UK Gov- Human Tissue Bill- Result

This is the forum for the Kidney Patient Guide. We welcome feedback about the site and any information that may be of use or interest to other visitors.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This forum is not for queries that would otherwise be addressed to a doctor. If you have a question about your condition or treatment please consult your renal unit or doctor. We do not have any editorial or medical resources to answer individual queries.

Moderator: administrator

UK Gov- Human Tissue Bill- Result

Postby BrendaM » Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:04 am

Bill was voted out folks. B******s

To see how your MP voted visit
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... -28_div208

then contact them - as I shall - and demand to know why :evil:
BrendaM
BrendaM
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:57 am
Location: Cotswolds, UK

Postby Hal » Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:43 pm

I went to see my MP last week before the vote. She said she didn't know much about the bill and would look into it and let me know how she voted.

She wrote me a decent letter this morning telling me how she had voted. She is in favour of the human tissue bill but is against the amendment which is what was voted for to setup the "opt-out" system.

Being in the area directly affected by the Alder Hey Organs scandal she has seen the affect of organs being taken without permission and she gave this as a reason for voting against "opt out" In my opinion, however, that was a different issue because those organs were stolen - people did not have an opportunity to opt in or out as it were.

Hal
Last edited by Hal on Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hal
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:56 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby oldborris » Wed Jun 30, 2004 7:31 am

Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:43 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hal wrote;

Being in the area directly affected by the Alder Hey Organs scandal she has seen the affect of organs being taken without permission and she gave this as a reason for voting against "opt out" In my opinion, however, that was a different issue because those organs were stolen - people did not have an opportunity to opt in or out as it were.

Hal: your MP could not have given a worse reason for voting against the bill. In giving credence to the superstitions of the silly unthinking people who moaned about the organs of their children being "stolen" she puts herself in the same category. I may sound unfeeling about the reactions of the persons concerned - that is because I am unfeeling. I simply have no time for the kind of mentality that is happy to see body parts being eaten by worms than used to save a life. There is just no comparison and those in charge of our country should not put the illogical sensibilities of distraught parents over the inhumanity of depriving people from a chance to live. I write as a disinterested person in that I will never, being unsuitalbe for a transplant, be in want of somebody's 'surplus to requirement" organs. My concern in this matter is for those who could benefit and have now had the chance of that brutually taken away from them by MPs who think more about offending potential voters than about saving lives.
oldborris
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Fulham, London, U.K.

aaaarrrrrrggggggg !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Postby Nikki » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:16 am

:twisted: These people make me sick! What gives them the right to vote on something they know nothing about thats not even going to effect their lives????? I am so mad! I wrote to my MP and haven't even had a reply! I feel like we should do something and make a stand but what????
The opt out law makes perfect sence and would save hundreds of lives without making that much difference to "normal" people, other countries manage it, typical that ours can't be bothered! If these people needed a transplant or their children did they'd soon change their minds! :evil:
Nikki
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 4:14 pm
Location: Midlands, uk

Postby Hal » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:44 am

oldborris wrote:Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:43 pm Post subject:

Hal: your MP could not have given a worse reason for voting against the bill. In giving credence to the superstitions of the silly unthinking people who moaned about the organs of their children being "stolen" she puts herself in the same category.


Sorry oldborris, but I disagree with you there. These people weren't "silly unthinking". Their kids organs were taken without permission, which is bad enough in the first place, but they weren't even used to save a life, they were just stored. Also the families this happened to did not even know it was the case when the buried their children.

So I agree that there needs to be a law to protect this from happening again (which is what the Human Tissue Bill is), but then there should be the "opt out" system which means it would not be an issue - people would opt out or it would be legal and moral for organs to be taken from ADULTS (which is what the amendment to the bill would have provided).

In my opinion my MP should not have voted against the amendmant because of the scandal, she obviously did not understand what she was voting for because it would have applied to those over the age of 16 over and I quote from the bill:

Provide for the removal of organs for transplantation purposes, after death
has been confirmed in a person aged 16 or over, except where a potential donor previously registered an objection or where a close relative objects.


http://www.parliament.the-stationery-of ... 7.1-i.html

Hal.[/i][/b]
Hal
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:56 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

human tissue bill

Postby susie » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:58 am

Hal/Borris,

I think its terrible what those parents went through and they were right to complain about it. However I dont know what they hope to achieve by carrying on with this issue, which as far as I'm aware is no longer an issue as hospitals policy has changed and the same thing should not occur again. So they are campaigning for an apology and compensation (how can this ever be enough) which will just take funds from the NHS that could be used to treat others and blindly ignoring what impact their actions will have on others, not deliberately I'm sure but in ignorance. However terrible their experience I think its about time to just accept what has happened, that actions have already been taken to prevent this happening again and that their now pointless campaign will prevent actions being taken that could better and save the life of thousands of living people,

Susie
susie
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:37 pm
Location: UK

Postby JMan » Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:01 pm

My MP is one of those who voted no, but then she IS a labour MP, and their vote, IMO wasn't a truly democratic vote.

