Westminster debated the proposed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill yesterday.
WHAT DID WE LEARN
1. ONE THIRD OF ABORTIONS ARE REPEAT ABORTIONS. THAT MEANS THE SAME PERSON HAVING TWO OR MORE ABORTIONS
2. THIS BILL WILL ALLOW 50% HUMAN 50% ANIMAL HYBRID EMBRYOS
THIS MEANS THAT THE PROBABILITY IS THEY WILL JOIN A HUMAN EGG WITH ANIMAL SPERM OR AN ANIMAL EGG WITH HUMAN SPERM.
ASK YOURSELF WHY
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
LEST THEY FORGET
LEST THEY FORGET
WE LIVED HE AND I ON LOVE AND A SIGH
IT SEEMED A WORLD THAT CONTAINED HE AND I
WE TWO TOGETHER FOUGHT AND TRIED
NO ROOM FOR SORROW UNTIL HE DIED
HIS LOVE SO POTENT IT GAVE ME STRENGTH
TIME WAS NOT MEASURED IN EVERY DAY LENGTH
WHEN NO CHOICE BUT TO SAY GOODBYE
MY HEART WAS SORE PAST THE WANT TO CRY
NO FUTURE NO FOOTBALL NO BROTHERS NO KNOWING
FOR ME NO WATCHING HIM LAUGHING AND GROWING
A WHOLE LIFE LIVED IN A VERY SHORT TIME
IN MY LIFE TODAY STILL CLOSE AND MINE
CONSIDER THE ATROCITY COMMITTED AFTER
NOW THEY TELL US HE DID NOT MATTER
THESE PEOPLE WE TRUSTED WITH ONES SO PRECIOUS
HIDE AND CONTINUE TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS
WE LIVED HE AND I ON LOVE AND A SIGH
IT SEEMED A WORLD THAT CONTAINED HE AND I
WE TWO TOGETHER FOUGHT AND TRIED
NO ROOM FOR SORROW UNTIL HE DIED
HIS LOVE SO POTENT IT GAVE ME STRENGTH
TIME WAS NOT MEASURED IN EVERY DAY LENGTH
WHEN NO CHOICE BUT TO SAY GOODBYE
MY HEART WAS SORE PAST THE WANT TO CRY
NO FUTURE NO FOOTBALL NO BROTHERS NO KNOWING
FOR ME NO WATCHING HIM LAUGHING AND GROWING
A WHOLE LIFE LIVED IN A VERY SHORT TIME
IN MY LIFE TODAY STILL CLOSE AND MINE
CONSIDER THE ATROCITY COMMITTED AFTER
NOW THEY TELL US HE DID NOT MATTER
THESE PEOPLE WE TRUSTED WITH ONES SO PRECIOUS
HIDE AND CONTINUE TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS
Thursday, March 13, 2008
MY SON WAS BORN
I TURNED THE CORNER AND THERE WAS HE,
EYES WIDE OPEN, AND LOOKING AT ME,
SO NEW, ADORING, WITH ME AT LAST,
HEART IN HIS EYES, THE BOND SO FAST.
WE NEED PEOPLE TO HEAR OUR STORY,
WE DON’T FIGHT THIS FIGHT FOR OUR OWN GLORY.
OUR CHILDREN WERE OURS, LOVED, AND WANTED.
FROM BIRTH TO GRAVE TO PROTECT UNDAUNTED.
TIME WAS SHORT FOR SOME OF OUR LOVED ONES,
THE EMOTION, THE SAME FOR ALL DAD’S AND MUM’S.
THE CHILDREN, INNOCENT, FOR THEM THE JUSTICE
HELP US MY FRIENDS WE ARE THE RIGHTEOUS.
I TURNED THE CORNER AND THERE WAS HE,
EYES WIDE OPEN, AND LOOKING AT ME,
SO NEW, ADORING, WITH ME AT LAST,
HEART IN HIS EYES, THE BOND SO FAST.
WE NEED PEOPLE TO HEAR OUR STORY,
WE DON’T FIGHT THIS FIGHT FOR OUR OWN GLORY.
OUR CHILDREN WERE OURS, LOVED, AND WANTED.
FROM BIRTH TO GRAVE TO PROTECT UNDAUNTED.
TIME WAS SHORT FOR SOME OF OUR LOVED ONES,
THE EMOTION, THE SAME FOR ALL DAD’S AND MUM’S.
THE CHILDREN, INNOCENT, FOR THEM THE JUSTICE
HELP US MY FRIENDS WE ARE THE RIGHTEOUS.
LOVE IS LOVE'S OWN REWARD
"I'LL LEND YOU FOR A LITTLE WHILE A CHILD OF MINE," GOD SAID,
"FOR YOU TO CHERISH WHILE HE LIVES AND MOURN FOR WHEN HE'S DEAD.
IT MAY BE SIX OR SEVEN YEARS OR ONLY TWO OR THREE,
BUT WILL YOU, TILL I CALL HIM HOME LOOK AFTER HIM FOR ME?
