Organ Donation

Debate between Paul Uppal and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Uppal]

My hon. Friend is correct: I do not sign early-day motions. On the opt-out, we have made some progress, and we should continue on that route, but increase the pace. I have seen some of the research from various task forces. Some work in 2008 suggested that there was no substantive evidence that going down that route would increase organ donation. That is probably a matter for debate another time, but my personal opinion is that we must deal with it sequentially. Let us get to 2013, then see where we are.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

If anyone is in any doubt about the desperate suffering at the moment, they should look at the evidence from my constituent, Matthew Lammas, and his family, who came to the House and talked about their six months of agony while he waited for an organ to become available. There were calls in the middle of the night, and drives of sometimes hundreds of miles with disappointment after disappointment. He came near to death, but finally and happily, he was given the heart that he needed, and he is surviving. Anyone who believes that the issue can be pushed aside should read about that family’s terrible suffering because of the lack of organs. For those who did not attend the meeting, the story is available on my blog. Unfortunately, another constituent died due to lack of an organ.

[Paul Uppal]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. No one in the Chamber would in any way, shape or form underestimate the suffering of those who need a transplant. I am a trustee of a Sikh temple, and I have been approached specifically about the matter and people’s real concern about it. I have felt the pain that many families feel. We may leave the main thrust of the debate today, but I am sure that we will revisit the issue. I accept completely what the hon. Gentleman says, but for the time being we must go along the path of sequential progress.