there to protect them would you want to feel sure their life would be more important than the organs a doctor can harvest for transplant.

Page 3
I have decided that after death if any of my organs can be useful then they must be used, if my body could be used for teaching a young surgeon then please do so or maybe it will be useful for research, but the point is this is my decision I looked at the facts and made my decision. That is how it should be with each person in this country; we cannot lose sight of the fact that it should be the decision of each person whether to donate, that is his or her human right. How are we to know what contributed to their decision not to donate their body?

I came to my decision because I feel it would be unfair if one of my relatives gained life from a donated organ and I refused to donate mine. I want my young relatives to have the best surgeon if they must have an operation and how can that be if the training surgeons do not have cadavers to practice on. I know from experience that when a loved one is ill or dying you want the best treatment possible and how can that be, unless people allow access to bodies for research.

Is there not some way in which we can show the people of Scotland that point of view, not put lives in danger and still leave them the right to choose. We believe there is it simply needs our MSPs to become involved and decide the best way to keep our relatives safe while helping organ donation for transplant.


Yours faithfully


LYDIA REID
CHAIRPERSON

Page 4

POSSIBILITIES FOR INCREASING THE DONATIONS OF ORGANS FOR TRANSPLANT.

1) Publicising the beneficial effects of donating organs for transplant will always be the best way forward, to see a child or adult on television or read in a newspaper that a child lies ill and awaiting death without a transplant will melt the heart of any potential donor or relative.

The blood transfusion service could probably give information about how many more donors they have contact them after their advert for blood donation, and I do not believe they would continue to advertise if this were not a viable option. Surely, an advert asking people to donate for transplant along the same lines would not be too cost prohibitive.

We need more programs on TV and radio, showing the benefits of donation for transplant as well as showing the beneficial effects of research, and how bodies donated for research, could benefit the relatives of members of the public, appeal to their sense of fair play. Bring out the point that if they expect their relative to receive an organ then they must make their own available.

2) If the BMA are correct and a very high percentage of our nation would donate organs for transplant but do not take the trouble to fill in the register then we need to deal with that attitude in a positive way.

If car tax, benefits or pensions are applied for then a form and an information pack can be issued and whichever form or tax or benefit this person applies for it will be held until the form is filled in and received by the relevant authority. This form would ask the question, the person could tick a box.

a) I do give authorisation.

b) I do not give authorisation.

c) I do not want to make a decision at this time.

This would deal with the lazy person, the person who believes but just does nothing, but that positive answer would be admission to the organ donor register. A relative would not have the ability to change that upon the death of that person, as this is a decision signed by the person, which is the correct way forward this is a very personal decision.
This could also be used for authorisation for post mortems as well as increasing the donation for teaching and research.

3) Then we would have a true assessment of the work that is needed. I suspect that is all that is needed but I believe a lot of harm has been done to the attitude of the nation by the BMA pushing so hard for the opt out system and I believe there is now a great deal of work to do to get back to where we were.

4) When a loved one dies the thoughts of a relative eventually turns to some kind of memorial, be this a headstone or perhaps a bench in a cemetery, we could use this feeling by building walls round cemeteries and each brick could show the name of the person who has donated organs for transplant. This could persuade the person themselves to donate as your name on a wall for posterity is attractive to most people. If the plaques held just the name and date of birth and death this would not be too expensive and could save many lives. If the cost is prohibitive, then this cost could become part of the funeral package I believe a relative would pay a small charge to have that name on the wall especially if the person were cremated.

5) Packs to encourage discussion about organ donation for transplant used for discussion in schools are particularly useful in secondary schools, when taken home the packs will start family debate and give all members of the family a chance not just to discuss their point of view but also gain the view of parents and relatives. We wonder if they should be distributed to the children in and after year two instead of waiting until the children are in year five and six as not all stay on until year five and six..