HE'LL BRING HIS LOVE TO GLADDEN YOU AND SHOULD HIS STAY BE BRIEF,
YOU'LL HAVE A HOST OF MEMORIES AS SOLACE FOR YOUR GRIEF.
I CANNOT PROMISE HE WILL STAY AS ALL FROM EARTH RETURN,
BUT THERE ARE LESSONS TAUGHT BELOW I WANT THIS CHILD TO LEARN.
I'VE LOOKED THE WIDE WORLD OVER IN MY SEARCH FOR TEACHERS TRUE,
AND FROM THE THRONG THAT CROWDS LIFE'S LAND AT LAST I'VE CHOSEN YOU.
NOW WILL YOU GIVE HIM ALL YOUR LOVE NOR THINK YOUR LABOUR VAIN,
AND TURN AGAINST ME WHEN I COME TO TAKE HIM BACK AGAIN.
"I'LL LEND YOU FOR A LITTLE WHILE A CHILD OF MINE," GOD SAID,
"FOR YOU TO CHERISH WHILE HE LIVES AND MOURN FOR WHEN HE'S DEAD.
IT MAY BE SIX OR SEVEN YEARS OR ONLY TWO OR THREE,
BUT WILL YOU, TILL I CALL HIM HOME LOOK AFTER HIM FOR ME?
HE'LL BRING HIS LOVE TO GLADDEN YOU AND SHOULD HIS STAY BE BRIEF,
YOU'LL HAVE A HOST OF MEMORIES AS SOLACE FOR YOUR GRIEF.
I CANNOT PROMISE HE WILL STAY AS ALL FROM EARTH RETURN,
BUT THERE ARE LESSONS TAUGHT BELOW I WANT THIS CHILD TO LEARN.
I'VE LOOKED THE WIDE WORLD OVER IN MY SEARCH FOR TEACHERS TRUE,
AND FROM THE THRONG THAT CROWDS LIFE'S LAND AT LAST I'VE CHOSEN YOU.
NOW WILL YOU GIVE HIM ALL YOUR LOVE NOR THINK YOUR LABOUR VAIN,
AND TURN AGAINST ME WHEN I COME TO TAKE HIM BACK AGAIN.
Friday, February 15, 2008
JUSTICE FOR THE INNOCENTS
SUPPORTING PARENTS AND RELATIVES THROUGH THE ISSUE OF ORGAN RETENTION AND POST MORTEM.
Lydia Reid-@hotmail.co.uk
WE ARE ALL PARENTS AND RELATIVES AFFECTED WHEN WE DISCOVERED OUR CHILDREN/RELATIVE HAD AN ILLEGAL POST MORTEM OR ORGANS REMOVED AT POST MORTEM WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT.
WE ASK THAT YOU SIGN OUR PETITION TO SUPPORT OUR REQUEST TO PARLIAMENT TO HOLD A PUBLIC ENQUIRY INTO PAST PRACTICE IN ORGAN RETENTION AND ILLEGAL POST MORTEM.
Many parents are tormented by their lack of knowledge, of the current whereabouts of the parts of their children whether researchers have destroyed the parts of their children. Their fear is that parts of there children are currently used for research or teaching or simply lying unused in a laboratory.
We believe that gaining the full knowledge of past practice will change the future of research forever, open the subject to public scrutiny. Researchers should not use body parts for research if they cannot explain the origin of the parts they hold and show authorisation.
EDUCATION
We must make clear our views that we support fully, approved research and with full knowledge and authorisation of the person whose body or body part is to be donated. We believe if the public were to be aware of the superb work carried out within the walls of our research facilities in Scotland and the lives research will save they would be supportive. When a loved one, our relative, falls ill, we pray for researchers to find a cure if one does not already exist. This cannot take place unless our researchers have the ability to do their work. We believe it would be difficult to find a person in Scotland that has not benefited from research.
We believe that view does not and should not give researchers unlimited access to our bodies without our complete agreement. Education will not convince all and we believe this is a human right to choose.
THE OPT OUT SYSTEM
WE ASK THAT YOU SIGN OUR PETITION ASKING PARLIAMENT NOT TO USE THE OPT OUT SYSTEM for organ donation for transplant IN SCOTLAND”
We believe this may put our lives and those of our loved ones in danger.
TRAINING FOR OUR SURGEONS
Young surgeons traditionally learn from the use of cadavers. How else can they learn, we see no reason why this practice cannot continue if doctors obtain full written authorisation. However, should this be, if the dead person or their relatives with knowledge of the wishes of the relative have not agreed to the use of the body? Should we have the human right to choose what will happen to our bodies?
OUR VIEW
IF THIS PERSON IS COMPOS MENTIS ENOUGH TO SAY “YES”, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SIGN A FORM. CAN THE PATIENT POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR BODY WILL BE USED FOR WHEN THEY ARE SO ILL OR IN PAIN?
