Page 488 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Evidence shows that countries which have adopted the opt-out system did not significantly improve their organ donation rates until they had better coordination of donations in hospitals. It would be interesting, however, to see if there are studies about whether, once appropriate supports are in the hospitals, an opt-out system makes a difference.
Another difficult area is that of family consent. The discussion paper says that in New South Wales family refusal rates for organ donation are over 45 per cent. There is obviously an extremely tough conversation to be had about whether the right of a family to refuse donations should be revoked and whether the intention of the person who is dying should be the principle in relation to that decision.
The success of the organ donation process does depend on the manner in which a family is supported through the process of losing a loved one. I know that we do that very well here in the ACT. But we do need to ensure that is in place. I also believe that we need to have that conversation about the role of the family in the decision-making process and respecting the wishes of a loved one who has died.
The New South Wales paper also considers whether a person who has consented to organ donation via an advanced care directive, but has not placed their name on the organ donor register, can be considered eligible for organ donation. I would have thought that would be the case, as consent has been provided, but that again may need to be an issue which requires some further discussion in the ACT.
A number of other items are discussed in the New South Wales Health paper and the debate is likely to have an impact on future reforms in other jurisdictions. To reiterate, the Greens are supporting this bill today.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Chief Minister, Minister for Health and Minister for Territory and Municipal Services) (11.47), in reply: Again, I thank other members for their support for this bill today. As I indicated to the Assembly in October of last year, this bill will provide for amendments to part 1, sections 5(1) and (2), of the Transplantation and Anatomy Act 1978, which governs the appointment of a doctor to be a designated officer for a hospital conducted by the territory and for a hospital other than a hospital conducted by the territory, and for amendments to part 3, section 31(2), of the act, which currently governs the removal of tissue for the purposes of corneal transplantation.
The objects of the amendments to part 1 of the act are to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, timely delivery and quality of services in the organ and tissue donation sector in the ACT. The amendments seek to increase the number of designated officers who authorise the removal of organs and tissue from the body of a deceased person located in an ACT hospital for the purpose of transplantation to the body of a living person or for other therapeutic, medical or scientific purposes.
Part 1 of the act specifically covers the appointment of a doctor to be a designated officer in an ACT hospital. The amendments to part 1 of the act are required to allow the appointment of other health professionals as designated officers. This would increase the number, availability, and accessibility of designated officers for the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video