Transplant research and deceased donors: laws, licences and fear of liability

Clinical Ethics 6 (3):140-145 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Transplantation research on samples and organs from deceased donors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is under threat. The key problems relate to difficulties encountered in gaining consent for research projects, as distinct from consent to donation for clinical transplantation. They are due partly to the terms of the Human Tissue Act 2004 (the 2004 Act), and partly to its interpretation by the Human Tissue Authority (HTA). They include excessive interaction with donor representatives regarding ‘informed consent’ to research projects, uncertainty as to the scope and duration of a donor's ‘authority’ over an organ, and restrictions caused by the apparent need for licensing of transplantation research under the 2004 Act, combined with lack of certainty, or guidance, as to the distinction between ‘research’, which requires a licence, and ‘service development’, which does not. In our view this confusion hinders and deters Specialist Nurses for Organ Donation in approaching donor representatives and discussing possible research projects with them. It has also, as we have reported elsewhere, led to abandonment of research projects for fear of liability, despite both Research Ethics Committee (REC) approval and donor consent. Such problems do not seem to occur under the transplant laws of most other comparable jurisdictions. The Transplantation Ethics Symposium, ‘The ethics of organ retrieval: goals, rights and responsibilities’, hosted by the MRC Centre for Transplantation at King's College London in December 2010, revealed that many senior clinicians and researchers, administrators, and lawyers are both unclear and in disagreement concerning the effects of the 2004 Act and the extent to which it is adhered to or ignored in practice. In this paper we examine the difficulties encountered and suggest solutions based on a less restrictive interpretation of the 2004 Act, or, more probably, a regulatory change under its authority. We propose that, in the long term, a law which includes consent for REC-approved research within the general consent for organ donation and transplantation seems preferable to the present system, both ethically and in practical terms

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,923

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

An "opting in" paradigm for kidney transplantation.David Steinberg - 2004 - American Journal of Bioethics 4 (4):4 – 14.
Operation Blue, ULTRA: DION--The Donation Inmate Organ Network.Clifford Earle Bartz - 2003 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (1):37-43.
The Return of Results of Deceased Research Participants.Anne Marie Tassé - 2011 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (4):621-630.
Dealing death and retrieving organs.James Lindemann Nelson - 2009 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (3):285-291.
The Morality of a Free Market for Transplant Organs.Mark T. Nelson - 1991 - Public Affairs Quarterly 5 (1):63-79.
The ethical limits in expanding living donor transplantation.Lainie Friedman Ross - 2006 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16 (2):151-172.
Informed Consent and Research Involving the Newly Dead.Mark R. Wicclair - 2002 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 12 (4):351-372.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-09-10

Downloads
47 (#347,188)

6 months
10 (#308,281)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Organ procurement: dead interests, living needs.John Harris - 2003 - Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (3):130-134.

Add more references