WHAT IF THE PERSON SUPPOSEDLY GIVING VERBAL AUTHORISATION HAS LANGUAGE DIFFICULTIES OR IS UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND FOR ANY REASON WHICH MAY INCLUDE PAIN /DRUGS TO RELIEVE PAIN.
Do you believe that a doctor has the right to make this decision for you when you are no longer able to make the decision
WOULD THE NEED FOR THIS BODY AFFECT TREATMENT OF THIS PERSON PARTICULARLY IF THIS PERSON WERE ALONE IF A RESEARCHER DECIDED THEY NEEDED THIS BODY FOR RESEARCH?
THE PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD WHO ARE ALONE WITH NO RELATIVE TO PROTECT THEM AND MAKE A PROTEST IF THEY KNEW THEIR VIEWS WERE AGAINST THIS ISSUE AND WOULD NOT WANT THEIR BODY USED ARE MOST AT RISK.
The people not given the full explanation of how their body would be used and where someone will fill in this form for them may lose their human right to choose.
WOULD YOU WANT THIS FORM OF AUTHORISATION FOR YOUR HUSBAND, WIFE, MOTHER, FATHER, SON, DAUGHTER, BROTHER OR SISTER OR FOR THE PERSON DYING WITH NO FAMILY OR FRIEND TO PROTECT THEM = IF NOT SIGN OUR PETITION AND WRITE TO YOUR MSP AND SUPPORT US.
SUPPORTING PARENTS AND RELATIVES THROUGH THE ISSUE OF ORGAN RETENTION AND POST MORTEM.
Lydia Reid-@hotmail.co.uk
WE ARE ALL PARENTS AND RELATIVES AFFECTED WHEN WE DISCOVERED OUR CHILDREN/RELATIVE HAD AN ILLEGAL POST MORTEM OR ORGANS REMOVED AT POST MORTEM WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT.
WE ASK THAT YOU SIGN OUR PETITION TO SUPPORT OUR REQUEST TO PARLIAMENT TO HOLD A PUBLIC ENQUIRY INTO PAST PRACTICE IN ORGAN RETENTION AND ILLEGAL POST MORTEM.
Many parents are tormented by their lack of knowledge, of the current whereabouts of the parts of their children whether researchers have destroyed the parts of their children. Their fear is that parts of there children are currently used for research or teaching or simply lying unused in a laboratory.
We believe that gaining the full knowledge of past practice will change the future of research forever, open the subject to public scrutiny. Researchers should not use body parts for research if they cannot explain the origin of the parts they hold and show authorisation.
EDUCATION
We must make clear our views that we support fully, approved research and with full knowledge and authorisation of the person whose body or body part is to be donated. We believe if the public were to be aware of the superb work carried out within the walls of our research facilities in Scotland and the lives research will save they would be supportive. When a loved one, our relative, falls ill, we pray for researchers to find a cure if one does not already exist. This cannot take place unless our researchers have the ability to do their work. We believe it would be difficult to find a person in Scotland that has not benefited from research.
We believe that view does not and should not give researchers unlimited access to our bodies without our complete agreement. Education will not convince all and we believe this is a human right to choose.
THE OPT OUT SYSTEM
WE ASK THAT YOU SIGN OUR PETITION ASKING PARLIAMENT NOT TO USE THE OPT OUT SYSTEM for organ donation for transplant IN SCOTLAND”
We believe this may put our lives and those of our loved ones in danger.
TRAINING FOR OUR SURGEONS
Young surgeons traditionally learn from the use of cadavers. How else can they learn, we see no reason why this practice cannot continue if doctors obtain full written authorisation. However, should this be, if the dead person or their relatives with knowledge of the wishes of the relative have not agreed to the use of the body? Should we have the human right to choose what will happen to our bodies?
OUR VIEW
IF THIS PERSON IS COMPOS MENTIS ENOUGH TO SAY “YES”, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SIGN A FORM. CAN THE PATIENT POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR BODY WILL BE USED FOR WHEN THEY ARE SO ILL OR IN PAIN?
WHAT IF THE PERSON SUPPOSEDLY GIVING VERBAL AUTHORISATION HAS LANGUAGE DIFFICULTIES OR IS UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND FOR ANY REASON WHICH MAY INCLUDE PAIN /DRUGS TO RELIEVE PAIN.
Do you believe that a doctor has the right to make this decision for you when you are no longer able to make the decision
WOULD THE NEED FOR THIS BODY AFFECT TREATMENT OF THIS PERSON PARTICULARLY IF THIS PERSON WERE ALONE IF A RESEARCHER DECIDED THEY NEEDED THIS BODY FOR RESEARCH?
THE PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD WHO ARE ALONE WITH NO RELATIVE TO PROTECT THEM AND MAKE A PROTEST IF THEY KNEW THEIR VIEWS WERE AGAINST THIS ISSUE AND WOULD NOT WANT THEIR BODY USED ARE MOST AT RISK.
The people not given the full explanation of how their body would be used and where someone will fill in this form for them may lose their human right to choose.
