By modelling different scenarios, Sheila Bird and John Harris show
that only a policy of presumed consent can substantially increase the
number of organs available for donation. The conclusions of the recent
Task Force recommending no change in the current procedures of opt-in was
based, as they also show in their careful and deailed analysis, on flawed
considerations. This latest evidence will be greatly welcomed by the
majority of the public and by the professional and other groups who have
strongly supported a change in legislation to presumed consent over the
past twenty years. With the increasing number of deaths on the waiting
list and with the increasing number of patients being listed for
transplantation each year, it cannot be right that the UK is allowed to
remain at the bottom of the table for organ donation rates in Europe; even
more galling when we used to be at the forefront of transplant surgery and
medicine during the 1970s and 1980s.
My personal experience has been that relatives do not want to take
decisions over what happens to the deceased’s organs at a time of great
misery for them and when they may have other matters to consider,
particularly when the wishes of the deceased person are not known.
Despite all the efforts with media coverage over the years and the major
efforts recently following Gordon Brown’s strong stimulus and
encouragement, have resulted in still only a quarter of the population
being on the UK transplant register. Adoption of presumed consent would
also help in furthering the use of non heart beating donation which
despite the difficulties can give satisfactory organ grafts for
transplantation.
The numerous attempts over the years to change legislation,
encompassing numerous surveys and reports of independent bodies, with
questions and Private Members Bills in Parliament and in recent times the
major campaign that the BMA initiated in 1990, have in the final event
failed because of strongly held opposing views by often quite a small
number of individuals. For the sake of all those who cannot get a
transplant who have poor quality of life or may die at the present time,
one can but hope that this excellent paper and new analysis by Shirley
Bird and John Harris, will not pass unnoticed.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
12 May 2010
Roger S Williams
Director, Institute of Hepatology, UCL
Institute of Hepatology, 69 - 75 Chenies Mews, London WC1E 6HX
Rapid Response:
Organ donation for liver transplantation
By modelling different scenarios, Sheila Bird and John Harris show
that only a policy of presumed consent can substantially increase the
number of organs available for donation. The conclusions of the recent
Task Force recommending no change in the current procedures of opt-in was
based, as they also show in their careful and deailed analysis, on flawed
considerations. This latest evidence will be greatly welcomed by the
majority of the public and by the professional and other groups who have
strongly supported a change in legislation to presumed consent over the
past twenty years. With the increasing number of deaths on the waiting
list and with the increasing number of patients being listed for
transplantation each year, it cannot be right that the UK is allowed to
remain at the bottom of the table for organ donation rates in Europe; even
more galling when we used to be at the forefront of transplant surgery and
medicine during the 1970s and 1980s.
My personal experience has been that relatives do not want to take
decisions over what happens to the deceased’s organs at a time of great
misery for them and when they may have other matters to consider,
particularly when the wishes of the deceased person are not known.
Despite all the efforts with media coverage over the years and the major
efforts recently following Gordon Brown’s strong stimulus and
encouragement, have resulted in still only a quarter of the population
being on the UK transplant register. Adoption of presumed consent would
also help in furthering the use of non heart beating donation which
despite the difficulties can give satisfactory organ grafts for
transplantation.
The numerous attempts over the years to change legislation,
encompassing numerous surveys and reports of independent bodies, with
questions and Private Members Bills in Parliament and in recent times the
major campaign that the BMA initiated in 1990, have in the final event
failed because of strongly held opposing views by often quite a small
number of individuals. For the sake of all those who cannot get a
transplant who have poor quality of life or may die at the present time,
one can but hope that this excellent paper and new analysis by Shirley
Bird and John Harris, will not pass unnoticed.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests