Organ Donation

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Glyn Davies

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Glyn Davies]

I absolutely agree, but I do not necessarily agree with having a list identifying people. I hope to cover that point. Having people’s views identified outside the traumatic circumstances that surround a death is absolutely key if we are to increase the number of organ donations in this country. That is what the evidence in other countries tells us.

When the taskforce was set up, the Prime Minister of the day expected it to support a transplant revolution, but of course it did not. A similar conclusion was arrived at by a cross-party group of Assembly Members who looked at the same issue. The Members I talked to went into that committee expecting to support presumed consent, but they said in the Assembly that it should not be presumed. They did not think it would deliver the increase in organ donation levels that was generally anticipated.

The second report of the organ donation taskforce in 20008 recommended an improvement in transplant co-ordination, and that is being implemented. The number of organ donors in the UK has risen from just over 800 in 2008 to more than 1,000 last year. That is an extraordinary and dramatic improvement that has saved hundreds of lives. I have searched pretty hard, and the evidence I found is that the way forward is to look at the problem logically and in depth, conduct serious research and then take well-considered action.

Many people support presumed consent because they intuitively feel that it must make a difference. Opinion polls show support, and it is not surprising that they do. When people are going around saying that the change to presumed consent will increase the number of organs available, others will automatically say that they are in favour, but the reality is not what they think. There is a misconception that, if a citizen does not put their name on a centralised, opt-out register, their organs can be used for transplantation. This is a half-consent system, and it is not the presumed consent system that is being proposed. With soft opt-out, or presumed consent with safeguards—these are the phrases used—the actual decision to donate still rests with potential donor’s family, as happens under the current system. The key issue—the point raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Mr Evans)—is that the donor’s wishes are known by his or her next of kin.

It is always dangerous to draw conclusions from international examples but, for many years, Spain was presented by those who support presumed consent as proof of the effectiveness of that system. Since the late 1980s, Spain has had the best rate of organ donation in the world and has rightly been recognised as a model for other countries. Because Spain legalised presumed consent in 1979, it has been assumed that this played a key part in its success. However, the 1979 legislation to introduce presumed consent had no impact whatsoever on Spanish donation rates. Key organisational changes introduced 10 years later, in 1989, delivered the success of which Spain is so rightly proud. Spain does not have, and has never had, an opt-out register.

The director of the Spanish organ donation body, Dr Rafael Matesanz, has said that the 1979 legislation is dormant and plays no role in Spain’s outstanding organ donation rates, but this fact does not deter the supporters of presumed consent. They now ignore Spain, citing cultural differences to explain why Spain is not a good example to follow. They also ignore the fact that the United States has one of the best organ donation rates in the world, despite there being no presumed consent there. In fact, civil liberties issues in the States would almost certainly prevent presumed consent being introduced there.

The focus now has moved to Belgium and to studies performed in Belgium 25 years ago, between 1984 and 1987. I tried to discover what happened, because I want to see more organs donated. If a system works, and there is evidence to show that it works, it is important that we study to such examples, so I have gone to a lot of trouble to find out what happened in Belgium.

Belgium introduced presumed consent legislation in 1986. The key result was that the rate of kidney transplantation in Belgium rose from 200 per annum in 1984-85 to 300 per annum in 1987. Again, under more detailed examination, the claim that this is the consequence of presumed consent just does not stand up to scrutiny. The results of these studies were published, as a page and a half meeting report, in 1990, by L Roels and co-workers, Transplantation Proceedings, volume 22, pages 2078 to 2079. The authors state clearly that the presumed consent legislation

“was consolidated by a nationwide information campaign about the benefits of organ donation…and is being maintained by continuous efforts to inform healthcare professionals about the modalities of organ procurement procedures.”

More importantly—crucially—the authors go on to say:

“Whereas before 1986 most smaller non-university hospitals were reluctant to participate in organ donation activities, by lack of any legal security in the absences of an adequate legislation. The majority of organs harvested” —

I do not like that word; I prefer “donated” —

“during the last 3 years were performed in this particular group of hospitals.”

Presumed consent was clearly a major factor in increasing organ donation in Belgium in the 1980s, but it is irrelevant to the current position in the UK because the legal certainties have never been an issue. It may have had some influence in Belgium but it is clear that Belgium is a very weak example of evidence on which to base a major change in UK policy.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

As I understand his argument, the hon. Gentlemen is saying that in other countries other measures have worked to increase the level of donation, but he also seemed to be arguing that presumed consent would make matters worse, and reduce the number of organs donated. Can he explain how that mechanism would work?