WOULD YOU WANT THIS FORM OF AUTHORISATION FOR YOUR HUSBAND, WIFE, MOTHER, FATHER, SON, DAUGHTER, BROTHER OR SISTER OR FOR THE PERSON DYING WITH NO FAMILY OR FRIEND TO PROTECT THEM = IF NOT SIGN OUR PETITION AND WRITE TO YOUR MSP AND SUPPORT US.
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..
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..
Thursday, February 14, 2008
JUSTICE FOR THE INNOCENTS
INFORMATION SHEET
We are an organisation dedicated to the support of parents and relatives who have discovered their child or family member after death has had a post mortem without the knowledge or consent of a parent or relative or has had organs or body parts removed at post mortem.
The members of this organisation are from every area of Scotland and some who now live in England but their child died in Scotland. Our work involves supporting individuals or their relatives who believe medical negligence has occurred in hospital or through a GP.
We are not a charity we volunteers pay our own expenses when attending hospital visits with a client or offering support or doing the research necessary to answer the questions of relatives.
Part of our support network involves asking hospitals for information when relatives discover organs removed from their loved ones and perhaps having the information delivered to us. Death and post mortem include difficult facts to send to the newly bereaved and we can pass this data on in as far as possible language that is more acceptable to a grieving person/family. As we have gained experience, we also are more aware of the form of question, which will access the relevant information.
We try to change the treatment of relatives when a death occurs in a family to make the treatment less distressing; this involves a wide variety of subjects.
As an organisation, we campaign through writing to MSPs and visiting MSPs and any organisation we believe will be helpful to our campaign to try to gain their support, we offer MSPs and others case histories of clients affected by the issues important to us and we petition parliament. The petitions work their way through the Petitions Committee and then the Health Committee and optimistically to the floor of Parliament.
When the previous Executive ignored us, we searched for a way, which would induce the government through the fear of losing votes to listen to the views of the parents affected by the issue of post mortem and organ retention and act to right the unjust in the Human Tissue Bill and in Pathology Departments in Scotland.
We used the media in the past, to pressurise Parliament into preparing a bill (The Human Tissue (Scotland) Bill and eventually to get this Bill through Parliament. Unfortunately, this seemed the only way that our parliament worked under the previous administration. If you can gain the support of the public as we have, and show this support in our petitions with ten thousand signatures at times this lends weight to our campaign.
We brought this subject to the public awareness through marches and meetings that were publicised and eventually in latter years by chaining ourselves to the doors of relevant buildings such as the Crown Office, which eventually led to my arrest. The Procurators Fiscal dropped all charges and gave me a warning, which included the threat of prison if these demonstrations continued.
We fought hard for a Bill in Scottish Parliament, which would protect the bodies of loved ones, children and adults. The Bill passed through Parliament during a time that I could not be involved in the campaign but with a few crucial phrases included, those, which could take the choice from critically, terminally ill people, and even children as young as twelve years of age. In short, the most crucial phrase states that a person can give verbal authorisation for almost anything, the form this verbal authorisation takes is a signature from a witness, unfortunately, the bill does not preclude the form being signed and witnessed by members of NHS staff.
This means that if a person’s relatives do not reach them before they fall into a coma or die, all that is needed is a signature from any member of the NHS staff to say the dying person gave authorisation for organs to be used for research or transplant and that the person donated their body for teaching or research.
Under this same part of the bill, older and perhaps confused people, people with learning difficulties are in danger of losing their human right to choose, as are people who have language difficulties, mental health problems, anyone who must take drugs to reduce pain, and children over the age of twelve. The laws provided for the protection of people with learning difficulties are lax to say the least. The person alone in this world will have no protection at all.
We ask the question is it acceptable that because a person is alone or homeless or has language or mental health issues or just does not understand this topic that they lose their right to choose whether or not their body can be used in this way.
Our successes if we can call them that include new forms for hospital post mortems when asking relatives for authorisation. One, which gives full information about a post mortem or donation for transplant or teaching, and one, which gives less information. We have achieved tighter regulations for children under the age of twelve.
Unfortunately, in my absence the Executive passed a bill, which can bypass this system of authorisation by using verbal authorisation.
The same NHS staff that will sign and witness the forms we discovered had falsified documents in the past, which resulted in illegally performed post mortems without the knowledge of parents, organs stored, and used for research from children/adults without the knowledge of the parents and relatives.
We believe that as a rule health service staff are really ordinary honest people with the necessary integrity to do this difficult work but unfortunately a number of staff only see the assistance that a body can be in research and this as more important than the individual or relative or parent giving authorisation for post mortem or retaining organs. They see donation for any purpose as more important than the human right for a person to choose what will happen to their body after death.
We also have concerns that the person’s right to have medical treatment to save their life may be compromised if a doctor who also does research or has an interest in research deems this body useful for research or teaching or transplant. Would a doctor who has so little respect for life that he would perform an abortion, or use a foetus for research, consider a critically ill person with or without relatives has the right to use NHS resources to extend a life, or would he believe that his work in research or teaching is for the greater good of all?