However given their alleged reasons for not supporting it, do we see Labour pouring the money they HAVE got into the existing system,.. NO instead they are looking at cutting and 'refineing it'. We may well have a fight on our hands people..
"Dialysis! What is this? The dark ages!"
L. 'Bones' McCoy, ST"
Read my blog:)
Live to Fly
Image
http://www.flickr.com/cybercast
JMan
 
Posts: 3406
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 10:21 am
Location: A small vyllage in Ye Olde London Town, An IÆ’land, Planet Earth, The Universe

Postby susie » Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:20 pm

My MP wasn't on the list so I guess he didn't even bother voting..

I'd like at least to have a system where my consent (being registered on organ donor database and carrying a donor card) meant that they would take my organs, rather than still consulting my relatives. I know they would be in favour - they know my wishes, my husband has kidney failure, and my parents also childmind for a girl with cystic fibrosis, but even so I would not like them to have to go through a process of giving their consent at such a difficult time. I would hope that it would be dealt with sensitively though.

I posted on the NKF board that maybe I should get a tattoo in a prominent position detailing my consent - someone else had a better idea of updating the donor card to provide a new line on the card to be signed by a witness and to make it a legally binding document. This sounded a good idea to me.

I think that more campaigning needs to be done on this issue, as JMan points out there is no money being poured into the existing system. I'm aware that my husband is 'lucky' as he dialyses at home and therefore has more hours per week, and its reasonably flexible. Some people in Essex have to travel to London for dialysis, and some people in London only get two dialysis sessions a week because of the demand (or rather the bad system unable to deal with the demand).

What can be done people?
susie
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:37 pm
Location: UK

Postby JMan » Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:21 pm

Interesting one Susie, the witnessing would make it a legal document I guess,.. almost like a clause in a will ??

The reason for the 'consent' of the relatives is the same sticking point of the opt out system. Who owns the body? In this case its the relatives who have legal rights so have to give their legal consent. I guess what that means is when your dead legally your corpse is 'property'

I actually think your ideas quite good tho:)

As to what can be done, well we CAN make ourselves heard by:

Making our protests to our MP's (yes it doesn't always work but its the way to start)
Writing to local and national press.
Supporting and working WITH organisations like your local KPA and the NKF.
Getting involved in groups like your health authorities, primary care trust group.

This is from the UK perspective, similar organisations exist in the US and other countries. One reason I support the NKF is because I am concerned by the state of renal services in the UK. Makes sense to me.. my life may depend on my efforts someday.

Just my thoughts:)
"Dialysis! What is this? The dark ages!"
L. 'Bones' McCoy, ST"
Read my blog:)
Live to Fly
Image
http://www.flickr.com/cybercast
JMan
 
Posts: 3406
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 10:21 am
Location: A small vyllage in Ye Olde London Town, An IÆ’land, Planet Earth, The Universe

Postby oldborris » Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:10 am

Hal wrote:
These people weren't "silly unthinking". Their kids organs were taken without permission, which is bad enough in the first place, but they weren't even used to save a life, they were just stored. Also the families this happened to did not even know it was the case when the buried their children.

But, Hal: what does it matter whether the organs were stored for some possibly beneficial use or fed to the worms. It is 'silly' and it is 'unthinking' and illogical to be so concern about bits of useless flesh. Burying the body, as was done in the case of the children, is, of course, necessary as a closing rite but to hold another burial service, for the stored bits, as some of the parents did, served no function whatever.
oldborris
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Fulham, London, U.K.

Postby oldborris » Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:23 am

susie wrote:

I posted on the NKF board that maybe I should get a tattoo in a prominent position detailing my consent


Hi Susie: Last week I saw on TV a woman being interviewed who had, on her 85th birthday, a tattoo put on her chest. It showed a heart with a bar through it, surrounded by the words, DO NO RESUSCITATE. Nothing could be more visible, unmissable, plain, uncompromising, or dramatic. The only thing missing was a £100 automatic fine for breach of this instruction and three penalty points on the resuscitators licence.
oldborris
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Fulham, London, U.K.


Return to The KPG Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 23 guests