Re: Organ Retention
|From:||Amos & Theresa <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
My opinion for what it is worth... Let the dead (or what is left of them
post autopsy) be buried and be done with. There is no real identity to a piece
of tissue in a formalin (or whatever chemical) container. Once the individual is
buried the deal is done. Anything left behind for educational purposes will be
needed neither by the dead nor the living relatives, so why should someone have
a problem with it.
The exception to this case would be for any cloning. I think there is a
reasonable common sense limitation there. I am not necessarily opposed to
cloning humans, I just dont think it should be done without consent.
"Brennan, Liam" wrote:
> Recently in the UK the national press has been focusing on the issue
> of organ retention(particularly baby organs), after post-mortem examination,
> by some hospital pathology departments without the informed consent of the
> relatives. This has been sparked by the issue of a report into the
> stock-piling of organs for no apparent reason by a pathologist at Alder Hey
> Hospital in Liverpool, and the subsequent revealation by several other
> hospital's that they retained organs without informed consent of the
> relatives. This has resulted in hospitals being swamped with phone calls
> from anxious relatives enquiring if the organs of any of their loved ones,
> who underwent post-mortem examination (some as far back as 40- 50 years)
> have been retained. Fortunately our pathology department does not retain
> organs. However I would be interested to hear the views, policies and
> procedures of the international community with regard to this issue.
> Liam Brennan
> Histopathology Dept.
> Belfast City Hospital
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>