Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill

Debate between Matt Warman and Sandy Martin

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 26th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I begin, as I suspect many will, by paying tribute not only to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), but of course to all those he mentioned who have played such an incredibly important role in bringing this Bill so close to, and I hope by the end of the day on to, the statute book. This is a piece of legislation whose time has come, because we live in a society that is less religious than ever before and we are ever more aware of what good medical science can do. It is of course vital that we respect the wishes of those who do not want their organs to be donated, but it is also vital that we have a conversation about the good that organ donation can do. I particularly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s central point that this is not a panacea or a silver bullet. It is a surprisingly small part of the conversation that we need to have, now more than ever, about what organ donation can mean for the people who need those organs so much.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) said, it is right that we are beginning to have this conversation in schools, and it needs to be surprisingly detailed. Many people whose consent will now be presumed will not realise that their presumed consent applies not only to internal organs but to corneas, for example, and to other parts of the body. Some people will find that genuinely invasive, even though the donation of those parts would do a huge amount of good. This is one of the many reasons why this Bill’s time has come.

People who wish to opt out must have a conversation with their doctor and with their family, so that when the time comes, the information that they have opted out is known, understood and easily accessible. I was hugely envious of the progress that has been made on this in Wales. It is inevitable that the family of someone who went on to give their organs and make a huge a difference would be profoundly unhappy if it later came to light that the person had expressed a wish, which had not been discovered, that their organs should not be donated. This is an immensely complex area, and the Bill provides as many opportunities as possible to opt out in a sensible and informed way. We also need to ensure that, if those opportunities are taken, they are known about and understood, because time is often of the essence when it comes to taking organs and ensuring that they do all the good that they can.

There will be a huge burden on the Human Tissue Authority to ensure that this works as well as it possibly can, because it will be the regulator for this scheme. This is a challenge that we have not faced before, and I know that the HTA is confident of the good that it can do, but we should be careful not to put doctors in the difficult position of being asked to take advantage of the legislation. There will now, I hope, be deemed consent, but it will ultimately be down to the doctors to make the call on whether to proceed.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one way to ensure that there are not misunderstandings is for everyone who is concerned about organ donation to discuss it with their nearest and dearest so that they all know that the person is happy to have their organs donated?

[Matt Warman]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is all part of the broader conversation that we need to have. None of us wants to be in this position. We would all like everyone to have signed up to the organ donation register because they had already had that conversation. Given that we are where we are, however, the more people who have those conversations, the better.

There will be an increased burden on doctors as a result of this provision, not in workload but in decision making. If they have not been able to locate evidence of an opt-out, they will still have to be sufficiently content that they may take those organs that will be so important to others. We should be careful that the presumption of consent is not interpreted as a compulsion on a doctor to take organs. Of course doctors will not behave rashly; we know that they will be considered, cautious and sensible, not only because of the regulatory regime but because they would never seek to upset either the deceased or their family and friends in this situation.

I should like to conclude where I began, by saying that these are immensely complex matters and that this is not a panacea. It should be the beginning of a conversation to make more and more people aware of the huge good they can do, whether by donating corneas or kidneys. Such donations can now make a profound difference to multiple people, and even in moments of extreme sadness, families and friends can do a small amount of good. This Bill enables not only those individual operations, but hopefully a far broader conversation that will allow us to say that great good can be done and that presuming consent is the right balance and that, in the context of that broader conversation, we can ensure that people do opt out where necessary.

I commend this Bill and commend the bravery that some have shown in getting it through the House, because there is sensible and legitimate opposition to some aspects of it. I hope that the Bill will mark a serious bit of progress and will make the difference that everyone here hopes will be made to so many lives. In collaboration with the regulators and the medical profession, I hope that we can strike the right balance to get the maximum benefit and do not inadvertently cause pain and distress to people who are placed in a position that they would never wish to be in.