The Human Tissue (Scotland) Bill also gives the legal right to the Procurators Fiscal to remove parts of bodies for research during post mortem without the authorisation of the person concerned or a relative. In effect, the Procurators Fiscal has the right to remove any body part for research during a post mortem under their protection
Without any authorisation, technically this gives pathologists or researchers access to any body, as I am unaware of any Procurator Fiscal refusing his authorisation to carry out a post mortem under his protection. It is admitted, by parliament that pathologists do the post mortem and then gain authorisation from the Fiscals office. We asked that the bill include written authorisation from the Procurators Fiscal to pathologists, this written authorisation could be by Email The Executive ignored this suggestion .
Although we support unreservedly the right of the Procurators Fiscal to order a post mortem when the cause of death is in doubt as this is for the protection of the public, we feel this department’s remit has always been and should be required to be to decide the cause of death. We would go as far as saying that post mortems carried out by the Procurators Fiscal should be carried out in separate premises, as this reduces drastically the access researchers have to the bodies of our loved ones. The areas, which have this facility such as Dundee, prove this opinion by the fact that we have not received any complaint from this area about the Procurators Fiscal using organs or body parts for research.
We have no indication if the new SNP minority government will support us, they did in opposition, we are aware they have so much to do in this their first time in office they will be forced to prioritise, we try to see a positive side in that other MSPs we know do support the issues we bring before them.
We should perhaps make clear the views of this organisation, we believe if we had the resources’ to do more research then fewer people including children would die. In Scotland, the research facilities and personnel are superior to most other countries their record speaks for itself.
We also believe, and have campaigned strongly for, education, which, we consider, will make the subject of research more of an issue discussed by families, and therefore less frightening when under consideration by a grieving family. This would also we think have the effect of shining a great big light on the subject of research and post mortem in general and therefore make less opportunity for the doctor or pathologist who will go to any lengths to get their research done. If the subject was more open and the public could see the life given by organ donation for transplant and by donating bodies for research and teaching more people would believe and therefore give authorisation for these procedures.
We feel though that with the best will some people will object and have the right to object this must be a personal decision.
We campaigned for the right of a person to choose the fate of his or her own body even if a relative disagreed. We believe that the crucial part of any agreement is the signature of the person whose body will undergo this procedure but if not then the nearest relative with knowledge of their views.
We requested in the past education in the upper levels of Schools. No driving licence or National Insurance documents issued to young or older people unless they fill in the form, which would indicate their choice for or against post mortem or donating their organs for transplant or donation for teaching or their unwillingness to make a choice at this stage of their life. Included with the form all the information needed to make a fully informed choice. This would in our opinion start discussions which would we hope also consist of parents and siblings getting involved in these debates.
We have spoken out in the past against the right of any researcher using the human embryo in research, as we believe this is life and whether or not it will save, a life is irrelevant. In our view, this cannot be man’s decision to make. In this research goes too far, there are limits to how much we can interfere with life itself. When a relative is dying, we say prayers for God to save them and for research to provide a cure but any person with a belief in god clearly would recognise this could not be at the cost of another human life no matter the age.
In short, we feel that although research, teaching and donation of organs for transplant will save lives, this should happen openly and this procedure should be legally and honestly authorised by the person who is to have this procedure after death or nearest relative with knowledge of their views. We give support to the issue of research as long as no human rights are violated by taking away a persons right to choose what will happen to their body or their life to further science.
Their will be people who no matter how much they learn about this subject do not wish their body to be used in any way and these views must be respected.
Within this organisation, the parents have a variety of problems, which can be directly attributed not just to the death of their loved one but also predominantly to the discovery and understanding posthumously that a post mortem has been carried out on their relative or child.
When informing relatives a post mortem will be required to take place officials advise relatives that a doctor will just have a “wee look” to see why they died.
We find that after death, a fog seems to descend and nothing much gets through to the grieving person. When this first shock starts to wear of and details seem to make their way through the haze this is when relatives ask questions. We have always advocated complete honesty from the beginning, as the details given at the time of death are the first to be considered by the grieving family members. Honesty seems to give the reaction that doctors/nurses/police officers have dealt with them fairly and can be trusted with the body of their child/relative. We are conscious that this is not easy for the person giving this information, we all have difficulties to overcome in any job we do.
If parents and relatives are not informed at the time of death of, their loved one what a post mortem involves and what will happen to the body of their loved one, the reaction when they eventually discover the truth is so much worse than the grief over their dead. Gone is any trust they may have held in the NHS and doctors in general. In its place are terrible anger, torment that never seems to go away and a feeling of guilt that they did not protect their loved one and an opinion that ignorance is no defence against their failure to protect.
We have in this organisation people who are so depressed that they will try to commit suicide or taking an excess of alcohol or drugs is not unknown anti depressants seem normal. They seem unable to carry on with ordinary life. Pain appears to take over their lives. Fathers walk away from families mothers no longer care for their other children.
