Organ retention report - Valuable lessons to be learned

THE 140-page report into the retention of the organs of children, which was drawn up by Dr Deidre Madden of University College Cork, has concluded that there was no commercial motivation behind the practice.

Only nominal sums were paid by some commercial enterprises for organs that were used in the development of hormones.

In most instances the organs were retained for public health reasons, so that medical professionals could better understand the different problems.

In other circumstances bereaved parents have been able to take solace from the knowledge that organs donated by loved ones have helped others.

If the organ retention had been conducted properly, the bereaved might have found some comfort in the knowledge that the retention of organs may have helped to save lives and thus spare other families from the grief that the deceased child’s family had to endure.

While the motives of those who retained the organs may have been understandable and even commendable, there was a dreadful lack of communication.

This was both inconsiderate and callous, because it later caused considerable distress to families who were forced to re-live the trauma of the death of their child with the news that the child’s organs had been retained without permission.

Lessons must be learned from those mistakes.

Dr Madden was particularly critical of the manner in which hospitals, the medical profession, and the Health Department handled the overall issue.

Hospital staff should have sought the permission of parents to retain the organs of children.

Having made the mistake of not securing the permission, the hospital authorities then compounded this mistake by mishandling the issue when the unauthorised retention was first disclosed.

Legislation is needed to govern the retention of organs by hospitals, and this should cover the issue of obtaining necessary consent from parents to remove any organs.

The report also recommends new protocols for hospital record keeping in such matters.

Dr Madden should be congratulated for the speed and thoroughness of her lucid report, from which valuable lessons can be learned.

As with so many of our other problems, the investigation was initially put into the hands of legal practitioners, who generally have no particular training or expertise in the medical field.

As a result the investigation was prolonged and became extremely expensive.

After missing deadlines and running up costs totalling some €20 million over five years, Health Minister Mary Harney terminated the initial proceedings and put the investigation into the hands of Dr Madden, who expertise is in the academic field of medial ethics at UCC.

The academic approach offers a comparatively inexpensive and viable alternative to the expensive procrastination of judicial tribunals.