THE rules and conventions around organ transplants go to the very heart of the relationship between the individual and the state.
It is not only an ethically complex area but it involves two extremely vulnerable groups of people: on the one hand, patients who will die eventually, perhaps imminently, without a transplant and, on the other, grieving relatives at the very moment they are dealing with the initial pain and shock of losing a loved one. So any change in the arrangements, which depend on citizens making the altruistic gesture of joining the donor register and newly-bereaved families consenting to the procedure, must be handled with extreme sensitivity and caution.
The Donation and Transplantation Plan for Scotland 2013 to 2020, which broadly reflects the tone and recommendations of a parallel document covering England, will disappoint those who hoped the rest of the UK would move quickly to follow Wales in legislating to replace the opt-in system for an opt-out one. Instead, it recommends a watching brief, evaluating the change in Wales before deciding for or against a Scottish opt-out system. Also, what it calls a "hard-line approach", in which a transplant could go ahead in the face of opposition from the family provided the donor had authorised the procedure, will be the subject of public consultation. Such caution is commendable because any change must command public support.
At present there is a disconnect. While almost everyone says they would accept a donated organ if their life depended on it, many of the bereaved refuse to agree to a donation when asked.
However, simply ignoring the relatives' wishes risks creating a backlash, as happened in Brazil, which has now abolished presumed consent. In fact, the change in Wales may not produce the revolution some anticipate, as clinical teams will continue to have to take the views of relatives into account, particularly where the wishes of the deceased are unknown.
It remains the case that the best guarantee of obtaining consent is where the individual has joined the register and discussed his or her wishes with the next-of-kin. That is why Scotland's success in signing up more than two million people (41% of the Scottish population compared with only 31% across the UK) is worth celebrating and building upon. The sterling efforts of The Herald's sister paper, The Evening Times, in publicising the plight of those waiting for transplants and the rejuvenation of those who have received a transplant have played a key role in nudging Scottish opinion on this issue in the right direction. For the same reason, more needs to be done to honour the generosity of donors publicly, as with the Loveseat in Kelvingrove Museum and Art Gallery.
Nevertheless, as the new plan acknowledges, the ultimate objective of saving more lives rests on much more than public information campaigns and changing attitudes. For instance, the introduction of Specialist Nurses for Organ Donation (Snods) has done much to break down resistance to transplants from both relatives and some healthcare professionals who are reluctant to raise the issue at such a sensitive time. The role of Snods needs to be enhanced so that opportunities for transplants are not wasted. And even an opt-out system will not increase transplants unless the right infrastructure is in place to conduct them. Recent progress on increasing transplants is encouraging but Scotland still compares poorly with other European countries.
We can do better. Helping someone to live after our death costs us nothing. Yet it is a priceless gift.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article