Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Organ scandal mum in fight to stop law change

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
29 October 2007
A MOTHER whose dead baby's organs were removed without her permission is leading a campaign against a change in organ donor laws.
Lydia Reid, of Clermiston, has collected nearly 3000 signatures on a petition opposing proposals for a national "opt-out" system.

The UK Health Secretary Alan Johnson last month ordered an investigation into the plans, which would mean that everyone is regarded as an organ donor unless they have stated otherwise. The move was welcomed by Scotland's Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon.

However, Ms Reid, 59, believes most people are "absolutely opposed" to such a change.

She set up the group Justice for the Innocents after her week-old son Gary's organs were taken after his death at Edinburgh's Sick Kids hospital in 1975. Thousands of parents across the UK are calling for a public inquiry into the practice of organ retention for research purposes, which was carried out between 1970 and 2000.

"We're absolutely against an opt-out system," said Ms Reid. "People must be able to make the decision for themselves. I'd love everybody to donate their organs, but they have the right not to.

"Our hope is the Scottish Parliament will listen when we tell people that the ability to take people's organs can put lives in danger. It gives doctors too much power.

If people have to give written consent, then there's no question that's what the person wanted. It removes any doubt."

She said she would never stop fighting for justice for Gary, who was born prematurely. He was operated on at six days old for peritonitis but died the next day.

Ms Reid said the knowledge that his organs had been taken had added to her grief over the years, and said the opt-out system would only put more parents through a similar experience.

She is not eligible for compensation because the post-mortem examination on her son was ordered by the procurator fiscal. Only 70 parents in Scotland have received £5000 compensation after an independent review.

Ms Reid said: "The parents still want to fight for a public inquiry. We are going for compensation because it's the only way we can make them say sorry. For me personally I don't want their money. I would give it to charity, or take it in pound notes and rip it up in front of the parliament."

However, organisations including the British Heart Foundation and the British Medical Association are supporting a move to an opt-out system, saying it is the best way of tackling the shortage of organs for transplant.

Ben McKendrick, policy and publicity officer for the BHF (Scotland), said: "It is quite clear that the public supports this, and it is especially strong in Scotland."

A BMA survey this month claimed 64 per cent of people in Britain would support the move.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 October 2007 10:35 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Organ donation
 
1

daywalker,

west edinburgh 29/10/2007 17:07:52

how could this happen just shows u what goes on behind close doars........ ms reid i back u 100%

2

Groucho,

29/10/2007 17:11:38

If 64 per cent of people support this scheme then let them carry cards. That way, without offending anyone, there will be a huge pool of donors.

By the way, if you do opt out, how does the hospital know? Will they check carefully? If they get it wrong will they remove the organ again?

3

crabbit_bassa,

29/10/2007 17:28:55

#2 Get a tatoo saying "LEAVE MA ORGANS" ;)

4

alex patersons English teacher,

29/10/2007 17:41:38

3.
Thats OK when its errect,itll read LEMONS normally,unless he goes with a smile on his face,Oh yeah

5

needaname,

Edinburgh 29/10/2007 17:42:50

Ms Reid should think about the fact that Gary's organs probably saved some other baby's life - a baby that would have died if she had her way. Selfish. What's the point in wasting the organs?

6

alex paterson,

embra 29/10/2007 18:00:52

If you have not stated otherwise then you be treated as an organ donar.

7

hard worker,

29/10/2007 18:36:46

Ms Reid need to go and visit the renal unit and share her selfish view with the people there! If her child was innocent what does that make the children requiring organs? Guilty?

8

magic,

29/10/2007 18:39:12

#5 You are sick, this is someones baby you are talking about going to waste, she was going through enough at the time without having her baby cut up and parts of it stolen.

It was at a post mortem, clearly too late to have saved another baby

9

alex patersons English teacher,

29/10/2007 18:44:45

6.
Realy, do you want chilli sauce with that.

10

Mr Sensible,

29/10/2007 18:52:58

Mibees aye or mibees naw?Emotive subject,there are pros and cons against opting in or opting out.

Perfectly good organs go to waste whilst someone who is dying could use them to live,selfish folk don't want organs to be donated...person waiting runs out of time and dies.

Aye great eh?

11

Mr Sensible,

29/10/2007 18:56:33

Just noticed the bit about her wanting compensation,oh yeah what for?What exactly will a few quid do?

Typical compensation culture vulture.

12

thomas,

midlothian 29/10/2007 19:54:41

what is interesting is that a childs life is worth 5,000
pounds to our government. the legislators spend more on a holiday.

13

Logansrun,

Edinburgh 29/10/2007 20:14:32

sorry,i dont think i read this article right,was your dead sons organs removed and then donated??
I have recieved a kidney transplant and it saved my life and gave my three kids the chance to have a mother,but i think its a personal choice which people shouls make and make sure their family knows their wishes as well.

14

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 29/10/2007 20:51:51

funny how the scum who approve of the crime of abortion (murder) also scream against organ donation.

Makes no sense,

If you approve of abortion (murder) you should have no qualms about your organs being used.

