Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 148: To ask the Minister for Health and Children the reason she will not agree to a full statutory inquiry into the issue of organ retention as requested by the parents; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [35464/06]

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not believe there is anything to be gained from the establishment of a Statutory Inquiry into the issue of organ retention. The report of an Inquiry into post mortem practice and organ retention chaired by Ms Anne Dunne SC was presented to me in March 2005. Unfortunately it could not be published for legal reasons.

Dr. Deirdre Madden, a distinguished expert on medical law, was appointed by Government in May 2005 to provide a report on key issues relating to post mortem practice and procedures. She had access to all of the documentation assembled by the previous Inquiry. Her report on Post Mortem Practice and Procedures was published on 18 January this year. Among her key findings are that:

Post-mortem examinations were carried out according to best professional and international standards and no intentional disrespect was shown to deceased children or their families.

Communication between hospital staff and parents and next of kin was poor, with people not being told that organs might be retained at a post-mortem. This was often done for paternalistic reasons, where doctors did not wish to upset next of kin when they were already distressed and vulnerable.

There was no legislative framework in place and no consistent national policy relating to these practices. However, the lack of a national policy on post mortem practice until 2002 is not unique to Ireland, nor was it the usual practice in other countries to provide information about organ retention to relatives of a deceased person.

The system of disposal of organs and tissues by hospitals was not intentionally disrespectful to children or their families. Hospitals were constrained by health and safety regulations and were obliged to consider organs and tissues as clinical waste.

Between 1976 and 1988, almost 14,000 pituitary glands were collected in hospitals and supplied to two pharmaceutical companies for the manufacture of human growth hormone. (Around 10% were collected from children, with the balance from adults). The practice ceased when a synthetic product was developed.

The motivation for collection of glands was "for a positive medical and public benefit, notwithstanding the lack of specific consent for retention and use of the glands".

Hospitals were paid modest amounts for the additional work undertaken to remove the pituitary glands. There was no known commercial motive on the part of any hospital or its staff in the supply of glands to the companies.

A key recommendation of the report was that a Working Group be established to examine issues not included in the original terms of reference, that is post mortem issues relating to babies who died before or during birth, minors and adults. This Group, chaired by Dr. Madden, was set up in March, 2006 and its membership includes representatives of Parents For Justice. I expect to receive a report from this Group shortly.

Dr. Madden's first report on paediatric hospitals is a comprehensive and robust one and I expect that her Working Group report dealing with post mortem practice and procedures in other areas will be equally so. She has set out key recommendations which are now being implemented by the Health Service Executive and other relevant agencies.