Letter to Mr David T.C. Davies MP, Chair,
Welsh Affairs Committee from Mrs Eileen Rowlands
I am writing to you as a Welsh, United Kingdom citizen,
in your capacity as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee
in Parliament. I am extremely concerned about the Welsh Assembly's
current proposal to introduce a law on organ donation, in favour
of Presumed Consent.
I am aware that the matter has been referred to the
Committee and Attorney General for further scrutiny and have listened
to recent debates about the issue on BBC Wales television, in
particular, Dragon's Eye, February 17. None of these debates have
described how a person will possibly come to be considered as
an organ donor or the procedures that will occur when retrieving
organs. Very real issues which the general population should know
when making vital decisions. In my experience, so few do!
I do not believe that the Assembly are competent
enough to legislate on all matters that relate to Health and Health
Services in Wales. I believe there is a conflict of interests
in this area, especially since the Neurological Department at
Morriston Hospital in Swansea has been transferred to Cardiff.
Critically head-injured patients in Swansea and further west would
have to be transported and treated there, and consequently might
lose precious time in which injuries and their effects worsen.
I believe that the AM for Health has a responsibility
to these patients, but by closing the critical neurological department
at Morriston Hospital she has deprived them of the early intervention
they require for optimum recovery.
Research stresses the importance of quick and professional
treatment very soon after head injury. In many cases adequate
treatment could minimize medical damage and lessen the mortality
rate. The importance of getting a patient to a medical centre
for appropriate treatment within the VERY FIRST HOUR from the
moment of injury...the "Golden Hour" cannot be stressed
enough.
Quicker link-up with senior medical personnel, use
of advanced technologies of location, diagnosis, monitoring and
treatment from the very first moment of injury, should be initiated
in order to improve the chances of survival and lessen the chance
of death.
Perversely, these will be the patients (not yet cadavers)
who will be considered as "presumed donors"! Energy
and resources should be directed in this area, rather than towards
changing a system which already works, and introducing a law which
will do little to improve the chances of potential organ recipients.
Early intervention for critically, brain injured
patients could alleviate swelling of the brain and pressure on
the brain stem...the main cause of "brain stem death".
Brain stem death became a very convenient criteria for diagnosis
of death in the UK, when the technology and requirement for human
transplantation became more successful and demanding.
However, I as an individual, an intelligent, articulate
mother, did not consider the diagnosis of brain stem death to
be final expiration of my son, when in 1987, I offered my son's
organs for transplant. I understood my son to be fatally injured,
with no hope of recovery. But, despite asking to be present when
the ventilator was switched off, I was not aware, nor made aware,
that my son would still be ventilated when his organs...his heart,
his liver, his kidneys, were removed from his body. Moreover,
having discussed organ donation with him, I know that he also
was completely unaware of this information.
The perception of death is a very personal one, but
research has shown that even in someone who has been declared
as brain stem dead, the brain still retains residual energy.
Most significantly, in their pursuance at any cost,
of introducing legislation for Presumed Consent, AMs, Edwina Hart
and Dai Lloyd must consider, that although clinical guidelines
have been developed to define brain stem death, these have not
been incorporated into legislation, which means diagnosis is NOT
A LEGAL DEFINITION OF DEATH.
I enclose several attachments for your perusal and
consideration: a letter submitted to my local newspaper and printed
as an article.[83]
Also enclosed is a copy of research I have discovered since writing
this letter, with significant points highlighted for scrutiny.[84]
I understand that Lord Dafydd Wigley plans to raise
the issue in the UK Parliament's second chamber and this question
is scheduled to be answered in the Lords on Wednesday 23 March.
I trust you will read my letter and its contents
and give them consideration in the scrutiny process. If the working
parties for Parliament did not find it appropriate to introduce
legislation for Presumed Consent for the rest of the UK, then
it is not appropriate for Wales!
March 2011
83 Not published in the virtual volume. Back
84
Not published in the virtual volume. Back
| 