15

karin m,

29/10/2007 21:26:31

I dont disagree with introducing this legislation but It seems to raise more problems than it solves. For instance are babies and children to be included in this legislation? If they are is it them or their parents that have decided they have opted in. Also if parents do not want their childrens organs to be used how do they stop them being used. Can the parents write an opt out letter for the children? Also how do you make sure that people have opted out. Are doctors going to make sure and check that people have opted out or not? What stops opt out letters getting lost? Who decides wether a patient has opted out if there is a question mark over the decision in most cases it wont be as if you can ask the person who is donating.

16

WKKB,

29/10/2007 21:54:56

The one thing that concerns me with the opt out program is if someone isn't doing so well in hospital, he may or may not die, his organs could save the life of someone else that if he had a new, say, kidney would live a full life. Would the Dr's let the one guy die to save the other? That's the power someone spoke of that the drs would have. If your gran for instance was in hospital and the father of 4 needed a liver or kidney or even a heart and your gran was a match, who do you think would survive? Scary thought, other than that I'm for an opt out program but only for those old enough to understand it and actually "opt out". I think wee ones and younger people who don't fully understand should still require parental consent to harvest organs.

17

Paula,

29/10/2007 22:03:49

I can fully understand where she is coming from as a mother myself. It is something I hope I never have to bear and no mother wishes to even contemplate.

However, I have seen what waiting for a transplant does to a family. I have listened and tried my best to support a friend when she knows her husbands life relies on someone else dying. That if he was to live some other family would have to go through the hell of losing a loved one, something she didn't want to do.

And when she was going through that I signed up online to become a donor (I hadn't before because I felt so strongly about alcoholics or smokers after the whole George Best debacle where he wasted the liver he was given.) I know now what it means to give life through death, I know I would feel more at peace thinking my loved one was still alive, in little parts in other people that they had stopped another family from grieving.

Families waiting for donors do not take the situation lightly in regards to where their organs come from. They are fully aware, they get stressed thinking about what another family will go through. What Ms. Reid went through was disgraceful, under no circumstances should that happen. But it needs to be separated from organ donation being opt-out. Don't think about the pen-pushers, the government or bureaucrats, think about the families out there watching their loved one dying slowly.

18

possum,

at my computer as usual 30/10/2007 01:11:19

I don't see what this story has to do with the opt out system. The baby's organs were taken for "research" in the 70's and had nothing whatsoever to do with saving another childs life. Is this just the mothers way of getting her 15 minutes of fame?

I truly can't see why people would begrudge another the chance of life when all they would be doing is taking their intact bodies to cremation or to decompose. Truly a selfish act.

19

Julian,

30/10/2007 05:14:24

Can anyone please tell me what this has to do with the opt out system? In an opt-out system, Ms Reid would have had the chance presumably to remove her baby from the organ donor register.

And I'm very sorry for what happened to this woman but some of the statements are just nonsense:

She says: "People must be able to make the decision for themselves. I'd love everybody to donate their organs, but they have the right not to."
Totally misleading. In an opt-out system people can make the decision and do have the right not to donate their organs.

And can anyone tell me what this statement means?

"the ability to take people's organs can put lives in danger"

20

unclegus,

30/10/2007 09:04:51

this is a badly written badly edited article.Mrs Reids son died in 1975 ,the organs were removed from the body during post mortem and kept for "research" purposes,they at no time would have or could have been used for transplant.The organs were removed without any permission being sought from any family member,this is the same thing that came to light at the Alder hay hopital in Liverpool a few years ago.
mrs Reid is campainging now to prevent a change in the law were organs would be automatically available for tranplant without family consent unless opt out agrements are in place.

21

Pickleskin 25,

I love you all the same....except you!!! 30/10/2007 09:07:38

"People must be able to make the decision for themselves. I'd love everybody to donate their organs, but they have the right not to."

This to me sounds like had she been asked when her child died she would have allowed them to use his organs!!

I am completely with the opt out system, people would be far more vigilant in saying no if they didn't want to than others making time 'to get round to' getting a donor card.

22

AnneMarie,

30/10/2007 09:14:00

# 15 Yes, under our laws the mother, or father, as the child's guardian until the child is of age could opt the child out.

# 16 No, and a clear no. The rules and regulations for doctors are pretty strict - I know because I work in medical law. There is absolutely no chance for a doctor to decide to let a patient die, or, even worse, kill a patient, just to harvest organs.

I agree with many of the others here that the story should not be seen in connection with the opt out of organ donation question. The child's organs were used for research, which is a completely different matter. I have signed up for having my organs donated once I'm dead. What use are they to me and they can save somebody's life! And if I had a child I would not opt him or her out, either. Rather, should the unthinkable happen, I would know that some other father and mother would not have to go through what I would go through.

23

Leighsa,

Southside 30/10/2007 11:40:47

Would she be making all this fuss if her baby's life had been saved because of research that had been done on another (dead) baby's organs? I think not. It's hypocritical to expect the best hospital treatment but not to want to help with research.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.