Article Text
Abstract
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.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests: None declared.
↵iA full report of this project is available from the corresponding author.
↵iiThese comments were made while the Human Tissue Bill was still being debated. In fact the Act does permit this range of activities without consent on tissue from the living, provided (in the case of research) the tissue is anonymised and the research is approved by a research ethics committee. In Scotland, the new legislation will cover only tissue from the deceased.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Research involving storage and use of human tissue: how did the Human Tissue Act 2004 affect decisions by research ethics committees?
- New bill will regulate the retention of tissue
- Stored human tissue: an ethical perspective on the fate of anonymous, archival material
- Using human tissue: when do we need consent?
- Ownership and uses of human tissue: what are the opinions of surgical in-patients?
- The Alder Hey affair
- Human tissue models for a human disease: what are the barriers?
- Human-tissue-related inventions: ownership and intellectual property rights in international collaborative research in developing countries
- Ethics briefings
- Is the body a republic?