[Glyn Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because I would not want there to be a misunderstanding. I gave a direct quote from the organ donation taskforce set up by the previous Government, which said that there was no evidence of an increase, and indeed some danger that there might be a negative effect. I used that quote as a challenge to those who are suggesting that the taskforce report shows positive support. I did not suggest that presumed consent will decrease the level of donation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

This is a political issue. It may not be a purely party political issue, but it is a political issue, because ultimately it is decided by politicians. If a similar proposal were introduced for other parts of the United Kingdom in this House, it would probably be whipped by the Government, who I imagine would take a political position on the issue. That may or may not be the case, but whether or not the issue is party political, it is political because it is about life-and-death matters affecting our constituents, matters that are ultimately decided by politicians. That is our duty and we should not give politics a dirty name by saying it is not a political issue, because politics is important—often, it is a life-and-death matter—and this is one example.

I listened carefully to the arguments of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). I absolutely accept that he is entirely sincere in making those arguments and that he has considered the matter very seriously. I know that, through a close friend, he has personal experience of the issues involved. I also know of his work with the Kidney Wales Foundation, a charity that is located in my constituency and has done such sterling work to move the issue up the agenda in Wales and to help develop the proposal brought forward by the Welsh Assembly Government.

However, I struggle to understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s position. He appeared to be saying something with which we can all agree—that increasing the levels of organ donation will not simply happen through a proposal such as soft presumed consent and that other things could and should be done to increase organ donation. As he rightly said, the very fact that the previous Prime Minister raised this matter from the top and generated a taskforce and a debate has helped to improve organ donation, in the same way that the Alder Hey scandal had the opposite effect on rates of organ donation in the past decade.

There are things that can be done. One study cited in the science section of the Library’s note, which hon. Members may have read, stated that the four main factors for high donation rates are “an opt-out policy”, which we are here to debate, and

“a large number of transplant centres…a high percentage of the population enrolled in university education…and a high percentage of Roman Catholics”.

That may explain the sanctimonious hyperbole of the Archbishop of Wales on the issue. He may want to reconsider the position that he has taken and to consult some of his ecumenical colleagues in other parts of the Christian faith.

The reason why I struggle with the logic of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is that he said that his objection was not ethical. We do not therefore have to deal with the issue of whether the proposal is an imposition by the state, which should not in any way presume anything about what should happen to the organs of someone who has died. He said at the outset of the debate that his objection was not on such grounds; he said that he wanted to cite the evidence. When I asked him whether he thought such a soft organ donation proposal would make matters worse, he said that a line in the taskforce report stated that that was a possibility, but that that was not his position and that he was not arguing that a proposal for soft organ donation would make matters worse. At the very least, all the proposal would do, according to his own argument, is make things no better. Yet he accepts that, by raising the debate and the issue, organ donation rates are likely to increase.

My argument is that the proposal is not a significant imposition on the individual human rights of people, because it is soft organ donation. In practice, what would happen is that, when an organ becomes available, it will be presumed that the donor had consented but there is still the safeguard that the relatives of that donor have to be consulted. All that would change would be the nature of the question. It would no longer be, “Your loved one did not carry a donor card and did not indicate consent before this misfortune befell them, would you agree to their organs being donated?” Instead, the question would be, “As you know, in this jurisdiction it is presumed that consent is given unless somebody opts out, and therefore we intend to proceed unless you decide to veto that process.” That is the difference. In my view, logic tells us that, in those circumstances, it is likely that more organs will be donated. Even if that was not the case, and even if, as has been said, it made no difference whatever, are we not right to try?

I believe that the proposal will be a success, and we should try it. This is the advantage of devolution: it is possible for the proposal to be tried in one part of the United Kingdom just as the smoking ban was tried despite massive objections from all sorts of people. That proved a huge success and the ban was adopted in other parts of the United Kingdom. I think the same will happen in this instance.

[Glyn Davies]

I accepted in my speech that the proposal in Wales may have triggered my debate in some way, but this is an issue for the United Kingdom. We have all spoken about a situation that needs to be improved, and that needs to happen across the United Kingdom. That is what today’s debate is about.

[Kevin Brennan]

Indeed, and I accept that. As I just said, I believe that the proposal in Wales will, eventually, lead to an improvement right across the United Kingdom.

On the constitutional point, the Welsh Government have taken legal advice and believe that they have the necessary jurisdiction to undertake the reform. If the United Kingdom Government and their legal advisers do not believe that to be the case, how should the Welsh Government react? I will tell you, Mr Crausby: they should react by making sure that they make any necessary changes to ensure that it is absolutely clear that the Welsh Government have the necessary jurisdiction to make that reform. Otherwise, we are heading for an unnecessary constitutional crisis. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health will make the issue clear when she replies to the debate.