Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to elaborate on this matter following the health committee's discussions on it in recent weeks. The presentations made by various witnesses were interesting in that, while there was no unanimity, they all shared the same perspective - how best to increase the number of people who are willing to donate their organs and get donor cards. Even if nothing comes of this debate other than the fact that it highlights our need to become more aware of the opportunities that we could provide people by becoming organ donors when we pass away, it would still be worthwhile. In the coming weeks, the Government will start a discussion process with society and stakeholders to determine the best way to encourage as many people as possible to donate organs.

Interesting points were made at the committee hearings and varying views were expressed on the soft and hard opt-outs and whether it should be left to people to acquire donor cards. One point made by all groups that presented was that the family should always be consulted. Regardless of whether a soft or hard opt-out was taken, the family would decide. However, if an individual insists on his or her organs being donated, should we not be compelled to comply? We should debate this matter. A will involves many testaments, which are carried out as planned when a person leaves this Earth. In terms of organ harvesting, the family is still consulted. I would like to believe that the opinion of a person's family would be taken on board, but if I was determined to have my organs donated, I would argue that my wish should be complied with regardless of my family's opinion.

This should not be a divisive issue. Society, stakeholders, voluntary organisations and those who have been at the coal face for many years should be involved in this discussion if we are to raise awareness and encourage as many people as possible to donate their organs.

Let us consider Ireland's ranking in terms of organ donation. We are well placed, but we could be much better. Significant advances have been made at St. Vincent's and Beaumont hospitals in terms of the ability to transplant. It would be upsetting for society if, having made considerable technological and medical strides in saving people's lives, not enough organs were available to meet demand. The committee and, in terms of this debate, the House have been unanimous and to the fore in this regard.

We can all endorse this motion to varying degrees. Given some people's opposition to it, however, dividing the House - this would not necessarily happen, as there is broad agreement - will not be helpful if we want to bring them around. The Government's consultation process in the coming weeks should be broadly based and hear all opinions. We should drill down through the statistical data, given the various opinions on the most successful method of encouraging people to donate. I examined this question during the committee's hearings in light of the statistics presented. The committee probably does not have the resources to investigate. We heard from witnesses with contrary views and statistical interpretations, but it would be worthwhile if the HSE or another body could examine other countries - Spain and others have been mentioned - in terms of whether the soft option or presumed consent is the way to go.

The fluctuations in organ donation rates and donor numbers in recent years are interesting. Perhaps this is because the number of people involved is small, there are no trends and the fluctuations are owing to other reasons. I have spoken to a number of live donors. It is probably the bravest act possible. The thought of donating an organ makes me queasy, to say the least, but it is magnificent and exhilarating that a human being is willing to donate, in life, his or her kidney to save someone else. However, there are many others.

They may not have been fully aware of the importance of organ donation or just have never thought about it in any way. Many people pass away whose organs could have been used but were not used because we do not have the critical infrastructure based around trauma centres, cardiac units and intensive care units to approach families in a structured way to discuss the issue with them. It is important to consider the point.

One of the main points made was that regardless of the recommendation that results from the consultation process, the key issue is the provision of resources. Allocations must be made to the centres for organ harvesting and it is also necessary to work with the families of the deceased. Resources must be put in place to provide co-ordinators who can take a compassionate approach to the families of donors and potential donors.

Consultants in various hospitals do their best to save their patients and when it becomes obvious that there is no hope they approach families to discuss with them the possibility of organ donation. Consultants are exceptionally busy people who work at the coalface and are under constant pressure. Further supports are required for medical professionals. For example, bereavement counsellors should be available to talk with families as well as co-ordinators trained in the area. It is too much to expect that the doctor or surgeon dealing with the patient must also deal with the family. It is important to provide supports to facilitate organ donation and to liaise with families in a meaningful way.

Cé mhéad nóiméad atá fághta agam?

See this speech in context