New Petitions

Our final petition is PE1911, which has been lodged by Ann McNair. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 and relevant guidance to ensure that all post mortems can be carried out only with the permission of the next of kin; that brains are not routinely removed; and that tissues and samples are offered to next of kin as a matter of course.

I would like to start by immediately acknowledging the very difficult circumstances in which the petitioner brings us her petition and which have been detailed in the petition and the submission. The petitioner’s child died suddenly and underwent a post mortem that was much more extensive in nature than the petitioner had originally thought it would be, and which involved the removal of tissue from her child. The petitioner was told that tissue samples

“belonged to no particular person”

and would be held as part of medical records.

The petitioner also notes that it took her 10 months to locate her child’s tissue samples and that

“No-one seemed to know where these samples were being held”.

She also says:

“I felt these tissue samples were still part of my child.”

She highlights that practice in Scotland is different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom, where tissue samples are automatically offered back to the family.

The Scottish Government’s submission sets out the different types of post-mortem examinations that are carried out in Scotland and explains how tissue samples are collected and stored. The submission states:

“Tissue samples are a very small part of an organ”

and are “chemically treated” to

“produce a tissue block ... from which a very thin section can be cut by a biomedical scientist.”

The Scottish Government also notes that, if a nearest relative requests the return of tissue blocks,

“any reasonable request will be treated sympathetically by the Procurator Fiscal.”

However, if there are “suspicious circumstances”, the procurator fiscal might need to retain tissue for further investigation.

The committee has also received a submission from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities on the petition, which is summarised in members’ papers.

Do members have any comments or observations?

It is that aspect of the petition that I think we would seek to explore, given that the legal position with regard to the procurator fiscal having to seek permissions and so on is not likely to proceed.

There is real sympathy with the petitioner, and we need to take note of the harrowing nature of her experience and circumstances.

I acknowledge what you have said about the position of the procurator fiscal, convener, but I think that there is scope for us to ask the Royal College of Pathologists and others for guidance on where the request in the petition would sit.

Thank you. The clerks have noted those comments. Do members agree to keep the petition open and write as colleagues have suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes our consideration of new and continued petitions. Our next meeting is on Wednesday 15 December, and I thank our guest or substitute colleague Marie McNair for attending.

Meeting closed at 10:46.