By Hilary White
LONDON, January 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The British government’s plans to consider a presumed consent scheme for organ donations was put on the back burner this week as a government appointed taskforce recommended alternative methods to increase organ donations by 50 per cent. But the wording of the recommendations has alarmed pro-life advocates who warn they may increase threats to the lives of vulnerable patients.
Elisabeth Buggins, chair of the task force, wrote, “The UK has one of the worst records for organ donation in Western Europe. The Taskforce was, however, greatly encouraged by the evidence it considered from across the world and believes that a 50% increase in organ donation is possible and achievable in the UK within five years. We are convinced that this goal will only be realised if our recommendations are considered and acted on as a whole.”
But the report’s wording echoes that of previous legislation that has created a significant threat to patients. In its report published yesterday by the Department of Heath, the taskforce says that a patient becomes a potential donor “when a decision has been taken – in the best interests of the patient – that further active treatment is no longer appropriate and should be withdrawn.”
The terms “treatment” and “best interests” are the key phrases, says John Smeaton, head of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, because they have become code words for passive euthanasia by dehydration.
In 1992, the House of Lords ruled that feeding a patient by a tube constituted “medical treatment” that could be refused in order to kill a non-responsive patient by dehydration. In the landmark case of Tony Bland, a patient in what is called a “persistent vegetative state” (PVS), UK doctors judged that because the “treatment” of food and hydration by tube could not cure Mr. Bland of his condition, it should be discontinued as “futile”.
The Lords ruled that keeping a severely handicapped patient alive is not necessarily “in his best interests” and as such, the tube feeding “treatment” was allowed to be withdrawn. The rulings allowed Mr. Bland’s death, nine days after the removal of his tube, to have been caused by his underlying illness, not by dehydration.
The decision created a precedent that has been followed by the British courts since 1992. The recently passed Mental Capacity Act goes even further by codifying the rulings as positive law and expanding on the definition of “treatment”. The Act also allows government-appointed “independent mental capacity advocates” to influence such life and death decisions.
Smeaton says that SPUC will be carefully examining the taskforce recommendations. The taskforce report was immediately accepted in full by the government that pledged £11m to implement the recommendations.
To read the task force report (Adobe Reader required):
https://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_082122