Many parents feel the necessity to bury their child intact. We have parents in the organisation who believe that the spirit of their child will not live on when half of the body of their child is not buried and their bodies are not complete. The parents have nightmares about parts of their children still sitting in jars in a hospital or laboratory.
No matter how strong their belief in god we have parents who feel the body of their child is all they have left of this precious little person and no researcher has the right to violate this.
We are all parents with knowledge of this issue and identify with the terrible pain that the parents and relatives feel and we must try to help in any way we can by trying to offer comfort and practical help and by changing the future and the way researchers have free access to bodies without authorisation.
In no way can we justify morally the 1967 Abortion Act but we looked at the reasons it perhaps felt righteous to the politicians responsible for this and the woman who campaigned for this act. In the years preceding this act woman were ostracised if pregnant when unmarried. Their choices were few; financially the ability to eat, feed, and house their child if they continued with the pregnancy must have seemed very hopeless. We believe this act materialised as woman decided they had a role to play in society and this included the right to decide what happened to their own body. It seems they disregarded the fact that abstinence from sexual activity was an option. The fact that woman died and were physically damaged by the back street abortionists must contribute to the reasoning behind this act.
Now today a woman is supported, by the state, housed by the state, although it may not seem like a fortune they receive, it is certainly is a vast difference to the situation in the years preceding 1967. This fact alone convinces us that quite apart from the fact that to kill another human being is against Gods law that any political or moral justification for this act no longer exists. We wondered if our organisation should get more involved in trying to change the future of this act in Scotland. This issue was discussed, at length, however we decided that the work we do now quite literally takes up the lives of our volunteers, currently we have not succeeded in making the changes within the act that affects the lives of the people we support. We also decided that if we succeed in this, we have a challenge to look forward to in the future.
The committee discussion left us with many unanswered questions, predominant seemed to be if the option of abortion were not so readily available would our world change. If men, and woman, were given, no other alternative, than to bring up the children or consider adoption, for the children conceived through casual sex would our future world be wiser more principled as it is intended to be?
We as an organisation object strongly to the Opt Out system to harvest organs for transplant. Although it is vital that we have these organs to save lives, the BMA could not possibly give us a guarantee that every person in Scotland would understand or that each person could be informed, of their right to refuse and would they understand where to go or how to refuse. With the best will some people do not want to donate any part of their body and have the moral right to feel this way. Why if the BMA are so concerned with gauging public opinion on this matter will they not have a public debate with me, not my committee just me and I will face as many as they want to bring to a public debate in any media forum of their choice.
If at any time you feel the need to ask for more information, please feel you can contact us.
Yours Sincerely
LYDIA REID
CHAIRPERSON
We are an organisation dedicated to the support of parents and relatives who have discovered their child or family member after death has had a post mortem without the knowledge or consent of a parent or relative or has had organs or body parts removed at post mortem.
The members of this organisation are from every area of Scotland and some who now live in England but their child died in Scotland. Our work involves supporting individuals or their relatives who believe medical negligence has occurred in hospital or through a GP.
We are not a charity we volunteers pay our own expenses when attending hospital visits with a client or offering support or doing the research necessary to answer the questions of relatives.
Part of our support network involves asking hospitals for information when relatives discover organs removed from their loved ones and perhaps having the information delivered to us. Death and post mortem include difficult facts to send to the newly bereaved and we can pass this data on in as far as possible language that is more acceptable to a grieving person/family. As we have gained experience, we also are more aware of the form of question, which will access the relevant information.
We try to change the treatment of relatives when a death occurs in a family to make the treatment less distressing; this involves a wide variety of subjects.
As an organisation, we campaign through writing to MSPs and visiting MSPs and any organisation we believe will be helpful to our campaign to try to gain their support, we offer MSPs and others case histories of clients affected by the issues important to us and we petition parliament. The petitions work their way through the Petitions Committee and then the Health Committee and optimistically to the floor of Parliament.
When the previous Executive ignored us, we searched for a way, which would induce the government through the fear of losing votes to listen to the views of the parents affected by the issue of post mortem and organ retention and act to right the unjust in the Human Tissue Bill and in Pathology Departments in Scotland.
We used the media in the past, to pressurise Parliament into preparing a bill (The Human Tissue (Scotland) Bill and eventually to get this Bill through Parliament. Unfortunately, this seemed the only way that our parliament worked under the previous administration. If you can gain the support of the public as we have, and show this support in our petitions with ten thousand signatures at times this lends weight to our campaign.
We brought this subject to the public awareness through marches and meetings that were publicised and eventually in latter years by chaining ourselves to the doors of relevant buildings such as the Crown Office, which eventually led to my arrest. The Procurators Fiscal dropped all charges and gave me a warning, which included the threat of prison if these demonstrations continued.
