Mr. Mark Murphy:

I have a number of questions to answer and other questions would be better answered by Ms Cunningham. I will go directly to Deputy Mitchell O'Connor. I wish to clarify an issue as she stated I was complacent as such. I am very clear the consent issue is the least important issue. What needs to change is the infrastructure. The reason I state the consent issue is the least important is because it is merely renaming what already exists.

No one is suggesting that the practice in which the manner consent is conducted in a hospital should change. Why change the name of it for the public? The family is always contacted. If consent is not achievable, should we consider other ways? Renaming what is already the practice, that is, informed consent, might not be clever. I do not know how it will affect the public other than to divide the public. A poll was done, which we had nothing to do with, and of 5,000 people, 46% did not want presumed consent, 47% wanted presumed consent and 7% did not have an opinion. The 5,000 were clearly divided.

As far as I am concerned, 90% of the public are willing organ donors. Let us not use the term "presumed consent". Everyone is trying to get away from it, but one cannot. If one says "soft informed consent", the term "presumed consent" pops out. The public hears the presumption of consent. It does not understand soft in, soft out. "Presumed consent" is the phrase that creates emotion and division in the public and I do not want to have anything to do with it, if members do not mind me saying. Soft opt-outs do not work. Immediately, it gets converted into meaning presumed consent, as it did by all members. That is what I-----