Soft launch for the soft opt out

 

What's the most high profile and complex piece of primary legislation that will come before the Assembly over the next few years?

What's the one draft Bill that will be scrutinised and discussed beyond all others in headlines, hospital canteens and in homes up and down the country?

What will drive home to people who don't live in Wales that devolution means politicians in different countries making different decisions about big things? Things like life and death.

It is, of course, the draft Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill, published today, and lauched at Leckwith Athletics Stadium in Cardiff. Now it's out of the blocks properly, it'll be subject to further consultation until September, before AMs vote on it next year. If a majority support it, then by 2015 the way we donate organs in Wales will have changed.

I'll home in a couple of things that hadn't been clear to me until today.

First off, the numbers. How many more donors would you expect to find if and when the law is changed?

Many of those who object to the change in the law don't point to moral concerns. Their argument is that legislation won't improve your chances of having an organ donation and in fact, it could make things worse. The charity CARE argues that presumed consent isn't just misguided. It will, they say, prove "ineffectual."

So back to the numbers quoted today. In Wales some 30,000 of us die every year. Of those the number who prove to be suitable organ donors is around 228 - a tiny percentage. These are the people who die in the sort of controlled circumstances, in hospital, in intensive care, that make donation possible.

Of those only some 67 become successful donors.

So, argues the Welsh Government, add 15 to that number - the expected rise in the number of donors under presumed consent - 15 people, 45 organs and that is not an insignificant number of lives saved, or money saved. 15 might not sound very much but purely in terms of cost to the NHS, just one single donor, argues the government, would make this policy worthwhile in cost terms.

Secondly: the role of families. Take a look at this blog from a few months ago and you'll see how many questions surrounded the role of relatives. Do they have a "veto" over a relative donating an organ, or not? It's crucial because for many people, the nature of that "veto" is a key factor in whether they embrace, go along with, or downright object to this policy.

Quick recap: as things stand now, the family have a veto even if the deceased relative has chosen to sign the Organ Donation Register. Surprised? Yes, so was I when that dawned on me during the last consultation.

So would that veto continue if the law is changed? After all, it's one thing for the Health Minister to say that she "cannot imagine organs being removed if a family refused permission". It's another to point to a piece of legislation and say that yes, they have a veto on the removal of the organ.

This is the explanation in a Q+A document published today:

"People close to the deceased will always have a very important part to play in any discussion about organ donation.

"In deemed consent cases, they are not required to give their consent to the donation itself, because the deceased's consent will have been deemed to have been given already. However, they will still be asked to give some formal agreements to parts of the process of donation, for example for blood tests to be carried out, or for the deceased person to be taken to theatre etc"

In other words they have no legal veto. In law, the wishes of the deceased person are paramount.

But if the family choose to object to any part of the clinical process then they can stop the donation from going ahead.

That sounds to me like an effective veto - if not a legal one.

I suggested this to Dr Chris Jones, the Medical Director of the NHS in Wales at this morning's briefing. He agreed but pointed to evidence that when presumed consent is introduced and organ donation becomes part of a country's culture, the numbers of relatives who choose to override that consent tends to diminish.

The Government is consulting on its draft legislative proposals from today until September. According to its published timescale, the aim is to have a vote in the Assembly early next year, thereby enabling it to hit the 2015 target for starting the system up.

Plausible? Privately, the feeling within the government is that while public opinion may have been 50-50 when plans for an opt out system in Wales were first mooted, there's been a definite swing in favour across a number of opinion polls in recent months and that they're now swimming with the tide in putting these proposals forward.

Additionally, today's legislation has written into it a requirement for Welsh Ministers to promote transplantation, as well as educating and informing the public about the way an opt-out system would work in practice.

It remains to be seen whether they'll also have to convince those within the UK Government who have reservations about whether the legislation put forward today is within the Assembly's devolved powers, and whether they feel strongly enough to step in before Royal Assent is granted and refer the issue to the Supreme Court.

Of course, if the number of donors does rise by the quarter predicted by the Welsh Government if and when the new system is introduced, then expect other parts of the UK to start looking seriously at emulating these proposals.

 
Betsan Powys, Political editor, Wales Article written by Betsan Powys Betsan Powys Former political editor, Wales

A big day for health in Wales

A day of big health stories in Wales is capped with a potentially very significant announcement.

Read full article

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 56.

    #54, as the pasty tax of Westminster fame, this is poor and unnecessary legislation, Carwyn and Co should kick it into the long grass and travel down the M4 to chat with Cameron with the intention of emulating all that is best with the Spanish experience for the benefit of all UK patients.

    To suggest we should accept second best as a condition of devolution is contemptuous.

    England win well ...

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 55.

    leigh. I am 100% for anything Welsh and I oppose it for the reasons I have already stated on here. So please don't include me in the same category. Could you please give us the evidence on the many lives in Wales will be saved because of it or are you talking hypothetically. The Health Service is cross border so to speak as many people go to Hospitals in England. Why is it a just Wales thing

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 54.

    clearly for those who are entirely opposed to devolution for wales this is to be opposed simply on the basis that they do not want any issues which will impact on people in wales to actually be decided in wales. In their bizarre view all matters relating to wales should be made in london.This is an excellent initiative by the welsh government and in time will save many lives.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 53.

    ... before I leave to watch the football, lets me remind Betsans readers of the words of Dr Rafael Matesanz ...

    "Many countries try to increase organ donation through legislation. But a change to presumed consent doesn't improve the donation rate".

    In 2003 a new transplant co-ordinator was appointed in Rioja, and the change ...

    ... the equivalent of 74 donors per million people.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 52.

    John Never say never. We have an open society? It is continually complained about on here how things are done behind closed doors by our Governments. Especially by those opposed to Wales and the Welsh Government. The invasion of Iraq was done behind closed doors don't forget. All Government is done behind closed doors or are you privy to all that goes on. Much of it illegal..

 

Comments 5 of 56

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.