We fought hard for a Bill in Scottish Parliament, which would protect the bodies of loved ones, children and adults. The Bill passed through Parliament during a time that I could not be involved in the campaign but with a few crucial phrases included, those, which could take the choice from critically, terminally ill people, and even children as young as twelve years of age. In short, the most crucial phrase states that a person can give verbal authorisation for almost anything, the form this verbal authorisation takes is a signature from a witness, unfortunately, the bill does not preclude the form being signed and witnessed by members of NHS staff.
This means that if a person’s relatives do not reach them before they fall into a coma or die, all that is needed is a signature from any member of the NHS staff to say the dying person gave authorisation for organs to be used for research or transplant and that the person donated their body for teaching or research.
Under this same part of the bill, older and perhaps confused people, people with learning difficulties are in danger of losing their human right to choose, as are people who have language difficulties, mental health problems, anyone who must take drugs to reduce pain, and children over the age of twelve. The laws provided for the protection of people with learning difficulties are lax to say the least. The person alone in this world will have no protection at all.
We ask the question is it acceptable that because a person is alone or homeless or has language or mental health issues or just does not understand this topic that they lose their right to choose whether or not their body can be used in this way.
Our successes if we can call them that include new forms for hospital post mortems when asking relatives for authorisation. One, which gives full information about a post mortem or donation for transplant or teaching, and one, which gives less information. We have achieved tighter regulations for children under the age of twelve.
Unfortunately, in my absence the Executive passed a bill, which can bypass this system of authorisation by using verbal authorisation.
The same NHS staff that will sign and witness the forms we discovered had falsified documents in the past, which resulted in illegally performed post mortems without the knowledge of parents, organs stored, and used for research from children/adults without the knowledge of the parents and relatives.
We believe that as a rule health service staff are really ordinary honest people with the necessary integrity to do this difficult work but unfortunately a number of staff only see the assistance that a body can be in research and this as more important than the individual or relative or parent giving authorisation for post mortem or retaining organs. They see donation for any purpose as more important than the human right for a person to choose what will happen to their body after death.
We also have concerns that the person’s right to have medical treatment to save their life may be compromised if a doctor who also does research or has an interest in research deems this body useful for research or teaching or transplant. Would a doctor who has so little respect for life that he would perform an abortion, or use a foetus for research, consider a critically ill person with or without relatives has the right to use NHS resources to extend a life, or would he believe that his work in research or teaching is for the greater good of all?
The Human Tissue (Scotland) Bill also gives the legal right to the Procurators Fiscal to remove parts of bodies for research during post mortem without the authorisation of the person concerned or a relative. In effect, the Procurators Fiscal has the right to remove any body part for research during a post mortem under their protection
Without any authorisation, technically this gives pathologists or researchers access to any body, as I am unaware of any Procurator Fiscal refusing his authorisation to carry out a post mortem under his protection. It is admitted, by parliament that pathologists do the post mortem and then gain authorisation from the Fiscals office. We asked that the bill include written authorisation from the Procurators Fiscal to pathologists, this written authorisation could be by Email The Executive ignored this suggestion .
Although we support unreservedly the right of the Procurators Fiscal to order a post mortem when the cause of death is in doubt as this is for the protection of the public, we feel this department’s remit has always been and should be required to be to decide the cause of death. We would go as far as saying that post mortems carried out by the Procurators Fiscal should be carried out in separate premises, as this reduces drastically the access researchers have to the bodies of our loved ones. The areas, which have this facility such as Dundee, prove this opinion by the fact that we have not received any complaint from this area about the Procurators Fiscal using organs or body parts for research.
We have no indication if the new SNP minority government will support us, they did in opposition, we are aware they have so much to do in this their first time in office they will be forced to prioritise, we try to see a positive side in that other MSPs we know do support the issues we bring before them.
We should perhaps make clear the views of this organisation, we believe if we had the resources’ to do more research then fewer people including children would die. In Scotland, the research facilities and personnel are superior to most other countries their record speaks for itself.
We also believe, and have campaigned strongly for, education, which, we consider, will make the subject of research more of an issue discussed by families, and therefore less frightening when under consideration by a grieving family. This would also we think have the effect of shining a great big light on the subject of research and post mortem in general and therefore make less opportunity for the doctor or pathologist who will go to any lengths to get their research done. If the subject was more open and the public could see the life given by organ donation for transplant and by donating bodies for research and teaching more people would believe and therefore give authorisation for these procedures.
We feel though that with the best will some people will object and have the right to object this must be a personal decision.
We campaigned for the right of a person to choose the fate of his or her own body even if a relative disagreed. We believe that the crucial part of any agreement is the signature of the person whose body will undergo this procedure but if not then the nearest relative with knowledge of their views.
We requested in the past education in the upper levels of Schools. No driving licence or National Insurance documents issued to young or older people unless they fill in the form, which would indicate their choice for or against post mortem or donating their organs for transplant or donation for teaching or their unwillingness to make a choice at this stage of their life. Included with the form all the information needed to make a fully informed choice. This would in our opinion start discussions which would we hope also consist of parents and siblings getting involved in these debates.
