Mr. Shane Finnegan:

I thank Mr. Brolly. I also thank and congratulate the Chairman for acting so promptly and with such an open mind on this issue when Mr. Brolly and I first met him a couple of months ago. I also commend the Chairman and the committee for hosting these hearings, today and next weeks.

I struggled when I first sat down to consider what I could add to this process. I am an organ donation campaigner with all the facts, but the many other eminent representatives one will see here, today and on 25 April, can relay that information to the committee. Then I thought there is something that I can bring to this table that some others cannot, that is, what this process is like through the eyes of the patient. I will tell the committee what this debate and the issue of organ donation looks like through my eyes.

First and foremost, I see a wildly fluctuating system where in any given year someone like me may have a slim chance of a transplant. In another year, such as 2010 when organ donation dropped by 28%, I would have no chance. I see the top ten European countries for organ donation have adopted the opt-out system and being representative of patients dependent on the Irish health service, I validly ask the question, "Is that a coincidence?"

I also see in 2012 that Ireland, a giving country full of compassionate people, has an organ donation rate of 20 per million population compared to 35 per million in countries such as Spain and Croatia. As a proud Irish person, I see this outlook on organ donation as not being reflective of the Irish people. Contrary to all the good work of the talented professionals who work in this field, I see that this is the result of a confined and restricted system.

I can say with some conviction that Irish people are compassionate as regards organ donation because Mr. Brolly and myself had independent research conducted by Amárach on the soft opt-out system. The question we asked the Irish public was, "Would you support a system of organ donation where all of us were donors unless we have opted out during our lifetime, with the next of kin always having the final say?" In a survey of over 1,000 persons and without any education on this issue, 71% said "Yes", 11% were indifferent and 18% said "No". The committee is the first to hear this research. Mr. Brolly and I will be issuing this to the media later today. With a good education process that would accompany legislative change, Mr. Brolly and I firmly believe these figures on public support would rise. As a patient, I see us pushing an open door.

Finally, I will give one last statistic which for me, as a long-term renal patient, is the most concerning of all. In 2000, there were only 150 patients awaiting kidney transplants. Today, that figure is closer to 650, a 413% rise. People are living longer. Type 2 diabetes sufferers are on the increase and the current waiting list will not dissipate any time soon unless we make this very subtle change.

With dialysis patients each costing the health service €70,000 a year, there are long-term savings to be made by changing. One cannot put a cost on a human life. That is for others. Fr. Alex Reid once stated that if by his actions he could save one life, then it will have been worth it. How often do the committee members, as legislators, have the opportunity to go back to their constituents and say they are actively saving multiple lives? I do not think anyone before the committee today, or on 25 April, would question that.

After 20 years knocking around renal units, transport wards, dialysis units and operating theatres, I have not seen or heard of a system that can impart change and make the difference the way this opt-out system could. Call me naive. I see no plan B.

I would ask the committee not to have somebody like me sitting in front of it in ten years' time when the situation is undoubtedly worse. They should give us hope, show leadership of which I see an abundance in this room and start helping us drive the change.