Committee
Health Committee, 20 Dec 2005
20 Dec 2005 · S2 · Health Committee
Item of business
Human Tissue (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Our amendments 1, 25 and 105, by contrast with Jean Turner's, seek to remove the witness requirements for verbal authorisations under section 6. We welcome the increasing use of telephone registrations by adults with the national health service organ donor register. We do not wish to prevent that, so we wish to amend section 6 to remove the witness requirements for verbal authorisations. Our amendments would permit an adult to give verbal authorisation without witnesses.In contrast, Jean Turner's amendments would, as she said, take the bill's transplantation provisions in the opposite direction by increasing the ratification requirements for authorisation under part 1. I do not accept that any advantage would be gained for donors or potential recipients by moving in that direction. Clearly, the bill deals with the two different activities of transplantation and hospital post mortems. We believe that an increase in the verification requirements for transplantation would run the risk of a significant reduction in the number of donors. Apart from the general undesirability of that, Jean Turner's amendments could have specific consequences. For example, it would not be possible to add one's name to the organ donor register online or by telephone, and UK Transplant would have to adapt its existing forms to take account of the dating and witnessing requirements. Anyone who wanted to carry a donor card would not only need to sign it; they would have to have the signature dated and witnessed, and people might decide that that was too much bother. Jean Turner's amendments would prohibit the present system of obtaining authorisation for tissue retrieval by phone from an adult's nearest relative or a person with parental rights and responsibilities for a child. There is a practical risk that, in spite of a person's clearly expressed wishes, an authorisation that is otherwise clear might fall because it was not dated. We believe that the requirement for notification of a donor's general practitioner is unnecessary. The key person to be told about a person's wishes is their nearest relative. That is clearly for the person themselves to do. It is important to emphasise that people should, where they can, discuss their wishes with their family. We hope that the approach that is laid out in the bill will help to achieve those authorisations, but we do not want to create unnecessary hurdles that have to be jumped before organ donation can take place.
In the same item of business
The Convener:
SNP
Item 4 is stage 2 consideration of the Human Tissue (Scotland) Bill. We have set part 1 as the end-point for consideration today. I welcome the minister in c...
Section 1—Duties of the Scottish Ministers as respects transplantation, donation of body parts etc
The Convener:
SNP
We begin with section 1 and group 1, on promoting donation for transplantation and so on. Amendment 112, in the name of Nanette Milne, is the only amendment ...
Mrs Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
I will be brief. Amendment 112 seeks to ensure ministers' on-going commitment over time to promote awareness of organ donation and transplantation. The aim i...
The Convener:
SNP
As no member has indicated that they wish to comment on the amendment, I call the minister.
The Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care (Lewis Macdonald):
Lab
I sympathise entirely with Nanette Milne's motivation in moving amendment 112, but the amendment is not necessary. As it stands, section 1(b) makes it clear ...
The Convener:
SNP
I ask Nanette Milne to indicate whether she will press or seek leave to withdraw amendment 112.
Mrs Milne:
Con
I appreciate what the minister has said and accept that the intention of the present Executive is to ensure that on-going commitment. However, as that does n...
The Convener:
SNP
The question is, that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members:
No.
The Convener:
SNP
There will be a division.
ForMilne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)AgainstCunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)Eadie, Helen (Dunf...
The Convener:
SNP
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 112 disagreed to.
Section 1 agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 agreed to.
After section 5
The Convener:
SNP
The second group of amendments concerns the question of presumed consent. Amendment 113 is grouped with amendments 114, 121, 132, 133, 143 to 146, 148 and 16...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
John Farquhar Munro has asked me to not move his amendments.
Amendments 113 and 114 not moved.
Section 6—Authorisation: adult
The Convener:
SNP
Group 3 is on the dating and witnessing of authorisations and withdrawals for transplantation. Amendment 115, in the name of Jean Turner, is grouped with ame...
Dr Jean Turner (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind):
Ind
The intention of my amendments 115 to 118, 120, 129 to 131 and 134 to 142—many of which are similar—is to introduce a mandatory requirement for authorisation...
Lewis Macdonald:
Lab
Our amendments 1, 25 and 105, by contrast with Jean Turner's, seek to remove the witness requirements for verbal authorisations under section 6. We welcome t...
Janis Hughes (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab):
Lab
The committee has a strong view that we must do everything possible to encourage potential donors to register, whether by telephone or online. I am concerned...
Lewis Macdonald:
Lab
I agree with Janis Hughes.
The Convener:
SNP
I ask Jean Turner to indicate whether she is going to press or withdraw amendment 115.
Dr Turner:
Ind
I will press the amendment. When things go wrong, it is nice to have the exact documentation. Many things can go wrong with computers these days, and the one...
The Convener:
SNP
The question is, that amendment 115 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members:
No.