We have spoken out in the past against the right of any researcher using the human embryo in research, as we believe this is life and whether or not it will save, a life is irrelevant. In our view, this cannot be man’s decision to make. In this research goes too far, there are limits to how much we can interfere with life itself. When a relative is dying, we say prayers for God to save them and for research to provide a cure but any person with a belief in god clearly would recognise this could not be at the cost of another human life no matter the age.
In short, we feel that although research, teaching and donation of organs for transplant will save lives, this should happen openly and this procedure should be legally and honestly authorised by the person who is to have this procedure after death or nearest relative with knowledge of their views. We give support to the issue of research as long as no human rights are violated by taking away a persons right to choose what will happen to their body or their life to further science.
Their will be people who no matter how much they learn about this subject do not wish their body to be used in any way and these views must be respected.
Within this organisation, the parents have a variety of problems, which can be directly attributed not just to the death of their loved one but also predominantly to the discovery and understanding posthumously that a post mortem has been carried out on their relative or child.
When informing relatives a post mortem will be required to take place officials advise relatives that a doctor will just have a “wee look” to see why they died.
We find that after death, a fog seems to descend and nothing much gets through to the grieving person. When this first shock starts to wear of and details seem to make their way through the haze this is when relatives ask questions. We have always advocated complete honesty from the beginning, as the details given at the time of death are the first to be considered by the grieving family members. Honesty seems to give the reaction that doctors/nurses/police officers have dealt with them fairly and can be trusted with the body of their child/relative. We are conscious that this is not easy for the person giving this information, we all have difficulties to overcome in any job we do.
If parents and relatives are not informed at the time of death of, their loved one what a post mortem involves and what will happen to the body of their loved one, the reaction when they eventually discover the truth is so much worse than the grief over their dead. Gone is any trust they may have held in the NHS and doctors in general. In its place are terrible anger, torment that never seems to go away and a feeling of guilt that they did not protect their loved one and an opinion that ignorance is no defence against their failure to protect.
We have in this organisation people who are so depressed that they will try to commit suicide or taking an excess of alcohol or drugs is not unknown anti depressants seem normal. They seem unable to carry on with ordinary life. Pain appears to take over their lives. Fathers walk away from families mothers no longer care for their other children.
Many parents feel the necessity to bury their child intact. We have parents in the organisation who believe that the spirit of their child will not live on when half of the body of their child is not buried and their bodies are not complete. The parents have nightmares about parts of their children still sitting in jars in a hospital or laboratory.
No matter how strong their belief in god we have parents who feel the body of their child is all they have left of this precious little person and no researcher has the right to violate this.
We are all parents with knowledge of this issue and identify with the terrible pain that the parents and relatives feel and we must try to help in any way we can by trying to offer comfort and practical help and by changing the future and the way researchers have free access to bodies without authorisation.
In no way can we justify morally the 1967 Abortion Act but we looked at the reasons it perhaps felt righteous to the politicians responsible for this and the woman who campaigned for this act. In the years preceding this act woman were ostracised if pregnant when unmarried. Their choices were few; financially the ability to eat, feed, and house their child if they continued with the pregnancy must have seemed very hopeless. We believe this act materialised as woman decided they had a role to play in society and this included the right to decide what happened to their own body. It seems they disregarded the fact that abstinence from sexual activity was an option. The fact that woman died and were physically damaged by the back street abortionists must contribute to the reasoning behind this act.
Now today a woman is supported, by the state, housed by the state, although it may not seem like a fortune they receive, it is certainly is a vast difference to the situation in the years preceding 1967. This fact alone convinces us that quite apart from the fact that to kill another human being is against Gods law that any political or moral justification for this act no longer exists. We wondered if our organisation should get more involved in trying to change the future of this act in Scotland. This issue was discussed, at length, however we decided that the work we do now quite literally takes up the lives of our volunteers, currently we have not succeeded in making the changes within the act that affects the lives of the people we support. We also decided that if we succeed in this, we have a challenge to look forward to in the future.
The committee discussion left us with many unanswered questions, predominant seemed to be if the option of abortion were not so readily available would our world change. If men, and woman, were given, no other alternative, than to bring up the children or consider adoption, for the children conceived through casual sex would our future world be wiser more principled as it is intended to be?
We as an organisation object strongly to the Opt Out system to harvest organs for transplant. Although it is vital that we have these organs to save lives, the BMA could not possibly give us a guarantee that every person in Scotland would understand or that each person could be informed, of their right to refuse and would they understand where to go or how to refuse. With the best will some people do not want to donate any part of their body and have the moral right to feel this way. Why if the BMA are so concerned with gauging public opinion on this matter will they not have a public debate with me, not my committee just me and I will face as many as they want to bring to a public debate in any media forum of their choice.
If at any time you feel the need to ask for more information, please feel you can contact us.
Yours Sincerely
LYDIA REID
CHAIRPERSON
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
