the glands story

chewy

Novo Nordisk received 7,500 glands from Irish hospitals etc etc

i don't think i have anything against the glands been taken and used for medical research but it isn't clear whether the hospital was paid for these glands

and of course the biggest problem is that the parents weren't asked...

ArthurDent

The fact that the glands were used for a good purpose still doesn't negate the fact that they were obtained in an immoral way (not sure about illegal too). Justification that it was for the geater good just doesn't cut the ice. nformed consent is the only acceptable way to harvest organs. I just don't get the medical personnel that carried out these procedures - I doubt they would have allowed it happen to one of their relatives.

I'm all for organ donation - but only with the consent of, at least the next of kin, if not the donor themselves.

I'm just waiting for the full financial details of this practise to come out.

Sand

Theres two problems - parental permissons wasnt even looked for which assumes permisson was not required and *perhaps* it wasnt under the guidelines the hospitals operated under, which would beg the questions whose setting the guidelines. It looks like they operated under the belief that reasearch was important to help other, the parents would be unlikely to agree to it in their grief, but what they didnt know wouldnt hurt them.

The second problem is where the state oversight was to prevent this sort of abuse? State run services are supposed to be the solution to ruthless and immoral profititeering at the expense of patients, not the perpatrators? Heads are really going to have to roll here.

Flukey

If they had asked the parents, it would have been fine. It is a disgraceful thing to have done in that manner. As one parent said, their child was plundered! How much else is to come out, seeing as this only came out several years after the organ retention revelations? We have not heard the end of this story yet.

Nuttzz

I dont get all the fuss, "their child was plundered!" their child was a (soon to be) rotting corpse. These people have lost their children (which i have immence sympathy for) but i dont see how dragging all this up does anything for the parents bar cause them more grief. The synic in me thinks that someone smells a payday

ArthurDent

Nuttzz wrote:

I dont get all the fuss, "their child was plundered!" their child was a (soon to be) rotting corpse. These people have lost their children (which i have immence sympathy for) but i dont see how dragging all this up does anything for the parents bar cause them more grief. The synic in me thinks that someone smells a payday

Nicely phrased! If you extend that logic we are all "soon to be rotting corpse(s)", so what is to stop a doctor pulling the plug on your life support machine, against your or your next of kins expressed wishes, to harvest your organs. As before, I'm all for organ DONATION, but it must be with the informed consent of the next of kin

Flukey

People don't think of their own deceased as being a soon be rotting corpse. In the aftermath of the death of their child or any family member, it is all they have left and they don't want anyone to do anything to that child in such a cold-hearted way.

Gurgle

ArthurDent wrote:

If you extend that logic we are all "soon to be rotting corpse(s)", so what is to stop a doctor pulling the plug on your life support machine, against your or your next of kins expressed wishes, to harvest your organs.

:rolleyes:
Are you suggesting that the hospitals killed the children for their pituary glands ?
If so, please take a long walk along a short pier.
If not, then what point are you trying to make ?

The children were autopsied, one particular gland was being sought by pharmasutical companies to research new treatments for serious medical problems. As it was a gland, not an actual organ, I can understand the hospital treating it as not being a constituent part of the corpse and so not feeling obliged to seek permission. For example, (AFAIK) the stomach contents are removed in an autopsy and not put back in.

ArthurDent

Gurgle wrote:

Are you suggesting that the hospitals killed the children for their pituary glands ?
If so, please take a long walk along a short pier.
If not, then what point are you trying to make ?

No, the point I'm making is that there is a fine line between the dead/dying body of a loved one and "a soon to be rotting corpse" to be harvested for commercial/medical uses. This line is a difficult one to police and that's why you need very clear rules and laws and why informed consent is absolutlely necessary.

As it was a gland, not an actual organ, I can understand the hospital treating it as not being a constituent part of the corpse and so not feeling obliged to seek permission. For example, (AFAIK) the stomach contents are removed in an autopsy and not put back in.

So you don't see a difference between stomach contents and pituitary glands? What about eggs? sperm? they're not organs either - think they should just be removed at will for what ever use a doctor thinks necessary?

SkepticOne

ArthurDent wrote:

No, the point I'm making is that there is a fine line between the dead/dying body of a loved one and "a soon to be rotting corpse" to be harvested for commercial/medical uses. This line is a difficult one to police and that's why you need very clear rules and laws and why informed consent is absolutlely necessary.

Hmmm. What do you mean by "dead/dying"?

I've never heard of someone being described as dead/dying before.

Although I would not approve of taking organs or tissue from corpses without permission, there is a huge distinction to be made between a lifeless body and someone who is still alive. You can't "extend the logic" in this way, imo.

ArthurDent

SkepticOne wrote:

Hmmm. What do you mean by "dead/dying"?

I've never heard of someone being described as dead/dying before.

Although I would not approve of taking organs or tissue from corpses without permission, there is a huge distinction to be made between a lifeless body and someone who is still alive. You can't "extend the logic" in this way, imo.

This is why there is a need for informed consent, more and more organ harvesting takes place when a person is "brain-dead", but still on a life-support machine. "Beating-heart organ donation" is considered to offer the best chances of a sucessful outcome for the organ recipient. To the lay person, the difference between a loved one still breathing (on a life support system) but with no brain-stem action and a corpse is huge, but not to a doctor who will harvest the organs. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7345/1099

I am totally in favour of organ donation, but the rules must be clear and next of kin must be fully informed.

Gurgle

Arthurdent wrote:

I am totally in favour of organ donation, but the rules must be clear and next of kin must be fully informed.

You're talking about hospitals turning off life support systems without consent. The post is about the removal of pituary glands without consent. Different thing. Nobody suffers, nobody is put at risk, nobody is allowed to die to facilitate the harverting of these glands.

The rules are clear.

For all I've said on the subject, I don't think the hospitals were in the right. I just think the level of wrong doing is being exaggerated by comparison to e.g. turning off life support machines without consent and the implied suggestion that a person who may have lived could be allowed to die.

Arthurdent wrote:

So you don't see a difference between stomach contents and pituitary glands? What about eggs? sperm? they're not organs either - think they should just be removed at will for what ever use a doctor thinks necessary?

Eggs and sperm are a special case as they are representative of our genetic individuality and our families.
If they were taken and used e.g for in-vitro fertilization that leads to the possibility that we could have very close relatives out there who we know nothing about. Because family is so important to our societal structure, that would be bad.