If “on what matters” captures Parfit’s search for objective moral truths (Parfit 2011), perhaps “on who matters (and why)” might be a working title for Shepherd’s enquiry into the moral status of n...

Taking organisational responses to the ?organ retention scandals? in the United Kingdom and Australia as a starting point, this paper considers the role of social welfare workers within the medico-legal system. Official responses to the inquiries of the late 1990s have focused on issues of consent and process-transparency, leaving unaddressed concerns expressed by the bereaved about the impact of organ retention on both their experience of grief and on the deceased themselves. A review of grief and embodiment literature suggests that (...) such concerns are consistent with the significance of relationship, attachment and identity within grief resolution?however that last problematic term is defined. The case example of an Australian coronial jurisdiction which has attempted to deal with some of these issues through mandating the discussion of autopsy and organ retention processes by grief counsellors with bereaved families is then provided. A distinction is drawn between these discussions and the seeking of consent. The discussion concludes by considering the ambiguous nature of the social welfare role within this contested field, suggesting that this ambiguity, while perhaps a source of flexibility in practice, may itself relate to a lack of clear information about the needs of the bereaved. This paper contributes to the development of that knowledge and offers some necessarily tentative recommendations regarding social welfare practice in this challenging arena. (shrink)

The controversies in Bristol, Alder Hey and elsewhere in the UK surrounding the removal and retention of human tissue and organs have led to extensive law reform in all three UK legal systems. This paper reports a short study of the reactions of a range of health professionals to these changes. Three main areas of ethical concern were noted: the balancing of individual rights and social benefit; the efficacy of the new procedures for consent; and the helpfulness for professional practice (...) of the new legislation and regulation. Recognition of these concerns may help in forging a new partnership between professionals and patients and their families. (shrink)