Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 23rd November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am privileged to have the opportunity to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I very much applaud the way in which he has brought the Bill forward and the way he presented it today. I thought he covered exactly the points that must be at the forefront of our minds in thinking about its implementation. It is my hope and expectation that the Bill will pass into law, and that it will have precisely the beneficial effects that its promoters have sought.

It might be helpful, at this early stage in the debate—I know we all share the objectives—to review the previous thinking about these issues, not least from the passage of the 2004 legislation that we are amending. The noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, was Secretary of State at the time of the 2004 Act. I was shadow Secretary of State in another place. My interest in these issues was not least as a constituency Member of Parliament, in that I represented both Addenbrooke’s Hospital, where clinicians led by Roy Calne did ground-breaking work in reducing the rejection of transplanted organ tissue, and Royal Papworth Hospital, which has the largest number of heart and lung transplants, and is where Terence English conducted the first UK heart transplant and John Wallwork and colleagues performed the first heart and lung transplant. So I was always closely concerned with and supportive of the transplant work they were doing.

In 2004, however, it was not concluded during the passage of the legislation that we should proceed on the basis of deemed consent. There were two parts to that. First, the evidence continued to be inconclusive that deemed consent itself was the principal issue in obtaining the necessary organs for transplantation. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to the Spanish experience, which was relevant and much debated at that time. We are going back some way, but those responsible for the system of consent in Spain took the view that an opt-out system was not the most important part of their experience in achieving the best transplant rates in Europe. A subsequent review was published in the journal Health Technology Assessment in 2009, so a little later. I was Secretary of State in 2010 and it was part of the thinking then. The conclusion of that systematic review across a number of countries said:

“Presumed consent alone is unlikely to explain the variation in organ donation rates between different countries. A combination of legislation, availability of donors, transplantation system organisation and infrastructure, wealth and investment in health care, as well as underlying public attitudes … and awareness … may all play a role”.


I am simply reiterating what the noble Lord made clear in moving the Second Reading today. All of those things matter.

In 2004, the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, said that he did not agree with the principle of deemed consent because, across the National Health Service and healthcare, we were setting out to ensure that consent was enshrined in our activity and that we should not proceed except on the basis of informed consent. To deem consent, arguably, is to abandon that principle. In this instance, we have to recognise that we are treading across an important ethical boundary, and understand why and how we are doing it. It is not that we should not do it, but that we understand the importance of recognising it.

As the noble Lord said, there is a provision in the Bill that says that, where families can demonstrate a reasonable basis for thinking that the deceased person would not have consented to transplantation, they should not proceed. The question also arises of a family who has no evidence of what the deceased person may have said, but objects themselves. We need to think carefully about that, not least because of what I remember from talking to nurses involved in transplanting at both Addenbrooke’s and Papworth, during the passage of the legislation in 2003. They said they did not quite understand what an opt-out system really meant. What is the difference between, on the one hand, asking the family of somebody who has died whether they would consent to donation; or, on the other hand, saying that, although consent is deemed to have been given, we are none the less going to ask whether you agree or object? They found it difficult to understand the difference.

In practice, we should recognise that there is a difference in terms of public attitude and awareness. I think that was demonstrated in Wales, and I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the Welsh experience. In the first year or so, it was not evident, because the numbers were small and the period of time relatively short, that there was a major shift. It may well be that more of a shift is taking place over time. But much of that may be less to do with the fact of deemed consent and more to do with public awareness and support for the process itself.

After our debate on the 2004 legislation, I would not want us to proceed in this debate thinking that the broader range of issues were then neglected. They were not. In 2008, the then Labour Government instituted the Organ Donation Taskforce, the objective of which was in the subsequent five years, I think, to increase donor rates by 50%. In practice, they went up by about 45% and have continued to increase. That is precisely because the things that we know are also important were happening. There was increased public awareness and there has been an increase in the number of people on the organ donor register. After 2010, we engaged the nudge unit—the behavioural unit—to think about how we could nudge people to make that choice before their death. That has had some benefit through organisations such as the DVLA, but especially in the training of staff in the NHS and the appointment of additional specialist nurses for organ donation. It is important that it is not the clinicians who have been trying to save a life who then have to speak to the family about organ donation. Having those specialist nurses available and staff having the right training is really important.

All those things happened under the Organ Donation Taskforce, so on that basis, I do not share the view of Chris Rudge, who was the transplant director when I was Secretary of State and was responsible for the implementation of the task force, who I believe continues to oppose deemed consent. I think we have an almost ethical obligation to do everything that may contribute to the achievement of higher donor rates and thereby to save lives. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is absolutely right: it is tragic that so many people are on the waiting list for organs and die or leave the list without the benefit of a transplant. We must do everything we can.

I urge colleagues to recognise that we must think very carefully about how we do that and to recognise that there are other things that we have done and should continue to stress which may themselves make a significant contribution. We should proceed only on the basis that there is consensus, which happily there is, between parties and, I suspect, widely in the country. The objective is so important that we must be willing to take the ethical step of deeming consent where we cannot be absolutely sure what the deceased person’s view would have been. On that basis, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.